The Stoner 63
New Jovian Thunderbolt discusses the mythical Stoner 63 carbine/rifle/machine gun that never took off.
Navy SEAL in Vietnam with a Stoner 63 in a LMG configuration.
18 Responses to “The Stoner 63”
Sort The Responses Below: |
-
thebronzewrote on March 03rd, 2010 at 5:33 pm Link To Comment |
IMDB,
I had the same thought, almost verbatim!
Please rate this comment:
0 
0 -
Pete Sheppardwrote on March 03rd, 2010 at 1:38 pm Link To Comment |
Jack Lewis (former Gun World publisher and a Korean War Marine Corps vet) reviewed the Stoner system back in the early ’60s, when the Marine Corps evaluated it and wanted to adopt it as their standard rifle, but were blocked by Army Ordnance.
Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
Clodboywrote on March 03rd, 2010 at 12:01 pm Link To Comment |
I suppose the closest thing to the Stoner 63 is probably the HK21/HK23 series, which was intended to serve as a GPMG (with a stationary shock-absorbing tripod mount), a belt-fed LMG and (by installing a mag adapter) as a heavier version of the G3/HK33 assault rifle (referred to as HK11/HK13 in this configuration). The mag-fed version could also make use of drum mags to fill a role as a light support weapon (well, if you could actually call an 8+ kilogram gun “light”
)Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
Aurelienwrote on March 03rd, 2010 at 6:55 pm Link To Comment |
The closerst you can come to the 63A in moderns design is the 7,62-chambered H&K G8. Designed as a multi-purpose all-around automatic rifle for german SF teams, a “lightweight” version of the HK21 machine-gun. Fed from G3-pattern box mag, drum or belt.
I was just comparing the 63A and Minimi for the light round (5.56) in an automatic rifle that could be fed from mag or belt.
Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
Markwrote on March 04th, 2010 at 12:44 am Link To Comment |
“Mongo’s Machine Gun Pages” is a really good source:
http://home.comcast.net/~sfischer397/stoner/index.htmPlease rate this comment: 0 0 -
j t boltwrote on March 10th, 2010 at 12:27 am Link To Comment |
Thanks for the linky. I should sell ad space if this keeps up. Your avalanche was bigger than ones from Tam.
Please rate this comment: 0 0-
Steveresponded to j t bolt on March 10th, 2010 at 3:40 pm Link To Comment |
j, I think on average a Tamalanche would be bigger than a TFBalanche
Please rate this comment: 0 0
-
-
Harald Hansenwrote on March 04th, 2010 at 1:35 am Link To Comment |
@Clodboyon, the last thing I’ve ever wanted was an even heavier G3. Is issued a HK416 these days, but even that thing has too many rails and gadgets to be called “light”.
Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
IMDBwrote on March 03rd, 2010 at 10:59 am Link To Comment |
I had no idea Woody Harrelson was a Navy SEAL in Vietnam.
Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
Clodboywrote on March 03rd, 2010 at 9:57 am Link To Comment |
“The 63A was pretty much the same concept the FN Minimi is based on, LMG fed with belt and mags.”
The Minimi was designed as a belt-fed LMG from the ground up, with the mag-feed pretty much intended as an emergency option – for the kind of situations where an oversized, unreliable mag-fed gun was still better than a reliable LMG that can’t fire because you’re out of linked ammo. Later, trimmed-down versions of the Minimi (the SPW and the Mk 46 mod 0) dispensed with the mag-feed altogether.
The Stoner 63 system, on the other hand, was a true all-round system that – by combining the appropriate modular parts – was intended to fill any role with the same efficiency, from carbine to belt-fed LMG.
Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
Matt Groomwrote on March 03rd, 2010 at 2:21 am Link To Comment |
I always loved these as they are the true grand daddy of all modern Gen 4 assault rifles. The modern offspring of this Gene Stoner concept is the SCAR, the XCR, the Masada, and others. I always thought the Stoner 63 was cool as hell, and I think the USMC would have taken a big leap forward if they had adopted it, but I wouldn’t take one over more modern designs.
Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
juandoswrote on March 03rd, 2010 at 2:01 am Link To Comment |
When this topic arose I had to turn to my favorite source of info, the Russian site: Welcome to Modern Firearms & Ammunition site.
Online encyclopedia of firearms and ammunition
of the XX and XXI centuriesStoner 63 weapon system: light machine gun XM202 and Mark 23 (Mk.23 mod.0) (USA)
Lots of nice picture and info on this beast of a firearm…
Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
Clodboywrote on March 03rd, 2010 at 1:24 am Link To Comment |
I just love the idea of actually being able to flip the receiver to convert it to a “Bren”-style top feeder. Sure, it wouldn’t really be practical today with the near-ubiquitousness of optical sights and the relative compactness the 5.56mm (the Stoner 63 was originally designed in 7.62mm, where bottom-feeding 30 round mags tend to be too large to be used from the prone position), but it shows how Stoner was willing go all the way when he was talking about “full modularity”.
According to Wikipedia:
“The first working prototype [...] was designated the Stoner M69W (for no other reason than when turned upside down it reads the same, symbolizing Stoner’s vision of a fully invertible receiver”Tehehe… “69″
Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
Aurelienwrote on March 03rd, 2010 at 3:23 am Link To Comment |
The 63A was pretty much the same concept the FN Minimi is based on, LMG fed with belt and mags.
Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
Vitorwrote on March 03rd, 2010 at 6:40 am Link To Comment |
It seems that Stoner, as the great designer he was, could still take some a lesson or two from Mikhail.
Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
Lancewrote on March 03rd, 2010 at 8:01 am Link To Comment |
Awsome MG. Tobad they army didnt adpot it as a SAW in the 60s.
Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
Vakwrote on March 03rd, 2010 at 7:09 am Link To Comment |
You can still buy a robinson M96, and even if it’s semi auto only, it still looks real nice.
Please rate this comment: 0 0 -
Kenny Smithwrote on March 03rd, 2010 at 12:35 am Link To Comment |
Great weapon… Tremendously effective… When it worked… Which it had a tendency NOT to do in the WORST possible times… Interesting, yes. Effective, yeah tremendously when it worked. Reliable, not at all. IMHO that’s why it never took off.
Please rate this comment: 0 0
Leave a Comment
-
Twitter
-
Email Subscription
-
Facebook
Top Posts
-
Categories
Thanks for the linky. I should sell ad space if this keeps up. Your avalanche was bigger than ones from Tam.
j, I think on average a Tamalanche would be bigger than a TFBalanche
@Clodboyon, the last thing I’ve ever wanted was an even heavier G3. Is issued a HK416 these days, but even that thing has too many rails and gadgets to be called “light”.
“Mongo’s Machine Gun Pages” is a really good source:
http://home.comcast.net/~sfischer397/stoner/index.htm
The closerst you can come to the 63A in moderns design is the 7,62-chambered H&K G8. Designed as a multi-purpose all-around automatic rifle for german SF teams, a “lightweight” version of the HK21 machine-gun. Fed from G3-pattern box mag, drum or belt.
I was just comparing the 63A and Minimi for the light round (5.56) in an automatic rifle that could be fed from mag or belt.
IMDB,
I had the same thought, almost verbatim!
Jack Lewis (former Gun World publisher and a Korean War Marine Corps vet) reviewed the Stoner system back in the early ’60s, when the Marine Corps evaluated it and wanted to adopt it as their standard rifle, but were blocked by Army Ordnance.
I suppose the closest thing to the Stoner 63 is probably the HK21/HK23 series, which was intended to serve as a GPMG (with a stationary shock-absorbing tripod mount), a belt-fed LMG and (by installing a mag adapter) as a heavier version of the G3/HK33 assault rifle (referred to as HK11/HK13 in this configuration). The mag-fed version could also make use of drum mags to fill a role as a light support weapon (well, if you could actually call an 8+ kilogram gun “light”
)
I had no idea Woody Harrelson was a Navy SEAL in Vietnam.
“The 63A was pretty much the same concept the FN Minimi is based on, LMG fed with belt and mags.”
The Minimi was designed as a belt-fed LMG from the ground up, with the mag-feed pretty much intended as an emergency option – for the kind of situations where an oversized, unreliable mag-fed gun was still better than a reliable LMG that can’t fire because you’re out of linked ammo. Later, trimmed-down versions of the Minimi (the SPW and the Mk 46 mod 0) dispensed with the mag-feed altogether.
The Stoner 63 system, on the other hand, was a true all-round system that – by combining the appropriate modular parts – was intended to fill any role with the same efficiency, from carbine to belt-fed LMG.
Awsome MG. Tobad they army didnt adpot it as a SAW in the 60s.
You can still buy a robinson M96, and even if it’s semi auto only, it still looks real nice.
It seems that Stoner, as the great designer he was, could still take some a lesson or two from Mikhail.
The 63A was pretty much the same concept the FN Minimi is based on, LMG fed with belt and mags.
I always loved these as they are the true grand daddy of all modern Gen 4 assault rifles. The modern offspring of this Gene Stoner concept is the SCAR, the XCR, the Masada, and others. I always thought the Stoner 63 was cool as hell, and I think the USMC would have taken a big leap forward if they had adopted it, but I wouldn’t take one over more modern designs.
When this topic arose I had to turn to my favorite source of info, the Russian site: Welcome to Modern Firearms & Ammunition site.
Online encyclopedia of firearms and ammunition
of the XX and XXI centuries
Stoner 63 weapon system: light machine gun XM202 and Mark 23 (Mk.23 mod.0) (USA)
Lots of nice picture and info on this beast of a firearm…
I just love the idea of actually being able to flip the receiver to convert it to a “Bren”-style top feeder. Sure, it wouldn’t really be practical today with the near-ubiquitousness of optical sights and the relative compactness the 5.56mm (the Stoner 63 was originally designed in 7.62mm, where bottom-feeding 30 round mags tend to be too large to be used from the prone position), but it shows how Stoner was willing go all the way when he was talking about “full modularity”.
According to Wikipedia:
“The first working prototype [...] was designated the Stoner M69W (for no other reason than when turned upside down it reads the same, symbolizing Stoner’s vision of a fully invertible receiver”
Tehehe… “69″
Great weapon… Tremendously effective… When it worked… Which it had a tendency NOT to do in the WORST possible times… Interesting, yes. Effective, yeah tremendously when it worked. Reliable, not at all. IMHO that’s why it never took off.