Here's a neat pic in passing. A couple weapons you hardly see and the equipment on the "Italian Merc" is interesting.
Title is "Italian merc Elio Capozzi (U.S. HBT camo and AR-10) speaks with a Dominican rebel with a Cristobol Carbine, 1965"
Printable View
Here's a neat pic in passing. A couple weapons you hardly see and the equipment on the "Italian Merc" is interesting.
Title is "Italian merc Elio Capozzi (U.S. HBT camo and AR-10) speaks with a Dominican rebel with a Cristobol Carbine, 1965"
Photo shows a later Portuguese AR-10 with an aluminum butt stock for firing rifle grenadesAttachment 129430
Looks to have a F/S knife in his belt or one of similar dimension.
The merc has a Cuban style AR10, which was sold to castro and a few other tin horn central and south american dick-taters.
The rifle was made in 1958 and was essentially the first generation Dutch AR10.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...emnitzer-1.jpg
It's surprising that the AR10 rifle wasn't used more widely, by more armed forces, when one considers that the FAL series of rifles was once commonly in use.
You can see how it was dropped from considerations when the original sales pitch came and the two rifles, one .223 and one 7.62 travelled the world. After a while they gave the 7.62 ammo away as no one wanted to shoot it. Just the little one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
It's all in the book. Too, the FN and AR10 aren't even close to the same.
Jim was the doctrine of the day like the .30 cal M1 carbine that the services placed emphasis on the soldier being more accurate with a lighter kicking rifle rather than say using a Garand with the 30/06 round with a heavier rifle and recoil.
For that era in say WWII the Carbine round would have no where near the hitting power of the 30/06 round, but with the advent of better ballistically efficient projectiles as in the case of the 5.56 it became a viable option despite all the stuff saying if it hit your hand it would take your arm off!
I would have thought the Armed services yours and ours would have stayed with a 7.62mm platform given the knock down and penetration power that round has, now days there are so many calibers being used that I think standardisation rule is out the window.
What would a load out be for a squad now with 5.56's, 7.62's and now a 6.8 especially the latter as no one else in the squad will be able to toss you a mag or ammo when you run dry!
The book "The Black Rifle" gives all the poop about the decision to make 5.56 the new round. Accuracy was always preached, pinpoint aiming and accuracy. Didn't matter which cartridge. The demonstrator travelled the world with two rifles to try and sell them both, draw interest in production of both. After a point though the AR10 was just not as desirable, specially by smaller stature people. I always wondered if it was BECAUSE the two rifles were side by side that comparison took place. If they had been shown separately the AR10 might have been bigger.
As for the M1 Carbine not having stopping power, graves are full of guys that would differ. Shot placement is everything, you'd know that well...some of the shots you've taken with different animals. I still think most of the guys that failed to stop hadn't taken a seriously placed shot.
You are correct Jim as a hunter shot placement is the key, I've stalked animals for good Kilo's up hill and down dale and had to pass because due to factors be it scrub, angle or just the flighty nature of the animal passed up the shot and gone home. But boy I got fit! although some critters were not so fortunate not that they would have known anything about it.
Bobby Macdonald and Gene Stoner took the rifles overseas for demonstration... They had to give away 6000 rds of 7.62. Although some have told me my OPINION is wrong, I always felt the AR10 seemed to be right at the top edge of the time/pressure curve when firing. It seemed to be about to come apart. This was after years of carrying and shooting the FN. The M16/AR15/M4 don't feel that way to me.
If I remember correctly Ilio Capozzi was killed not to long after the picture was taken.
Ilio Capozzi was born on 16 November 1918, in Rome, Roma, Lazio, Italy. He had at least 1 daughter with Elide Arcangeletti. He registered for military service in 1965. He died on 19 May 1965, in Santo Domingo, Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic, at the age of 46.Quote:
Originally Posted by fjruple
Interesting, my great uncle was USMC and posted to Santo Domingo in about 1921.
Here's a Reddit thread outlining him. Multilingual and an adventurer for sure. A photo taken by LIFE Magazine of an Italian mercenary Elio Capozzi wearing the US M1942 HBT camo uniform and carrying an early pattern AR-10 Battle Rifle while chatting with a Dominican rebel holding a Cristobol Carbine during the Dominican Civil War; Santo Domingo, 1965 : MilitaryPorn
I wasn't, in any way, suggesting that they are. The point that I was implying is that they both fire 7.62 Nato. Or to put it another way 7.62 Nato was a popular caliber for military rifles at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
Yes, they do that. But we can't just roll them together in caliber, military rifles aren't like that. The handling is important, the feel. That platform proved the light caliber was widely accepted and the heavy caliber not much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
It's an interesting one Jim, I would say the AR10 was a failing of the advertising men, a wrong time to the market really, Fn had pretty much cornered the 7.62mm market with the Fal in the late 1950's.
By the 1960's, Vietnam ensured the AR15 a launch pad and a market dominance it still effectively has 50 years later.
Perhaps...Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
The AR-10 was manufactured under license by a Dutch Company in 1960 and adopted by Portugal. These were issued to paratroops and special forces and used
from 1961 to 1974 in Angola, Portuguese Guinea and Mozambigue extensively. Some were fitted with 3x scopes, all were selective fire and could use rifle grenades.
None of these AR-10's exhibited the problems and issues associated with the early M16's service in Viet Nam under identical conditions.
Note: after Portugal retired their AR-10 rifles, the parts kits (without the selective fire lower) were imported into the USA where some companies manufactured a
semi auto steel lower to fit these kits, they are still around !
They had better ammo than the ARs...the ball powder issue. Still compared to the number of countries using the M16/M4 and variants...a pittance.Quote:
Originally Posted by RCS
I had one of the rifles built on a Sendra receiver that RCS refers to in the mid 1990's. A friend from Florida was here in SC working a show and picked up a new HK91 on a trade. We put them on the range together the Monday following the show and even though the parts kit and barrel of the AR-10 were not in the greatest of condition, it walked all over that HK in both handling and accuracy. I've always regretted selling it to be honest.
I had an HK G3 issued by Sweden in 1980 over in Cyprus. It worked great but got so hot so quick I wouldn't have wanted to do anything sustained with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
I admit that I liked the handling characteristics of HK93 a bit more but always thought the HK91/G3 were an overly heavy and unbalanced rifle. I never cared for the fluted chambers either. There's not much if any heat protection so I see your point in sustained fire.
The big forestock they put on the civy rifle was much better but still got hot. Fluted chamber would eat anything but ruined brass for reloaders. Military don't care though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
I forgot to mention that the AR-10 platform has certainly overcome it's political hindrances as it's the designated marksman/sharpshooter rifle in both UK and US Army service. I'd love to have an LMT L129A1. The old 7.62 Nato round is so hard to improve upon. The new SIG weapon in 6.8 x 51 being fielded in US service seem to me to be too much too late with no real benefit, (except to the manufacturers). With such unbelievably high chamber pressures, I see it as an Armorer's nightmare. As most know, I'm set in my ways being an old curmudgeon!
With regard to 6.8 X 51mm Brian, I believe Lithgow have built a small run of F88's chamberd in the new calibre for trials purposes, the rounds must have an absolute blistering muzzle velocity with a 21" barrel!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
The commencement may suffer. Bolt locking lugs too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
The AR-10 also had some issues with the early prototypes/sales demo models which word would have gotten around on. Such as the composite barrel they had blow up in US trials, or the bolt lug that sheared off in trial in Nicaragua. That they fixed those issues doesn't matter, once people have their mind made up on something that can be it. Look at the Ross Rifle, which by 1916 they had fixed all issues on, only to be dumped because people had lost confidence in it.
Another factor is by time they ironed out the issues with it, the FN-FAL would have already been adopted by most countries who wanted a 7.62 NATO rifle, with the rest more or less being taken up by the G3 or M14.
The Dutch made several variants, most notable below.Quote:
Originally Posted by RCS
Cuban variant AR10 made in 1957-1958. Maybe a couple of hundred sold to Castro and other central and South American dictators. No bayonet lug or BFA threads, or provision for grenade launching.
Sudanese AR10s were made in 1958. Like the Cuban except had a heavy barrel shroud with bayonet lug. BFA threads and the shroud was compatible with grenade launching. A scoped example is in a photo below. Original AR10 Delft scopes are uber rare and a mechanically identical FAL Delft scope is shown on the gun. The brass disc on the stock was installed at the factory and often had the unit number engraved.
Portuguese AR10s were made in 1961 (maybe starting late 1960). The barrel was heavier and bolt lugs beefier. The handguard system was completely designed to be a multiple piece affair that was easily removed.
Peter Wilke (Ontario, Canada) imported a few hundred surplus AR10s, mostly Portuguese. Wilke sold some to the Canada market as semi-auto conversions. Many more were sold as parts sets and imported into the US from Canada. The US made lower receivers used to complete the parts sets were most commonly aluminum. Only one or two makers might have sold a steel receiver.
Alan Lever, Lever Arms, was a Canadian importer that must have had connections in Holland. Lever Arms was able to import quite a few un-issued AR10s left over after the closure of the AI factory.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...01/side2-1.jpg
We'll let the 6.8 issue bubble along a bit further as I can foresee issues already with training ammo and then having combat ammo as how does that affect the poi the combat stuff is rated at 80,000psi which is insane.
I'd love a round in my collection as the 2 piece case would be very unique, I wonder how it goes if you get a sticky hot round and the extractor tears the stainless base off the case.
The 6.8 looks to me like a SOMFU. Probably going to percolate quietly and then also quietly fade away. I think.
Daan maybe the bean counters were involved we all know they are locked away in a neon lit room with no windows, why would they ever ask the guys who are at the pointy end what they could use that would better suit their needs.
I think the Brits have it, as not to many of you have kind words about the SA80 did it ever in the end get to be liked by the troops gents.
Often overlooked but may have been just as good if not better than the AR-15 series was the AR -180. Simple to use plus the folding stock. Even more forgotten was the big brother in 7,62 NATO cal, the AR-16, these were weapons at the wrong time and place in history. The AR-180 is (my opinion) the major influence resulting in the SA 80 but without the problems.
There was even a slight interest by US Ordnance concerning the Stoner rifle, even manuals were printed with instructions for training and close order drill. Attachment 129522Attachment 129523
I had a Costa Mesa AR-180 rifle back in about '75 and it had been partly converted to semi only, not very well. If you turned the selector part way it still ran. They had also cut off the hook of the bolt hold open on empty mag. It was a neat little rifle and may have been OK for military use. The butt was a bit flimsy for hard use though.Quote:
Originally Posted by RCS
I'm not smart enough to calculate time/pressure curves, but I have to agree that the original AR10 had an inherently violent recoil. Around 40 years ago I had access to some factory original AR10s. These included one side-tubed Armalite Costa Mesa prototype with the fiberglas furniture and lawn-mower muffler-style titanium muzzle brake, and several Dutch AI-made guns in different configurations. I did a fair bit of range shooting with these guns, and with many years of experience with FALs and the HK91, I had a sound basis for comparison. I was particularly interested in the prototype because it was so light; the Dutch guns were much heftier; they had flash hiders, not muzzle brakes. The Armalite shot quite comfortably by comparison, so I tried an experiment: I removed the muzzle brake and tried it again. Wow, what a difference! It pounded me so badly that I quit after a few shots and screwed the brake back on. Without the brake it was just too lightly constructed for that cartridge.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
The brake was a beautiful piece of engineering, but it had its own problems. Of course it precluded using rifle grenades; I later learned that it also tended to gather unburned powder inside the canister. Every so often a shot would ignite the accumulation and produce a fireball, which both temporarily blinded the shooter and left a brilliant signature disclosing his position.
M
I never shot one of those, scarce around here. The rest is all stories I'm familiar with, sounds familiar.Quote:
Originally Posted by MGMike