Nea 102

Travis Bickle said:
It was not part of the original design by Stoner.
Stoner himself thought the forward assist was useless (it is. If your rifle won't chamber a round, something is clearly wrong and smashing the f**king thing into battery so you can put 55,000 PSI through it is a bad idea IMHO)
The US Army (Air Force and Navy didn't care nor the USMC) wouldn't accept the rifle as A1 without it because they insisted every rifle ever made (think the 1903, garand, M14 etc) had to have some way of manually forcing the bolt closed. So Stoner and Armalite added it after the fact.
Also an interesting tidbit for you retro black rifle nuts, the original forward assist that Stoner designed for the rifle after the US Army insisted was actually at the rear of the charging handle.
It was a perpendicular protrusion at the rear of the charging handle you would slam your hand into to force the bolt forward in battery. It got in the way of manipulating the cocking handle so they frankensteined that goofy thing into the side of the upper receiver and cut some notches in the side of the bolt carrier. It was added with much bitterness from Armalite and Stoner to get the rifle adopted A1 by the US Military.
Click to expand...

You have the gist of what happened but a bunch of facts mixed up.

Armalite had nothing to do with the forward assist, or the military trials after the sale. By the time the army got around to demanding it, Armalite (Fairchild) was in significant financial trouble, and had sold the rights to manufacture off to Colt's (ironically also in financial trouble) for a song since the army said they would never buy the AR15. That was around 1958. Colt's first run was 1959 with no forward assist yet.

Springfield Armoury (still a state arsenal) created the "spring on the cocking handle" prototype of the forward assist in 1963. There was a small ramp in the upper that forced the spring to enage a detent on the top of the carrier. It used the heel of your hand and worked quite well, but functioned completely differently from the existing one.

Colt's created a handle fixed to the carrier and reciprocated in a slot but was rejected immediately for drawing dirt into the action.

Around the same time, Foster Sturtevant at Colt's created a left hand "thumb closer" forward assist, with serrations on the left side of the carrier, later moved to the right side. I have handled both prototypes and I think stoner was right.

Stoner and the air force did not think the weapon needed a forward assist, but stoner said if they had to have one, it would be the springfield design, because it would be easier to eliminate when they decided it wasn't needed. Stoner did not design either one, but was on the technical coordination committee.

The first run of the XM16E1 with the Sturtevant assist was approved in November of 1963, delivered in 1964.
 
Silver Hammer said:
I could see in a battle why you would want forward assist, who cares about ware and tare if your life is on the line. But i guess for civilian use slamming a round forward is probably not something you would want to do to your rifle ?
Click to expand...

I have shot many many rounds in service in many types of condition in my time in (still ongoing). From dusty hot dry (Afghanistan) to soaking wet and sand (Petawawa Trg area in the summer) to -25 C on ranges and shooting filthy f**king blanks in a "trench".
I have NEVER had to use the forward assist. Maybe it was just me but that was my personal experience. I'm going to have to side with Stoner on this one...
 
Last edited:
FA is not needed, Especially on a 1 way range...and why on gods green earth would you want to jamb a round into the chamber that has not seated properly... lol...
 
Matt K said:
You have the gist of what happened but a bunch of facts mixed up.

Armalite had nothing to do with the forward assist, or the military trials after the sale. By the time the army got around to demanding it, Armalite (Fairchild) was in significant financial trouble, and had sold the rights to manufacture off to Colt's (ironically also in financial trouble) for a song since the army said they would never buy the AR15. That was around 1958. Colt's first run was 1959 with no forward assist yet.

Springfield Armoury (still a state arsenal) created the "spring on the cocking handle" prototype of the forward assist in 1963. There was a small ramp in the upper that forced the spring to enage a detent on the top of the carrier. It used the heel of your hand and worked quite well, but functioned completely differently from the existing one.

Colt's created a handle fixed to the carrier and reciprocated in a slot but was rejected immediately for drawing dirt into the action.

Around the same time, Foster Sturtevant at Colt's created a left hand "thumb closer" forward assist, with serrations on the left side of the carrier, later moved to the right side. I have handled both prototypes and I think stoner was right.

Stoner and the air force did not think the weapon needed a forward assist, but stoner said if they had to have one, it would be the springfield design, because it would be easier to eliminate when they decided it wasn't needed. Stoner did not design either one, but was on the technical coordination committee.

The first run of the XM16E1 with the Sturtevant assist was approved in November of 1963, delivered in 1964.
Click to expand...

And yes thanks for the clean up lol
Been a couple years since I read The Black Rifle ;)
 
There once was a gun called 102,
If only NR, all would rejoice, yahoo!

So many pics, hints and teases,
Surely the lab would not again do as it pleases?

But still the Nutters pray, "Dear Lord, not another SNAFU..."
 
Last edited:
I guess they are waiting for Goodale's new firearm advisory board's in-depth technical review and blessing before issuing a FRT for it.









/sarcasm
 
I didn't even know about this until recently, kinda want if NR, although I'd be nervous because its NEA.
 
I was super excited. Now I'm just concerned with the silence. Hoping for the best but preparing for more of the usual lab results.
 
fluidmax said:
Anyone with logic knows this won't happen now... Especially not after what happened in Quebec last month ...
Click to expand...

You better hope that the "logic" you speak of isn't applied. The way it was applied last time politics trumped reason was a disaster for us. As fenceline said there has been no change in the laws and the "parent" isn't on the list of named prohibs. If they say no based on it being something it's not NEA can do something most of us can't do, have a few good lawyers drag the RCMP into court.
 
I'm wondering if TPTB told them to shut up, show'em who's boss..."We'll do it when we're good and ready (or not)" type of thing. Can't have the horse driving the cart now can we? d:h:
 
Ebola said:
This rifle is based off the AR10. The AR10 predates the AR15. Therefore the AR10 cannot be a variant of the AR15 as it currently is listed as. That is what NEA is arguing with the RCMP about.

NEA might have a legitimate argument. Whether they can convince anyone to change the AR10's classification is were the non restricted claim is coming from.
Click to expand...


Last I checked the AR10 is restricted by name....good luck! Laugh2 Laugh2 Laugh2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom