Why did the stoner fail to get adopted? Was it just a bad design?
>>34752413
I've heard it had a few issues at its inception. But I knew weight was a factor.
>>34752413
>heavy
>complex
>maintenance queen
>partially a victim of the same old army fucks who hated .223
>expensive
>not really better than an M16 and not durable enough to be an LMG, a role filled by the M249 like 15 years later
Also, starting this thread with an anthro image was a mistake. And the artist should have traced the weapon instead of shopping it.
It had mechanical issues, though these weren't a big deal for its end users who took greater care of their guns than the average draftee. The biggest issue it faced was being tied to Eugene Stoner, who was a legitimate aspie who made some of the most recognizable and important designs in history, but was unable to make success of them himself. He was the firearms equivalent of box office poison.
The DoD had a strict policy against poor line art and furries at the time of its evaluation, and it was in fact that very promo picture which sunk the Stoner's chances of consideration. Eugene's later innovations would find popularity among a growing civilian market, his successful diaperfur/AR-15 marketing materials transforming the hobbyist gun community forever.
>>34752586
I hear he was a proper aspie a lot. Shame he couldn't push his guns well enough.
>>34752719
Good thing they did. Doug winger helped make the A-10, and to put it a certain way: The giant cannon on the A-10 may have been burned into his mind at some point.