View Full Version : If you could design a .223 carbine, what do you want?

January 27, 2000, 12:12 PM
There has been a lot of folks on this forum who have wished for for a light .223 carbine, cheaper than the AR15, but higher quality than a Mini 14. I think that that shouldn't be too hard to do. There are an absurd number of different designs out there, most of which are designed to be manufactured cheaper than the AR. There are lots of operating systems that should be utterly reliable also. Mostly by using a combination of AR style bolt with AK 47 style piston. (FNC, Sig, AR70/90, Galil)

My question is, what do we want? Do we want it to have a regular stock or a pistol grip? How should it be configured?

What I'm envisioning is a conventially stocked rifle, about six lbs. 16 inch barrel. Uses AR mags. AR style lower receiver group, only using a non-buffer tube in the stock system, so it can have a conventional stock. Upper and lower receivers hinge apart for cleaning. Synthetic stock. Lots of casting and CNC to keep the manufacture inexpensive. Price under $600. Keep it politically correct looking. (I hate that idea, but I think it would be more economically viable).

What do you guys think?

Christopher II
January 27, 2000, 01:13 PM
I think that if you started making those, I'd buy three or four of them.

A couple of ideas -

Integral weaver or STANTAG base, perhaps extended to permit long-eye-refief scope mounting.

How would you design the safety lever, in order to make it ergonomic and easily accessible? What about the magazine release?

Since you're going with a standard stock, I'd thread the muzzle for a flash suppressor.

Spacers in the stock to adjust the length of pull, maybe??

Keep going!!


January 27, 2000, 01:38 PM
Actually, there is an easy compromise. If Ruger would make a Mini 14 that accepted AR mags and had a better barrel (and 16 inches), it would be THE gun for home defense. All of these changes would be easy to do...

January 27, 2000, 01:38 PM
I was thinking safety & mag release would be positioned just like they are on the AR lower receiver. Quick and easy, and most of us are already used to that.

I like the spacer and the scope mounting idea. Thanks.

January 27, 2000, 01:46 PM
I have to agree on the ruger design. Mayby not patterned on the mini 14 though. I think it should be more like the 10/22 on steroids, kind of like the .44 mag carbine only with the Ar magazines. Those 10/22s are great shooters and can be made very accurate with minimal expense.

January 27, 2000, 04:20 PM
there are some great ideas in the rifle section of the OICW

the charging handle is very nicely done... http://www.atk.com/defense/descriptions/products/Shoulder-fired%20Weapons/oicw-new.htm http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/sci/9809STMIM.html

g36 (OICW's uncle) is well done too: http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~johnhe/g36_hoved.html#system

January 27, 2000, 06:24 PM
South African R4/R5 style with bolt hold open and thumb operated selector switch, like Galil.

January 27, 2000, 07:24 PM
I really like the HK-53 system. Short barrel, A2 stock, semi-auto only (auto is a waste, muzzle climb on this devil is nasty) 3 point tactical sling. No optics needed.

Michael Carlin
January 28, 2000, 12:09 AM
If I could design one: an all up DCM 1/8 barrel AR15A2. You would have to go a LONG way to beat then M16 series rifle, a very very long way! Just my humble opinion after humping the M16 series around for 27 of the last 29 years. Yours in Marksmanship, Michael http://www.centurytel.net/distinguished

January 28, 2000, 01:31 AM
I would probably want a 14" bullpup, pistol grip, AR mag compatibility, optional left side ejection port for left-handed shooters, full ambidextrous controls. Gee, I just about described the Steyer AUG.

Unkel Gilbey
January 28, 2000, 12:22 PM
OK, I couldn't resist.

One of you fellah's mentioned the Ruger 10/22, and then the .44 Carbine, and then I started to see visions of sugar plums...

If I were to have a totally different .223 carbine, I would resist the temptation to use AR type mags, and go with the rotary mag. design that Ruger has used so well with the .22LR, .22 mag, 22 Hornet, and now the .44 Mag. Why not? That way, we could have the magazine flush with the stock line so as to not spoil the rifle's lines. You could have a 18-20 inch bbl, incorporate a flashhider/muzzlebrake, and even fancy the wood up (ala Custom 10/22) with REAL walnut, checkering on the wrist and the forearm, and remove the barrel band. The receiver could incorporate the built-in scope ring mounts, and maybe even have provisions for a nice receiver sight.
What rifling twist would be dictated by what the assumed usage of the rifle would be. I think that we could safely say that this wouldn't be a replacement for the Palma match rifles! So somewhere around 1 turn in nine inches (?)

All in all a handy rifle that wouldn't have a mag capacity to make the Local Game wardens spaz out. It would be fairly light weight, good looking, handy. Also the rifle would have an innocent-enough looking profile so that the local "Thought Police" wouldn't have the ATF folks giving you a nocturnal visit!

There's my two cents worth!!

Unkel Gilbey

January 29, 2000, 12:42 AM
I want a Colt 6520 copy for $650.00.

[This message has been edited by Giz (edited January 29, 2000).]

Tony III
January 29, 2000, 01:39 PM
I fried up photoshop so I could show you. I didn't think to use web safe colors, so I'm not sure how this will look for those of you not using a Mac.

This is what I want.

The supressor would extend forward maybe 4" & would wrap back over the barrel for expanded voulme. Not real effective but it would be compact & would elliminate muzzel flash & maybe reduce the sound to less than deafening levels. It would be field reversable for right or left hand ejection. The combiniation forward grip / Tac-light, would pivot forward & would also have a quick detach. A bipod could be used in place of the forward grip. There would also be interchangeable butstocks for a custom fit. And as long as I'm being unrealistic, I'd want it to have a crisp, short trigger pull; breaking cleanly at 4 lbs. And Oh yea! it would shoot 1/2 MOA, weigh 5.5 lbs. as pictured & would cost $299.95 minus the federal tax rebate on the purchase of any firearm. :)

[This message has been edited by Tony III (edited January 29, 2000).]

George Hill
January 31, 2000, 06:56 AM
A G36K. A REAL G36K.
Thats what I want.

I saw an interesting thing at SHOT - it was a Steyer Scout in .223, so if you had a bolt action rifle in mind - that might be a good option.

If I was to design my own... I would end up with a G36 anyways...