THE ARMALITE AR-15

Why is the AR-15 not used by the U.S. military?

 

By Bill Bradley 

The short answer, ONLY ArmaLite, a division of Fairchild Aircraft, can/could make an ArmaLite Rifle number 15 rifle. And at the time, the ordnance branch was not interested in it.

The long answer:

Armalite could not get the US military interested in purchasing it, as the muckety mucks in charge of ordnance were focused on the Springfield Armory Model T44 series of Battle Rifle in .30 caliber. (what later became the M-14)

This is a real, and only one of a handful of Armalite Rifle no. 15 ever produced:

Armalite designed this as an alternative to their AR-10, which had lost in test trials against the T-44. It actually had a barrel rupture during testing, not a good way to win the hearts and minds of ordnance branch.

BTW, I should mention, AR stands for Armalite Rifle, and the number, is their series of prototype designs. For example, this is an AR-5

A bolt action survival rifle, adopted by the USAF as the MA-1. The AR-7, is a semi-automatic version. And the AR-17 was actually a shotgun. The AR-10 was a Battle Rifle, chambered in .30 cal., so the AR definitely does not stand for Assault Rifle.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming…

Suffering from financial issues, Armalite sold its rights and patents to the AR-10/15 (both worked in the same indirect gas impingement piston system, but were chambered and therefore scaled, for different calibers) to Colt Firearms.

Edit 04–09–21:

[ I have recently come across some information which indicates Fairchild/Armalite licensed these patents to Colt. Other sources claim the rights and patents were sold to Colt. So again, there seems to be some confusion in the history of this.

My understanding was, Fairchild/Armalite sold the rights and patents to Colt, who was at the time suffering financial difficulties itself. So instead of paying for the patents outright, the deal was, Colt would pay royalties, to Armalite, for the duration of the patents along with a “down payment” of $75,000.

The fact that Colt rebranded it the Colt 600 series, lends credence to the version, they bought the patents. Otherwise, they would not be able to change the nomenclature, as that would have still been owned by Armalite.

However, having to to still pay royalties, in lieu of the lump sum would allow Armalite to require their logo/trademark “AR-15” also be placed on the rifle.

Also, if ArmaLite only licensed the Gas Impingement patents to Colt, why did they have to create the AR18/180, to get around those patents?

Is it any wonder then, there is so much controversy over the history of this rifle… lol ]

End of Edit

And this is where the confusion begins.

Colt actually branded it the 600 series rifle. The caveat being, as part of the legal agreement, they had to include the “AR-15” logo, on any guns produced, until the patents expired. And to distinguish between the select fire 600 series, and the semi-auto only version, they branded it the Colt model AR-15 and kept the “AR-15” logo on it, even after the patents expired. Why not… they owned it.

So while you may see firearms like this:

It is not an AR-15, since Armalite no longer owned the rights to it, nor did they manufacture it. It is a Colt model 604, I believe, since it is just labeled M-16 in military nomenclature. (the military gives each piece of equipment, its own identity, regardless of what the manufacturer calls it.

Clear as mud so far?

Intellectual property is important to a gun designer, and they want people to know who came up with the idea, even if they do not manufacture the firearm itself. Ever hear of Browning? John Moses Browning never manufactured a single firearm. He licensed everything to gun manufacturers, like Winchester, Remington, FN, Colt and others. And he became famous, because his name was on all those guns. This also increased his credibility in the firearms world. This is common among firearms designers, and Armalite was no different. Even if they no longer owned the rights to the patents, they wanted people to know who had designed it. And if it became successful, it would increase their credibility, for future designs.

And now we get into the problems caused by the confusion of using the colloquial term of “AR-15” to identify a rifle.

Are you talking about the handful produced by the ArmaLite Company, as prototypes or demonstrator models, in Hollywood, CA. prior to 1959? BTW, these are probably worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, if you can find one for sale.

Are you talking about the early Colt 600 series, adopted by the military, with the “AR-15″ logo/trademark on them?

Are you talking about the Colt AR-15 civilian, semi-automatic only version?

Are you talking about the numerous clones of the Colt AR-15, manufactured now by dozens of companies?

To simplify life for everyone, those in the firearms world only refer colloquially to an “AR-15”, as any semi-automatic only rifle, based on the ArmaLite design, regardless of manufacture. Legally, and correctly though, unless it is a Colt, it should be referred to as a “Colt AR-15 pattern or clone” rifle. But everyone just abbreviates it to “AR-15” or “AR”.

A similar story can be found in the computer world. IBM actually patented and built the first Personal Computer, aka PC. So only IBM can manufacture a ‘PC’, and everyone else has to call it a “PC Clone”, but in the computer world, it is simply called a “PC”, to distinguish it from an Apple.

And one final point, Colt made some not so minor changes to the original ArmaLite designs. So the rifle the military finally adopted was not really the ArmaLite Rifle model 15, even though externally it looked similar, and had the same gas operating system. Colt could have also changed the chassis, i.e. the receiver and trigger group, removing the pistol grip etc, so long as they did not change the overall gas operating system. However, Stoner got the ergonomics right from the start, so why mess with a good thing.