AR10 - Original vs Current Designs

fenceline

fenceline

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
177   0   0
Location
East of Home, West of the Rest
What are the physical design differences between an original "Armalite Division of Fairchild Aircraft" AR10 and the models made since then? I know the AR10 family has a wide variety of non-proprietary variations, but is there anything that is a direct descendant of the original design? Something say like a modern upper fitting on an original lower, as far as mechanics work?
 
Mechanically, it is the same as rest of the AR family, components are quit different dimensionally so they can't be swapped out with modern counter parts.
 
fenceline said:
What parts are different dimensionally? And where/how?
Click to expand...

For one: On the O.G. AR10 bolt carrier, the rear was the same diameter as the front. On the new style AR10/AR308/etc, the rear of the carrier is the same diameter as an AR15 carrier (uses the same diameter tubes as AR15). Gas key is longer too.

MVC-ARBOLT1.jpg


O.G. carrier - top
New style - middle
AR15 - bottom
 
Original AR-10 trigger mechanisms are not the same as the current ARs. Most used a cocking handle that was located inside the carry handle.
The AR-15/M-16 evolved from the AR-10.
Most (All?) current 7.62 ARs are derived from the AR-15. That is the reason for the two diameter bolt carrier.

I have shot both the so-called Sudanese and NATO AR-10s. They are impressive.
 
tiriaq said:
Original AR-10 trigger mechanisms are not the same as the current ARs. Most used a cocking handle that was located inside the carry handle.
The AR-15/M-16 evolved from the AR-10.
Most (All?) current 7.62 ARs are derived from the AR-15. That is the reason for the two diameter bolt carrier.

I have shot both the so-called Sudanese and NATO AR-10s. They are impressive.
Click to expand...

But the original AR15 used that same style cocking handle. Which has no effect on the lower receiver design.

armalitear15sn1.jpg
 
Yes, the cocking handle is irrelevant to the lower receiver.
But because the current 7.62s are based on the AR-15, scaled up as necessary for the larger round, I doubt that there would be any commonality between original units and current production.
 
tiriaq said:
Yes, the cocking handle is irrelevant to the lower receiver.
But because the current 7.62s are based on the AR-15, scaled up as necessary for the larger round, I doubt that there would be any commonality between original units and current production.
Click to expand...

My head is getting twisted trying to figure this out. How could the AR10 (lower) be non restricted, but the AR15 (lower) restricted? I'm mean I'm sure the take down pins don't line up, but that's not been the criteria before. Taping an upper onto a lower has been good enough before.
 
Who said that the AR-10 lower is non-restricted?
An original lower will be prohibited, a current one will be restricted.

Then there is the AR-10ish Modern Hunter, but it is non-restricted.
 
fenceline said:
What are the physical design differences between an original "Armalite Division of Fairchild Aircraft" AR10 and the models made since then? I know the AR10 family has a wide variety of non-proprietary variations, but is there anything that is a direct descendant of the original design? Something say like a modern upper fitting on an original lower, as far as mechanics work?
Click to expand...

I like where your going with this. Watching closely.
 
tiriaq said:
Who said that the AR-10 lower is non-restricted?
An original lower will be prohibited, a current one will be restricted.

Then there is the AR-10ish Modern Hunter, but it is non-restricted.
Click to expand...

Well the lab seems to think shotguns of an AR10 design are non restricted. Seems like an interesting notion.

Kind of like the vz61 rifle being NR/R compared to the named prohibited vz61 pistol it predates.
 
fenceline said:
Well the lab seems to think shotguns of an AR10 design are non restricted. Seems like an interesting notion.
Click to expand...

The lower receiver geometry on the Akadal MKA is different than a standard AR 10 and it doesn't use cross pins to hold the two receivers together, if that is the direction you are going with your line of thinking ;)
 
onetwentyish said:
I think he is implying the way that the FRT reads that the Akdal is based on the AR10, and is NR.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

FRT legal comments on the Akdal MKA 1919 shotgun:

While the exterior of this model resembles the AR "family", there is no direct lineage that this is exclusive to the AR15/M16 design. This model design could also easily be linked to the Armalite Division of Fairchild Aircraft AR10 design.
Click to expand...
And with that notation referencing the AR10, the lab deems the Akdal 1919 as NR. Take that for what you may.
 
The only reason all "named restricted" firearms were classified as restricted is because the former Liberal government bought a copy of the annual gun digest and a box red makers. None of them have one specific feature or particular function that makes them "Restricted" the only written criterias in the firearm act for restricted class is 460 mm barrel length and 660 mm overall length, so if you change enough of the receivers so you can't bolt or duck tape it to the named restricted that you are copying there is no grounds for them to classify it as a restricted.

in the recent RCMP report they admitted there are a few firearms that was classified as restricted in the recent years, would most likely be reversed, if their classification decisions were challenged in court.
 
Last edited:
hbean said:
in the recent RCMP report they admitted there are a few firearms that was classified as restricted in the recent years, would most likely be reversed, if their classification decisions were challenged in court.
Click to expand...

Where do I send my money to fund this! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom