+1 I bought a used M96 and within 200 rounds the piston spring broke. It took several months to get a replacement spring. I was told Robinson Armaments was dropping production of the M96 in favor of the XCR. I sold it the next week.
Roninson Arms M96 coming back?
- Thread starter strathconaman
- Start date
+1 I bought a used M96 and within 200 rounds the piston spring broke. It took several months to get a replacement spring. I was told Robinson Armaments was dropping production of the M96 in favor of the XCR. I sold it the next week.
I had one, got quite disappointed in Stoner's talent. An attempt to create a long-stroke "reliable" pressed-steel gun, principally avoiding the Kalashnikov path, failed big time. Pain to disassemble, questionable engineering decisions. Just my personal opinion, based on experience with both the AK-74 in the past and the M96. XCR is an opposite - brilliant engineering.
Last edited:
The M96 Expeditionary Rifle is not a Stoner design. It is Alex Robinson's "interpretation" of a Stoner 63A, intended to externally resemble Stoner's gun, but designed and executed by Robinson such that no parts are interchangeable aside from the synthetic Buttstock. The result is a sporting rifle with ###y looks that is known to break Bolts, Piston Springs and Firing Pins. Whether those common failure points are a function of poor design or flawed manufacturing on the part of Robinson Armament, the fact remains that the M96 Expeditionary Rifle is NOT a Stoner 63 and any direct comparisons are pointless. Even the M96's designer recognized the limitations of his work and opted to field his new XCR design rather than attempt to work the bugs out of the M96 or even maintain the production line for critical spare parts such as Bolts, Springs and Firing Pins.
Stoner's talent as a designer of Small Arms was immense and unmatched in the Western World. Some might argue that Mikhail Kalashnikov was Eugene Stoner's equal, however I would point out that the Russian's single successful design pales in direct comparison to Stoner's plethora of ground-breaking designs with the AR-7 Survival Rifle, the AR-10 (and AR15) Internal Piston design with the use of Aluminum Receivers and Synthetic Furniture construction, the Stoner 63/63A Weapon System, the Stoner "Assault" LMG, the AR-180 and so on and so forth.
The unique brilliance specific to the Stoner 63 design was the ability to take a common Receiver and using conversion parts, turn it from a magazine Rifle/Carbine into a "Bren" configuration mag-fed Automatic Rifle, or into a belt-fed Light to Medium Machinegun. The result was an incredibly versatile and adaptable Weapon System favored by both the US Navy SEALS and the USMC in Vietnam. Unfortunately, the flexibility of the system was also its Achilles Heel, in that it was a somewhat complicated and high-maintenance weapon that required a high degree of training to properly maintain and operate. That said, it remains to this day an excellent weapon system, unmatched by modern designs in terms of its multiple configurations for specific mission applications. Unfortunately, the unique multiple configurations were never fully explored with the M96, limiting manufacture to the basic Rifle and a small number of "Bren" conversion kits.
Thank you for mentioning these details. Before spending $4500 on M96 I did my due diligence researching the tech differences between the and S63. Feed group and bcg differences are not too relevant to this comparison. The 7-lug locking is prone to double feed, absolutely atrocious disconnect of piston and bolt carrier, I can go on and on. Return spring in the highest heat zone - right above barrel was found not to last in the mg's since the WWII. Marines in Vietnam noted that S63 absolutely needed liberal lubrication to operate reliably. As a result, all NATO's most prominent lmgs in are more resembling the PK/RPD than anything that Stoner had designed. Anyway, M96 is a fun toy to play with, fantastic quality rendition by RA, but imho the "fun factor to price" ratio is not there.
Last edited:
It's like a hot chick with a terrible attitude. After a while you realize it's not worth the cost and she's always broken.Just hope that another sucker comes along and takes her off your hands giving you some much needed relief.
You hit the nail on the head, haha
Another thing I remember, the rifle inherently does not have the case deflector, so spent casings are banging hard against the side of a gun, nicking the finish. Finish itself is slick and tough, but everything has limits. Soft tape glued behind the ejection port is highly advised, if current owner wants to save the resale value of a gun
Last edited:
M96 needs wielding - it was wielded by hand back then by a young guy - yeh, I talked to that guy sHOT many years ago. Every receiver was hand wielded, one by one.
The wage in the US is crazy. No one is going to sit there to wield receiver when McDonald's hourly wage is close to 20USD.
So they aren't going to hire and retrain 1 guy to make a few hundred of these thing for a month. Literally no one with skill will do this job.
We haven't even got into other things - there are part bins, but they need to be complete part bins. Any deficiency means no go - they can have 1000 pins but 100 springs this means they can only do 90 units with 10 saved for warranty. They probably eye ball the part bins, but after some poor souls actually sat down and counted, they figured it can't go ahead.
The wage in the US is crazy. No one is going to sit there to wield receiver when McDonald's hourly wage is close to 20USD.
So they aren't going to hire and retrain 1 guy to make a few hundred of these thing for a month. Literally no one with skill will do this job.
We haven't even got into other things - there are part bins, but they need to be complete part bins. Any deficiency means no go - they can have 1000 pins but 100 springs this means they can only do 90 units with 10 saved for warranty. They probably eye ball the part bins, but after some poor souls actually sat down and counted, they figured it can't go ahead.
"Wield" and "weld" are two completely different words, with completely different meanings. Weirdly, both words can be applied to a firearm, which makes your post above a wee bit confusing.
You can dual wield firearms but nobody is going to attempt to dual weld firearms.
You can dual wield firearms but nobody is going to attempt to dual weld firearms.
