Stoner 63a technical questions

themessenger · Post by **themessenger** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:09 am

Can anyone point me to a function diagram of the 63A? I have plenty for the 63, but I'm curious as to how the 63a differs (i.e. the relocated safety engagement)

Also, since the receiver is the "upper" part and not the part containing the FCG, what is the sole defining characteristic that separates the Automatics from the Semi-automatics according to the ATF? A function diagram for the semi-auto would be nice too. But, I'm not holding my breath.

tmix · Post by **tmix** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:17 am

I wish I knew more about it so I could answer your question.
I do know someone who might be able to help. He might chime in.

PSG1 Nut · Post by **PSG1 Nut** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:38 am

Mongo should be along and answer this.

Mongo · Post by **Mongo** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:43 am

Go to my web page and see if that answers your questions.

http://home.comcast.net/~sfischer397/index.htm

There is scans of the manual and the differences between teh 63 and the 63a are documented on my web page.

themessenger · Post by **themessenger** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:49 am

PSG1 Nut wrote:Mongo should be along and answer this. The semi auto that I owned was a POS.

Knew he would come along

This is sort of my end goal. What was/were the issue(s)? Is it dramatically different that the FA version?

Mongo wrote:There is scans of the manual and the differences between teh 63 and the 63a are documented on my web page.

I have used your website for years to slobber over 63a's. It's quite good and points out the differences very well, but how those translate to the functioning, I can't tell. I guess the only point of contention is the relocated safety. I assume the selector simply cams the disconnector out of the way and the safety engages the timer in some fashion.

Also, MGN '97(?i think..Im at work), aka "The Stoner Chronicles" is also good at showing disassembly of the 63a, but doesn't go into detail on the safety.

Long story short, what does the Semi-Auto stoner do that prevents it from select fire? I can imagine welding a plate that interferes with the Timer but then there is the disconnector that can simply be removed (ala AR15) for the hammer to follow the carrier and might set off soft primered ammo.

Mongo · Post by **Mongo** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:17 am

Well there is no semi auto Stoner 63 or 63A. Caddilac Gage made a semi Stoner 63 and submitted it to ATF for a ruling and they rejected it as being too easy to make into a machine gun. The guns were supposedly destroyed according to Jerry Tarble.

There was a guy that took some choped up Stoner 63 guns and rewelded them into "semi" Stoner 63 but ATF later sent this guy to prision for making unregistered machine guns. The Stoner semi guns he made are suppose to be considered unregistered machine guns but I have not seem a ruling in writing by ATF on it (I have not looked either).

I think you are a bit confused about the Stoner and how it works in semi, in the belt fed configurations there is no semi auto fire. It is only full auto reguardless of what position the selector is in. When the gun is converted into a rifle or carbine, the trigger group gets a few extra pieces, these being a hammer and auto sear. The hammer has its own sear notch and does not use the sear that is used when in belt fed configuration. This allows the trigger group to have a select fire configuration. I have the rifle manual for the Stoner but have not gotten around to scanning it yet. I need to do it and add it to the website.

FYI: the "semi" stoners had the axel hole for the auto sear welded up (or not drilled).

PSG1 Nut · Post by **PSG1 Nut** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:27 pm

If you are wanting a semi stoner get you one of these

I have the M96 in bren config and I like it.

http://www.robarm.com/M96_Home.htm

themessenger · Post by **themessenger** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:00 pm

Mongo wrote:Well there is no semi auto Stoner 63 or 63A. Caddilac Gage made a semi Stoner 63 and submitted it to ATF for a ruling and they rejected it as being too easy to make into a machine gun. The guns were supposedly destroyed according to Jerry Tarble.

There was a guy that took some choped up Stoner 63 guns and rewelded them into "semi" Stoner 63 but ATF later sent this guy to prision for making unregistered machine guns. The Stoner semi guns he made are suppose to be considered unregistered machine guns but I have not seem a ruling in writing by ATF on it (I have not looked either).

I think you are a bit confused about the Stoner and how it works in semi, in the belt fed configurations there is no semi auto fire. It is only full auto reguardless of what position the selector is in. When the gun is converted into a rifle or carbine, the trigger group gets a few extra pieces, these being a hammer and auto sear. The hammer has its own sear notch and does not use the sear that is used when in belt fed configuration. This allows the trigger group to have a select fire configuration. I have the rifle manual for the Stoner but have not gotten around to scanning it yet. I need to do it and add it to the website.

FYI: the "semi" stoners had the axel hole for the auto sear welded up (or not drilled).

Well, I have seen one or two semi stoners come up for sale (subguns or sturm) which is what started me thinking this. Not sure if they were rewelds or not. All I've had to go by is a manual for the 63 I picked up a while back which covers only the rifle config. I didn't know the hammer and timer were removed in belt fed configs. Makes it a bit harder to ensure a semi cannot be converted to auto. Back to the drawing board..

Thanks for the insight. It is much appreciated.

BTW, how does the trigger guard safety work? I thought it would just engage the timer sear catch on the hammer..but, if there is no hammer in the belt-fed mode, blows that theory out of the water.

PSG1 Nut wrote:I have the M96 in bren config and I like it.

I wanted one of those too when they came out. Robarm left open the possibility of a semi belt-fed, but it never surfaced and I guess I sort of lost interest at that point. Looks like that might be the only way to get a sort-of semi stoner..

Mongo · Post by **Mongo** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:12 pm

themessenger wrote:
Well, I have seen one or two semi stoners come up for sale (subguns or sturm) which is what started me thinking this. Not sure if they were rewelds or not. All I've had to go by is a manual for the 63 I picked up a while back which covers only the rifle config. I didn't know the hammer and timer were removed in belt fed configs. Makes it a bit harder to ensure a semi cannot be converted to auto. Back to the drawing board..

Thanks for the insight. It is much appreciated.

BTW, how does the trigger guard safety work? I thought it would just engage the timer sear catch on the hammer..but, if there is no hammer in the belt-fed mode, blows that theory out of the water.

The trigger guard safety on the 63A works like a Garand by sliding back and forth. In the rear position it blocks the front edge of the trigger bar so that it can not pivot down. It does not effect the sear so the bolt group can be retracted to the rear onto the sear for preparation to fire. The selector (that does nothing in the belt fed configuration) serves as the axle for the sear used to control the bolt group.

Mongo · Post by **Mongo** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:39 pm

Here is some "pictures to help you see it. These are from my Solidworks model of the Stoner 63A.

sorry but I do not have the disconnector modeled yet since I have only done the belt fed version.

Post by **silencertalk** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:18 pm

Did Robarms give you their models?

Mongo · Post by **Mongo** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:31 pm

rsilvers wrote:Did Robarms give you their models?

Ha, they wish they had my talent

3 · Post by 3 » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:25 pm

OK, I had to use a lifeline on this one but here goes:

There are some 20 odd changes between the 63 and 63a
here are some of the major ones

1/ spring on the roller on the bolt carrier so thew feed cover could close when the bolt was open or closed

2/safety relocation

3/charging handle location changed

4/magazine well bevel

5/gas tube material changed to 17-4

6/dust cover for ejection port

7/numerous feed cover changes including casting instead of stampted

8/numerous buttstock changes

interesting KAC fact : one of my dad's first gigs was to go sort out the SEAL team guns that had mixed their 63 and 63a parts. These guns would later be destroyed. This was before he knew that he could actually charge the gov't for this sort of help. This early interaction with the Navy would be the birth of KAC and they found other things for this "Florida cracker " to do for them.

BWT · Post by **BWT** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:34 pm

3 wrote:OK, I had to use a lifeline on this one but here goes:

There are some 20 odd changes between the 63 and 63a
here are some of the major ones

1/ spring on the roller on the bolt carrier so thew feed cover could close when the bolt was open or closed

2/safety relocation

3/charging handle location changed

4/magazine well bevel

5/gas tube material changed to 17-4

6/dust cover for ejection port

7/numerous feed cover changes including casting instead of stampted

8/numerous buttstock changes

interesting KAC fact : one of my dad's first gigs was to go sort out the SEAL team guns that had mixed their 63 and 63a parts. These guns would later be destroyed. This was before he knew that he could actually charge the gov't for this sort of help. This early interaction with the Navy would be the birth of KAC and they found other things for this "Florida cracker " to do for them.

You bunch of Cracka's sho do make some nice gunz.

You have mentioned it here and there, are you guys ever really going to do a book? I'd love to hear these stories of what really happens in the gun industry.

It's fascinating.

tmix · Post by **tmix** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:05 am

3 wrote:OK, I had to use a lifeline on this one but here goes:......

interesting KAC fact : one of my dad's first gigs was to go sort out the SEAL team guns that had mixed their 63 and 63a parts. These guns would later be destroyed. This was before he knew that he could actually charge the gov't for this sort of help. This early interaction with the Navy would be the birth of KAC and they found other things for this "Florida cracker " to do for them.

Wow, interesting piece of history, there.

themessenger · Post by **themessenger** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:22 am

Thanks Mongo for the models. Will these eventually be on your site? I'd always wondered what that "sear" was for around the selector. I assumed it was just a spring for the disconnector..hey, all I have are 2d rifle function drawings. But with the carrier inverted in belt mode, it now makes much more sense.

3 wrote:interesting KAC fact : one of my dad's first gigs was to go sort out the SEAL team guns that had mixed their 63 and 63a parts. These guns would later be destroyed. This was before he knew that he could actually charge the gov't for this sort of help. This early interaction with the Navy would be the birth of KAC and they found other things for this "Florida cracker " to do for them.

If someone asked me to fix their stoners, first I would decline and recommend Mongo or Jerry Tarble or Reed, but secondly I WOULD NOT CHARGE THEM. I would thank my lucky stars

. But, yes..that story is what got me with hooked on Stoners..the whole story about being given a Stoner barrel bag at a gun show and then fixing them for the SEAL teams.

Anyway, looks like a semi is next to impossible without severely neutering existing Stoner components. And I would feel very very bad in destroying what little parts there already are.

tmix · Post by **tmix** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:55 am

themessenger wrote: Anyway, looks like a semi is next to impossible without severely neutering existing Stoner components. And I would feel very very bad in destroying what little parts there already are.

If you can afford to destroy Stoner parts, you can afford a Stoner.

3 · Post by 3 » Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:29 am

We still have all the original tooling so why don't you guys get Mongo to come up with a compliant design and we could make some.

PSG1 Nut · Post by **PSG1 Nut** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:15 am

I am down if we could make a semi 63. What ever the cost count me in.

Will even put a 1/2 down payment of the total cost if you need it.

tmix · Post by **tmix** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:53 pm

3 wrote:We still have all the original tooling so why don't you guys get Mongo to come up with a compliant design and we could make some.

That, I'd like to see....I'd want a semi commando version. I know it wouldn't be as much fun as the real thing, but I have a good supply of links.

(Right hand feed not necessary)

It would have to take M16 mags. I can't afford to buy
Stoner mags.

3 · Post by 3 » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:50 pm

Why ruin a good gun with a shitty magazine? We can just make some new ones. They are full curved and much better than m-16 mags

paco ramirez · Post by **paco ramirez** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:56 pm

Nice models.

tmix · Post by **tmix** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:33 pm

3 wrote:Why ruin a good gun with a shitty magazine? We can just make some new ones. They are full curved and much better than m-16 mags

Screw the mags. They would just increase cost. I want it to use M27's!

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:19 am

3 wrote:We still have all the original tooling so why don't you guys get Mongo to come up with a compliant design and we could make some.

WIN!!!!!!!

Ronzo · Post by **Ronzo** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:02 pm

I would love to have a semi Stoner 63A in the carbine version. I have been saving for a full auto M16 for two years now but I would consider a semi Stoner to be a better buy.