Stoner 63 wanna-be still lives?

[Bucky B]

It seems that the Robinson Armament Co. Expeditionary Rifle, which some have described as a Stoner 63 clone, is still around. There are some currently for sale on Gunbroker.com and a couple were sold a month or so ago.

Would one of these be a worthwhile investment since they are no longer made? Here is a thumbnail from one of those on sale:

 

[gotboostvr]

As an investment? Hard to say, probably.

As something cool to add to the safe, definitely!

 

[AlexanderA]

The problems are twofold: first, the Expeditionary Rifle wasn't that close a clone of the Stoner 63, and, secondly, Robinson never supported their product adequately.

The unique feature of the Stoner 63 was that it was a whole system. That is, it could be configured as a rifle, a carbine, a magazine-fed (Bren style) LMG, or a belt-fed LMG. AFAIK, Robinson promised, but never delivered, the components to make all the versions. It would have been neat to be able to switch from a rifle to a Bren style, for example.

As a rifle, it's too big and heavy in comparison to the standard AR-15, and it lacks the modular features we've come to expect..

I personally think that the few Expeditionary Rifles on the market are overpriced. Investment-wise, unless Robinson or someone else resurrects it, it's going to be a dead end. I don't see the potential for much appreciation there.

 

[briansmithwins]

Buy it as a shooter if it really appeals to you.

And if you have access to a machine shop in case you need any parts.

BSW

 

[CapnMac]

By and large, firearms are never "investments."
An investment is something with a relatively calculable risk, and a relatively calculable reward.

Firearms are tools, some (really a small number) which gain value over time.

Back in the 90s, you could buy the very hip in framing circles, Stiletto T1500, which was a uber-hip hammer. At the time, they were going for between $300 and $500 each. Now, simple inflation makes $300 1995 dollars about $500 in 2019. Guess what a Stiletto goes for right now--about $250-300. Twenty-five years ago, the Stiletto Ti "looked" like a good investment. Now, it's just a spendy hammer.

As @AlexanderA succinctly points out above, the greatest benefit of the Stoner 63 system is its ability to be reconfigured into different Title II configurations. There's almost no useful Title I configurations a Stoner 63 can be made up into (other then the incredibly narrow niche market of SA clones).

That lack of utility is why they are relatively cheap on the secondary market.

 

[FL-NC]

I wouldn't think so. First off, it's definitely a "niche" firearm. I guess that "niche" would be those who think that it would be cool to have something that "kind of" looks like the Stoner 63. I couldn't imagine it being attractive to anyone else. Also, it couldn't have any more practical capability than something like an old SP1 AR15, since it's just a semi auto 223, not really modular with any accessories on the market, and doesn't appear to be accessory or optic friendly anyway- not to mention availability of spare or replacement/repair parts- not unlike an old legacy AR180. If I wanted a 223 semi auto, I would just buy any of the many decent models of AR15 carbines available in the $600 or less range. For an "investment", I would go after milsurp firearms that are in demand now, since demand is only going to increase as the supply decreases- Garands, 1903's, Nazi marked Mausers, etc.

 

[AlexanderA]

There's almost no useful Title I configurations a Stoner 63 can be made up into (other then the incredibly narrow niche market of SA clones).

There is a market segment (admittedly small) for semiautomatic clones of fully-automatic military weapons. Examples currently are the FN M249S (which sells for nearly $8,000) and Ohio Ordnance's M1918A3 BAR (which sells for about $4,000). And let's not forget that the Colt AR-15 SP1, and the Armalite AR-180, back in the day, were semiautomatic clones of their military cousins. Despite what Colt's advertising in the 1960's tried to say -- that AR's were useful for hunting and target shooting -- I believe that most buyers of AR's in that original period bought them because it was the most practical way of getting a near-copy of the army weapon. These were and are primarily collectors.

I think that a bona fide semiautomatic copy of the Stoner 63 would sell, if (a) it was priced below about $5,000, and (b) all the parts were available to make all the various configurations. The Robinson Expeditionary Rifle is clearly not that gun.