My son has become interested in a rifle being developed by Ian and Karl from InRange TV. I am curious if anyone else has seen this and has any comments on it.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
What Would Stoner Do?
- Thread starter FPrice
- Start date
D
Deleted member 67409
WWSD has been a project that Ian and Karl have been working on since 2017. I've been watching their progress and I've likely seen all the videos. The goal is to keep the AR-15 a lightweight, easy to use, everyman's rifle. Brownell's latched onto the idea and is involved with making/selling the parts and whole guns.
Last edited by a moderator:
KMM696
NES Member
I've been watching the WWSD project as well. I'm interested, for sure. Their focus on light weight and ambi controls appeals to me quite a bit. They've put out enough video content that I believe there's enough information to decide if it works for your (or your son's) rifle needs.
Worst case if there's something I hate about it - I can take it apart and start over without any heartburn.
Worst case if there's something I hate about it - I can take it apart and start over without any heartburn.
The thread I was expecting as well................................................
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
I watched the 2017 version and I do like some of their ideas/findings. However, stoner absolutely would have put on a collapsible stock in modern times. A1 length is great for bladed shooting and competition, but not with squared off modern shooting in CQB situations.
D
Deleted member 67409
Karl addressed this point in various videos, some in the WWSD project series and in other unrelated videos: most shooters, and most shooters tend to be adult males between 18-60, set their collapsible stock lengths to A1 stock length. Additionally, the goal of the project is to keep the guns as simple as possible, which implies sometimes sacrificing modularity for simplicity and lightness. One way of combining these reasons would be that "the lowest common denominator of user won't sufficiently derive enough utility to justify a collapsible stock."
Another factory may be that Ian and Karl live in southern Arizona where the clothing selection goes from t-shirt --> polo shirt --> Hawaiian shirt --> maybe a hoodie. They don't live in New England or Alaska where its quite possible for weather to be 80-90 degrees during the day down to 40-45 degrees at night or in the early morning. That happened quite a lot during October when I lived in NH. Meaning, they might not see the desirability of having a collapsible stock because of changing clothing. I also think that they're operating under the premise that most people don't have armor or night vision, which, most people don't.
I personally prefer collapsible stocks but that's Karl's reasoning, which is to keep it simple and that most people don't adjust the stocks too much anyways.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I know what they said. And they’re right for most civilian shooting. But the military needs collapsible stocks for squared off shooting. It has less to do with clothing and body armor, and more to do with modern shooting stances for shooting on the move while also presenting your front plate perpendicular to your threat. A1 length is not good for this unless you’re an orangutan, because your support hand will be too far forward.
D
Deleted member 67409
The whole point of the WWSD project is for civilian consumers, not .mil or law enforcement. So, their needs aren't relevant to the project.
I thought the point was what would stoner design if he were designing the AR-15 now. The AR-15 was designed with military intentions. If WWSD is specifically “what would stoner do for civilians” and I missed them discuss that qualification, then I agree with their fixed stock choice ... for the most part.
D
Deleted member 67409
Yes, WWSD2020 is designed to be a project intended for the typical American consumer within the parameters of a 6lbs carbine that doesn't involve NFA paperwork.
KMM696
NES Member
If I remember the videos correctly without going back, the initial premise was that Stoner's intent was to design a lightweight rifle using modern new materials - which at the time were aluminum and plastics. InRange's 2017 project was an attempt to answer what would he do today to meet those goals, but were constrained by using parts that already existed on the market. They weren't always the perfect parts, but best available. In the 2020 version from KE & Brownells, some of those imperfections have been addressed, but a bigger design driver has reared it's ugly head - commercial viability. I'm sure they looked at adjustable stocks for those lowers, but if you're doing them in polymer it raises some design problems that increase cost and risk for their production. If one of the big players in the .mil rifle contract field was doing this, I'm sure they would have the R&D dollars
The first example that occurred to me was that an adjustable stock strong enough to be done in a monolithic lower/stock is not going to work with the existing Technical Data Package (TDP) driven AR stocks. It certainly could be done, but would only work with this particular lower, and require another mold to be developed. To keep the common buffer tube dimensions to allow other stocks would probably need the thickness of the tube walls to be increased in the only direction available - inwards. To make that work, they would need to also develop a non TDP buffer system, with no parts commonality in the industry, and doing all their own development work on that before production. I don't think the odds of that project going smoothly are that good - look at all the variations in buffers needed to run various calibers/uppers/barrel lengths in a known system plus the resources and time it took to develop them. KE is taking on a lot of risk with investing in a mold as it is - I don't think incurring more financial risk would be a good idea for them. They've done a lot of work to ensure that whatever parts that fit the TDP will work in their design, to avoid that risk.
On the other hand, if the KE lower is a screaming success, and they can pay off their investment in it, I could certainly see the next gen of their lower having an adjustable stock. If they get enough requests for it to believe it would be commercially viable, why wouldn't they? It won't, I'd predict, be compatible with existing ARs.
I've been thinking about that, too. It's been years since I've been this interested in a new AR, and this effort has grabbed my interest. A complete rifle would need a brake permanently attached, but there's no stock or bayonet lug to address. Faxon makes barrels with an integral brake (or flash hider, but in this case the braked one is important). If Brownells received enough consumer interest to make stocking another variant worth their while, all you'd need in MA would be an FFL who doesn't take legal direction from press conferences. Or buy the lower, and build the upper with those parts. While it won't be as easy as the free world has it, I do believe it's possible.
Yes, I've talked myself into getting one.....
The first example that occurred to me was that an adjustable stock strong enough to be done in a monolithic lower/stock is not going to work with the existing Technical Data Package (TDP) driven AR stocks. It certainly could be done, but would only work with this particular lower, and require another mold to be developed. To keep the common buffer tube dimensions to allow other stocks would probably need the thickness of the tube walls to be increased in the only direction available - inwards. To make that work, they would need to also develop a non TDP buffer system, with no parts commonality in the industry, and doing all their own development work on that before production. I don't think the odds of that project going smoothly are that good - look at all the variations in buffers needed to run various calibers/uppers/barrel lengths in a known system plus the resources and time it took to develop them. KE is taking on a lot of risk with investing in a mold as it is - I don't think incurring more financial risk would be a good idea for them. They've done a lot of work to ensure that whatever parts that fit the TDP will work in their design, to avoid that risk.
On the other hand, if the KE lower is a screaming success, and they can pay off their investment in it, I could certainly see the next gen of their lower having an adjustable stock. If they get enough requests for it to believe it would be commercially viable, why wouldn't they? It won't, I'd predict, be compatible with existing ARs.
I've been thinking about that, too. It's been years since I've been this interested in a new AR, and this effort has grabbed my interest. A complete rifle would need a brake permanently attached, but there's no stock or bayonet lug to address. Faxon makes barrels with an integral brake (or flash hider, but in this case the braked one is important). If Brownells received enough consumer interest to make stocking another variant worth their while, all you'd need in MA would be an FFL who doesn't take legal direction from press conferences. Or buy the lower, and build the upper with those parts. While it won't be as easy as the free world has it, I do believe it's possible.
Yes, I've talked myself into getting one.....
Similar threads
