Why wasn't this nearly as prevalent as it should have been?

imma go with politics and money

Jammed a bunch. Needed a lot of cleaning. Not feasible for the the conventional grunt to carry

>>30350052
First post, best post.

>>30350052
Politics, money and Jarheads
Even after the SEALs adopted it, USArmy said 'not invented by us, not interested', USMC gave it a trial in SVN.
Issued to platoons as rifles with LMG variants for firesupport. Jarheads work out they can trade shit to get extra LMG kits so everybody can bullethose.
Trial science and measurement is now fucked up by this. Trial is closed as a failure.
>Stoner stays a Seal-only gun
>uncle sams misguided children fuck things up for themselves again

>>30349426
So hypothetically how difficult would it be to get my hands on one of these babies?

>>30351798
That's not a picture of an m16 anon...

File: 1440584574344.jpg (31KB, 387x461px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 387x461px

>>30353704
There's rougly ~30 still on the registry
>yfw the us govt destroyed a bunch of these in warehouses

>>30353715
Not to mention I'm pretty sure one man owns the majority of them if not all of them

>>30353715
And there's no semi auto variations on the market?

>>30353715
i will always associate that image with
"I RECOGNIZE THAT GAY BLOWJOB"

File: 1456198803701.jpg (120KB, 1200x381px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1200x381px

>>30353726
Closest thing is a Robinson M96. It has pretty much no functional identity to the Stoner and the owner of the company is a huge prick.

Held one at my lgs a year back with an elcan on it, pretty neat gun.

>>30351798
yeah, very unfortunate because they were supposedly coveted when they did work. They're extremely light weight for an LMG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zb8OgPwf5Q

I wonder how it would have fared if it started off non-convertable like the Stoner 86 became. The 63 had a chance but lost it and then the FN Minimi swooped in before the 86 could come into the picture

>>30353721

I heard 90% of them. Which go up to $50,000 a piece.