dump dump dump
>>34292387
A couple more to go
>>34292410
Last one. Enjoy.
>>34292341
Marking this thread.
>>34292387
>AR-18
If it was never adopted why is listed in here?
>>34292929
The AR-18 was undergoing testing by the Army Ordnance Board in 1965, the same year this was published. So it was treated as potential future equipment.
>>34292913
I'll try to get some more scans up this evening of other stuff from this issue.
Bumping. There is some interesting stuff in here for handloaders if people are interested.
>>34292341
Bumping last time for night crew.
Hey, OP
I want to thank you, this is a pretty sweet article.
I have an American Rifleman from I think 1958 with an article covering the development of the modern NATO rifles, so FAL, M14, and CETME. Pretty interesting to read a gun writer talking about them as though they are the cutting edge the way people were writing about things like the SCAR a few years back.
>>34298189
That would be really neat to read if you ever get the chance scan them.
I don't have any more this old, not even sure how it came into my possession. The Q&A section in this one is very extensive with a lot of good information. It also has a section detailing laws that were being passed at the time which are strange to read given how much has changed in these last 50 years.
Now I want to know exactly when Richard Lee started producing Lee Loaders.
>>34298562