No magazine will likely ever be the star addition to your gun collection. The magazine will never get an honorable mention in a war documentary. It’s just a small rectangular device we often take for granted as a necessary peripheral item that facilitates our shooting hobby. The detachable ammunition-feeding device should be more. It should be held in high regard—as something of great historical interest and significance. The development of the detachable magazine parallels the history and development of the small arm—as the modern repeating arm could not exist without its magazine.

History

In the interest of brevity, the internal box magazine common to bolt-action rifles, as well as the stripper clip, used to top off a fixed magazine and the aging single-stack magazine will only be discussed here in comparative reference. This is about the high capacity magazine: Man’s best attempts to provide the soldier and hobbyist with the most firepower he can hold in his two hands. To not wax political, there will be little mention here of any magazine that holds fewer than 11 rounds. As a general consideration, a high capacity magazine is one that is only limited in its size and capacity by the intent and functionality prescribed by that weapon’s designer, as any weapon must remain practical and convenient for the user of said weapon. Surely, the advent of the magazine as it is accepted today must be attributed to the military’s need for superior firepower. As warring forces sought to outdo one another, the infantry arm has always been at the forefront of the (literal) arms race. More power, more distance, higher fire rate and more ammo all equate to success and dominance over an opposing force. This endeavor continues with the military as well as modern law enforcement today. As it applies to the hobby shooter, we accept and uphold that it is our right as Americans to own and utilize our small arms for any and all lawful purposes. The practicality and utility of a high-capacity feeding device are not in question, nor can the importance and significance of the high cap mag be refuted.

The repeating arm became a viable weapon shortly after the invention of the self-contained cartridge in the late 1800s. Through the 1890s, firearm inventors began designing small arms around the detachable box magazine as we know it today—and as soon as it became established, it would quickly find broad success in pistol and submachine gun (SMG) designs of the day. Despite the obvious advantages of the detachable box, militaries around the world seemed to distrust or otherwise ignored the new technology as it applied to the full-powered infantry rifle. The stripper-fed internal box would remain the standard for the infantry rifle until the 1940s.

It has been well-demonstrated that a weapon’s magazine can make or break that particular weapon’s story of success on the battlefield. The famously miserable French Chauchat machine gun featured a magazine with large openings on the sides to provide the user with a visual indication of his remaining ammo supply. The short-sighted design also provided mud, dirt and vegetation an easy path into the gun’s mechanism. On the other hand, the British Sterling submachine gun has enjoyed a half century of distinguished service—renowned as one of the best small arms ever made. Some experts suggest it’s got much to do with the peerless design and craftsmanship of the magazine. The Sterling’s 34-round magazine is made of four welded strips of very thick high carbon steel. There’s a generous feed ramp built into the mag body where the cartridges exit. The follower consists of roller bearings that act as guides below the cartridges. And the follower is very tall—effectively what we might call “anti-tilt” today. Its inventor, George Patchett, saw the magazine less as a disposable sheet metal tube and more as a necessary and integral part of a complex mechanism—no less important than the stock, bolt or barrel.

From WWI though the 1950s we saw many variations and configurations of how the magazine interfaced with its host weapon. In the past, some would protrude vertically from the top of a gun while others extend out to the side. Today most magazines hang succinctly below the weapon. But the magazine’s orientation on the weapons of war was neither random nor arbitrary. These engineering decisions came from lessons learned in battle. WWI taught that when firing from cover, specifically from within a trench or behind a low barricade, a ventrally oriented 30+-round (long) magazine could interfere with the soldier’s ability to maintain safe cover and also confound the reloading of his weapon. In the vast mud puddle that was World-War-I France, it became evident that any opening on the belly of a weapon was a point of potential infiltration for debris. So the belief became widely adopted that a magazine needed to be located anywhere but the bottom of the action. Submachine guns like the Bergmann, Lanchester, Sten and Sterling had horizontally oriented magazines. The high-powered Johnson light machine gun (LMG) and the Fallshirmjagergewehr 42 would also feature horizontally arranged magazines protruding to the left of the action. In the case of the FG-42, it has been suggested that the magazine’s orientation would allow German paratroopers to more easily engage ground troops below while hanging from their parachute. Light machine guns like the BREN, Madsen, Japanese Type 96 and German MG15 had magazines that stood vertically from the surface of the receiver. The German MG15, as well as its near clone, the Japanese Type 98, were more commonly used with a double drum instead of the vertical box. The double drum, by placing the ammo directly to the sides of the gun, gave the user an unimpeded vision of the zone of fire. The Lewis gun and Russian Degtyaryov light machine guns were also fed from the top of the receiver but utilized flat drums with the ammo arranged around the drum like the pistons of a radial aircraft engine. This configuration provided better visibility than the vertically oriented magazine but introduced its own degree of complexity and a resultant potential for failure. These machine guns—with horizontal drums— were commonly mounted in early aircraft presumably due to the improved visibility and increased ammunition capacity afforded by this magazine type.

Belt-Fed

Where the high capacity box mag often fell short was its constant need to be replaced. Even the higher capacity drums—50, 75 or even 100 rounds—posed some logistical difficulties. As magazine capacity increased, so did the mechanism’s complexity and potential for failure. As battle tactics have changed over the past 100 years so has the role of the machine gun. A heavy machine gun may be asked to hold a position and perform area denial against advancing forces. This is the place and time for a belt-fed gun. The light machine gunner may be asked to advance, displace or relocate depending on the flow of the battle. The light machine gunner needs a more mobile and adaptable weapon. The ultimate result of the multi-role demand of the light machine gun was the Squad Automatic Weapon—a light machine gun that accepts belted ammo as well as detachable box or drum mags. Our M249, or generically the SAW, is that weapon. Other nations have resorted to hanging a hollow metal box on their belt-fed light machine gun. This belt box holds and protects a belt of linked ammo and allows for the LMG to be maneuvered and handled like a battle rifle. Belt boxes usually hold between 75 and 200 rounds of linked ammo. The RPD has been a very a successful LMG and notable example of this later configuration.

Feed Types

Essentially there are two ways to stack and store ammo in a magazine—single stack and staggered or nested. Single stack is just that. A single row of cartridges with mag body on either side, a follower below and feed lips above. The staggered magazine keeps two rows of ammo housed within the mag body—usually the cartridges will nest perfectly against one another. That is, each round is in contact with four neighboring rounds. A magazine that allows for proper nesting of ammo makes the best use of capacity given a certain size. This type of magazine generally features what is known as a dual presentation at the feed section. The ammunition remains in its own vertical column as it rises into location where the bolt may strip and feed in into the chamber. Cartridges are loaded alternately from the left, then right, then left side again. The magazines of the UZI and AR-15 clearly demonstrate this type of feeding. 

Some mags provide a single presentation at the feed section. That is, the two columns of ammo are forced to merge into a single row before being presented into the bolt’s path for stripping and loading into the chamber. The weapon loads ammo from the same central location every time. These mags typically use a staggered but not a perfectly nested storage configuration. The internal width of these mags is slightly less than that of a properly nested dual presentation magazine. As such, they do not make as efficient use of size vs. capacity. The magazines of the Sten SMG and Glock pistol clearly demonstrate this type of feed configuration.

Very High Capacity Drums and Boxes

There have been some exceptional mutations to the basic box or stick magazine. The Finish Suomi KP/31 was a highly developed submachine gun of WWII. It could utilize any of several different magazine types—sticks, drums and something called a “Coffin mag.” The Coffin mag (aka “quad stack”) is essentially two conjoined double-stacked mags. Toward the top, each half tapers and feeds into a single row just before those two single-stacked rows merge into another double row. Then that double-stack tapers and merges again into a single stack up to a single presentation feed section. It’s complex, to be sure. It’s sensitive to the physical condition of the ammunition. It’s sensitive to dirt or sand. And sensitive to any minor damage or deformation to the magazine body. But the Suomi Coffin mag holds 50 rounds, while its length remains equal to the Suomi’s standard 36-round stick mag. This type of magazine has been refined and adapted to the AR-15 platform by Surefire, in a 60- and 100-round option. The AK-47 platform has teased at the existence of a “quad-stacked” mag for some time now, and recently we have seen the commercial availability of such an item.

The proper drum mag may be getting on in years. They have existed for over a century and have been or are currently available for most weapon platforms. There are three types to be encountered. Those with a single row of cartridges tracing the interior of the drum body. This type is common to modern weapons chambered in 12 gauge, 22 long rifle and 9mm Luger. Other drums store ammunition in a spiral—beginning with the single outer row then transitioning into an ever-decreasing circular path. The AK-47, Thompson and PPSH drums are of this type. These always include a cog fan-shaped rotor that carries small clusters of cartridges though the spiral path and keeps them aligned and oriented. The last configuration is merely a double-stack magazine that curves abruptly to the left or right into a circular pattern. Today’s common commercial offerings for the AR-15 and Mini-14 platforms are generally this sort. One exceptional variation to this design is the double drum. The double drum is not new. The German MG15 was fielded almost exclusively with this unique magazine. It presents as a pair of small drums—one to either side of the action. One great advantage of this design is its compact nature. It adds little to no height to the weapon when affixed. It doesn’t impede shooter’s line of sight over the weapon in the case of a top-fed gun, nor does it prevent the shooter from firing from a low prone position in the case of a bottom fed weapon. The double drum was first adapted to the M16 / AR-15 pattern in the late 1980s by the Beta Company. This device became known simply as the “Beta mag.” Unlike the early German incarnation, the Beta mag was designed to be serviceable and adaptable—the feed section could be interchanged to fit other weapon platforms or replaced as required to maintain reliable function. Each half of the mag is indeed a bent double-stack mag, and each merges into a single stack before being introduced to its neighboring single-stack row of ammo to form a new double stack of ammo in a dual presentation feed section. The mags feature a device called a “feed chain” (a common device in many drums mags) that presents as several cartridge analogs joined by chain links. This part of the invention provides constant pressure and feeding while the main follower remains inside the drum body.

Materials and Construction

The first detachable box magazines were made from sheet metal; some were two pieces that were formed and soldered, welded or brazed together. The Sterling SMG magazine was crafted from four strips of steel that were formed then spot-welded together. Later development saw the use of single metal sheets being formed then welded, brazed or soldered along a single seam. The most recent advancements in metal fabrication have provided seamless metal tubing that may be formed into a box magazine. Many early battle rifles featured what we consider today as detachable box magazines; however, these magazines were intended to be kept as part of the firearm and thus often loaded while in the weapon with a stripper clip. These magazines were heavy, robust and expertly crafted from thick steel. The Enfield, Gewehr 43 and FN 49 are examples of battle rifles that were issued with high quality detachable magazines, but each rifle was issued with just a few magazines. The user would replace the mag if and only if required to keep the weapon functioning. The soldiers wielding these rifles were trained and equipped to “top off” an empty box magazine via stripper while the bolt was locked rearward.

The infamous assault rifle of WWII Germany, the STG-44, was among the first high-power assault rifles built without a stripper clip guide. The user would carry a supply of full magazines—as each mag became exhausted it would be discarded and replaced with another full mag. As the magazine became a disposable device, its construction needed to become faster and cheaper. Metal fabrication techniques would have to adapt to fulfil this demand—the disposable magazine would have to be perfect—while retaining the reliability of the hand-crafted reusable magazines of decades past.

Through the 1950s, 60s and even 70s, the magazine was often culpable as a weak point in the battle-rifle equation. Mass-produced magazines were fragile; they were dimensionally inconsistent, and the sheet metal magazine would face compromise, sometimes made from ductile aluminum or made from steel just thicker than foil. Some of these compromises were enacted to satisfy cost restrictions. Some were to satisfy weight restrictions. We can see the struggle of the engineers when faced with government intervention—their attempts to make the best of the mag given certain limitations in cost or weight. One successful way to make the magazine body more rigid was to incorporate grooves and ribs in the magazine body. This technique is still employed by modern manufacturers of metal rifle magazines. Some early sheet metal mags featured bolsters and extra layers of thick plate or even steel castings or machined components mated to the thin sheet metal bodies. The feed lips were a common point of failure, as they are responsible for cartridge presentation and easily damaged by even mild impacts or abuse. The original AK magazine makes a relevant example. The thin sheet metal body would serve only as bulk storage of ammunition while the part of the mag that interfaced with the weapon—the feed lips and locking surfaces—were crafted from heavy castings or even machined from solid steel or aluminum.

The most recent positive change in the development and perfection of the magazine would inarguably be found in polymer science. Synthetic magazines were around as early as the 1960s but not as we know them today. Early magazine endeavors to craft the magazine body from lighter and more resilient materials produced what today we would call composite construction. Back to the AK platform for another relevant example; Russian designers were experimenting with phenolic resins and other synthetic bonding agents melded with organic fibers, or vice versa, synthetic fiber bound in a matrix of organic bonding agents. These early polymer mags were lighter than steel, tougher than aluminum and highly resistant to the failures associated with environmental exposure common to the field of battle. Although at its infancy, the synthetic magazine of the 1960s and 70s would cost more to produce than its comparable sheet metal version. As with all new technologies, time and science would solve this problem.

Today, without much need for a supportive example, it is safe to posit that polymer has been established as king of the hill. Most major arms manufacturers today have succumbed to crafting at least a few magazines from polymer. Even the mighty Heckler and Koch, arguably the best sheet metal crafter in the world, now makes polymer rifle and pistol magazines. With that assumption, many pistol magazines are still made from steel. And even Glock, famed for the plastic gun they brought into popular favor, still furnishes a steel magazine, which has been clad in a layer of polymer. Only by very recent advancements in exotic plastics such as flouropolymers have manufacturers been able to produce consistent and reliable pistol-caliber magazines that can compete with the longevity and performance of the best metal bodies.

Failures

Since WWI, the Japanese produced one exquisitely deficient machine gun—mostly faulted for how its ammunition was fed. It was called the Type 11 and had a hopper mechanism that fed 5-round strippers full of ammo into the gun—the same strippers used by the infantry to feed their bolt rifles. Seems like a sound idea, until one learns that the hopper only held six stripper clips (30 rounds—enough for almost 4 seconds of fire). Keeping the Type 11 full of ammo was a full-time job for one man while another man would aim and fire the gun. 

The Italians managed to impress and fail simultaneously. One of the most beautiful WWII weapons is the Breda 30. Today it is regarded as a treasure of the old world and appreciated as a tragic work of art. When one considers its battlefield prowess, the Breda makes the list for not having any. The magazine was hinged to the gun—not detachable at all. The box would pivot forward to facilitate loading with a 20-round charger before the magazine would be rotated back into position. Every time the charger was inserted into the magazine, dirt and debris was also introduced. Particulate and foreign material would build up in the mag to the point of malfunction. The magazine featured an opening to provide a visual indication of remaining ammo supply and another way for dirt to get into the gun. This arcane beauty can barely be considered a machine gun at all. But the mechanism and magazine are unique enough to deserve an honorable mention.

Notable Variations and Exceptions

The basic pattern of the high capacity magazine has been rubber-stamped across the industry: sheet metal or polymer body; coil spring; and plastic anti-tilt follower. Just apply a few dimensional specifics to this basic recipe, and one can provide a magazine for almost every weapon on the planet. Some designs have deviated from this basic approach. Sometimes a bit of extra complexity can solve a real-world problem. The following are a few examples of some magazine designs that have stepped out of line a bit in order to enhance the form and function of the weapons they feed.

Helical Magazines

These are rare but not totally unique to any one weapon platform. A helical magazine arranges and stores ammunition in a spiral around a cylindrical magazine body. Its advantages are easy to qualify; it makes more efficient use of space than a box mag, and it need not protrude from the weapon like a box mag. Instead, it can lay alongside or under the gun. Ammunition capacity is higher in a helical magazine compared to a similarly sized box mag; ammo can occupy the entire length of the mag as there is no spring and follower under the column of ammo. Instead, a torsion spring resides in the space inside the helix of cartridges. The most notable weapon platforms using this type of high capacity magazine are the US-made Calico and the cold-war era Soviet Bison SMG. Several large aircraft cannon in military service utilize a similar ammunition handling mechanism.

FN P90

The magazine of this PDW (personal defensive weapon) lays atop the gun lengthwise. The 50-round box extends from within an inch of the muzzle back to the shooter’s cheek weld where ammunition is fed into this semi-bullpup “gun” (the P90 is neither rifle, nor pistol, nor carbine). The odd factor here is that the ammunition settles horizontally into the magazine and perpendicular to the barrel. As the ammo descends from the mag into the bolt’s path for loading, each cartridge must rotate 90 degrees clockwise as it drops through the feed “turret” of the magazine. Ahead of the follower there are two free-floating rods—the same diameter as the 5.7×29 cartridge but just too large to exit the feed turret. These rods can perform the trick of rounding the corner and forcing all cartridges from the magazine; a trick the follower alone cannot perform. And the ammunition manages to make this trip at such a rate that this gun can maintain a full-auto rate of 900 rounds per minute. This mechanism is constructed entirely of low-friction polymer materials. 

Boberg Arms XR9 (Currently Bond Arms Bullpup)

This small firm created a compact semi-auto pistol with a very special magazine and feeding process. The unique engineering allows the XR9 (Bullpup) to count itself as the smallest semi-auto pistol in the world per given barrel length. The key piece to this puzzle is how the magazine dispenses ammunition—to the rear. That is, ammunition is extracted from the magazine as the slide travels rearward. As the slide is under recoil, the mag presents a cartridge into a position where a pair of arms can grasp the case rim and pull it from the mag. As the slide starts forward, the round is elevated above and over the magazine and into alignment with the barrel. The advantages of this system are clear: the barrel can be longer than other pistols of similar overall size (chamber is above the mag, not ahead of it). Also, the extraction cycle is performed by direct energy generated by the fired round rather than stored energy from a compressed recoil spring. However labored the operating cycle endured by this little pistol, its magazine will surely remain among the most unique. And to make it sound even more unlikely, the magazine has no follower.

The “Beta” 100-Round Double Drum 

Shown here in the original patent description is the Beta 100-round double drum designed by L. James Sullivan of AR-15 and Ultimax 100 fame; how it places the ammunition supply in a tight efficient location at the sides of the rifle.

This magazine can be fitted to a rifle without interfering with any handling or operation required of the user. The only disadvantage to a 100-round magazine of this sort would be its weight when fully loaded.

The ammo supply is distributed equally to each drum and fed to the rifle via the central feed tower.

The Beta mag full of ammunition. Note that at the bottom section the staggered column of ammunition is merged into a single row, thereafter that single column is rejoined with its neighboring column in the feed tower to form a double-stacked, dual-presentation ammunition supply. 

The Beta mag when empty. Note the feed chains in the feed tower. This collection of linked dummy cartridges allows the followers, which are housed only within the drum bodies, to feed ammunition completely through the feed tower. There are two separate feed chains—one connected to each follower, in each drum.

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V22N9 (November 2018)

Only in the last 30 years has the weapon accessory mounting solution become standardized. In decades (and century) past, scope mounts and sling attachment points have been created and crafted by individual gun builders. Many larger manufacturers’ proprietary systems have survived and become mainstream. Some odd or antique mounting configurations continue to plague their owners by limiting or even making scope mount options impossible. Assuredly, there will always be a place in this industry for the rare and obscure. As well, there will surely be increased demand and need for continued refinement and standardization among these systems.

THE APPLICATION

The tactics and strategies on today’s battlefield are always evolving, so too must our weapons evolve to remain viable and advantageous. Our weapons must be universal and adaptable. The user of any weapon is always better served by a specialized system. Every combat soldier has a role, and every combat soldier’s weapon must be ideally configured to serve that role.

Modern weapons may be asked to don any number of peripheral accessories—Optics: scopes, red dots, magnifiers, night-vision or thermal ocular; Illuminators and target indicators: those that project light and aiming dots both within and outside our natural visual spectrum; altimeters, GPS units, range finders, clinometers and ballistic computers; bayonets, bipods and slings attachment points; forward pistol grips, hand-stops and barricade stops; less-lethal launchers and direct impact devices; belt-boxes; flare launchers; grenade launchers; short-barreled or AOW shotguns; and sheathed knives, spare magazine holders, ammo caddies and battery storage. The absurd is not off-limits to the well accessorized rifle of today. Bottle openers, cup holders, name tags, repelling gear and even a chainsaw have all found their way onto the handguard of an AR-15.

OPTIC MOUNTS

Weaver

The Weaver, by record and merit, deserves an honorable mention. It is the genesis for our current, most successful and widely adopted mounting system, the Picatinny. It is difficult to identify the Weaver’s exact birthdate; suffice to say that it’s old. One can find photo evidence of its commercial presence around 1950. Weaver’s firm (and continuing) hold on the market stems from the fact that it is a highly affordable scope mount system that is easily adapted to fit almost every commercially available rifle. It’s as near a universal system as was ever created. The simplicity and foresight in the design suggests true genius by the developer. The system is based on a simple aluminum extrusion with the operative profile being that of a truncated or flattened hexagon. The wide flat on the dorsal plane features cross-slots, or longitudinally bifurcated cylindrical voids that mechanically lock the binding screws in place. The lateral features of the weaver are opposing convex 90-degree shoulders set at a 45-degree aspect to the top plane. The interfacing ring-mounts are expected to grab the rail below its widest section on the flats that recede back toward the weapon. The sixth side would be the contact patch with the weapon itself. This surface is varied in height and contour to place the upper five planes in common alignment with neighboring mount bases. The weaver system was created with the ideal plan that only a few dozen mounts could satisfy any mounting requirement across hundreds of gun and optic combinations. And it does this with surprising perfection. Confer and verify with any man born before 1960 who still hunts with a blued-steel rifle stocked in real wood. He likely has a set of 60-year-old weaver mounts on that rifle.

The design of the weaver rail, as it is intended to interface with the ring-mount, provides a stable and positive mechanical lock. The ring-mount might engage the top surface and the lower part of the opposed 90’s on the sides. Or the ring may only grab firmly onto the upper and lower faces of the 90-degree side rails—or a combination of these conditions. In all cases, the ring-mount cannot slip or fall off the rail; but only if the ring’s binding screw remains tight. Of course, ideal conditions never prevail in the real world. As scopes get larger and heavier, rifles get lighter, and cartridges become impossibly powerful, stresses on optic mounts can exceed the strength of the materials used in their construction. So, there are indeed shortcomings and downfalls to the weaver system. Heavy recoil can overcome friction and cause a weaver ring to shift on the mount. The round cross-slot does not provide a true vertical abutment to resist recoil, so any shifting of a weaver ring in its base can result in vertical displacement as the ring climbs out of the slot. Even a slight shift on the base can cause the scope to lose zero. Worst case, this scenario can result in a split ring or deformed clamp that can no longer maintain a positive mechanical purchase on the rail.

The Weaver system can be manufactured without the need for high precision manufacturing processes. This is the true genius behind the design. Except that nowadays, there are enough variations in ring mounts and “weaver-type” or genuine imitation bases that some combinations are totally non-functional. The proliferation and pirating of the weaver system kills the guarantee of any level of mounting strength or even compatibility or consistency of datum surfaces and dimensions and spacing between locking surfaces and cross-slots. And of great import today, as we demand flexibility and modularity in everything, a weaver-type mount and ring combination is unlikely to maintain zero after being removed and subsequently reattached. This is all unacceptable to the discerning shootist of today. Modern Picatinny mounting solutions all seem to guarantee 100% return-to zero satisfaction. So, our connection to and application for the weaver may have seen its day. This might see the kind of break up that begins and ends with, “Weaver … we love you, but …” There is in fact little need for concern, however. Weaver does in fact now offer a line of “tactical” mounts and bases. The bases are made from steel and profiled to meet M1913 Picatinny rail spec. The ring mounts are massive and overbuilt from 7075 aircraft-grade aluminum. These are not your grand-dad’s weaver mounts. Weaver’s tactical line surpasses expectation. They’re made from supreme materials and manufactured to exacting standards.

Armalite

The AR-10 carry handle was first used as a scope mount around 1959 by the Dutch. The internal contour and structure of the carry handle on the Armalite AR-10 and later the AR-15 were seemingly designed with the forethought that they would perform as a base for optics. The contour where the mount meets the optic includes opposing 45-degree shoulders that serve to consistently align the optic as it is drawn into the wedge formed by the interior angles. The system only requires a single mounting fastener—usually a knurled nut or screw. One advantage to this mount’s design is its integration into an existing feature of the rifle—no intermediary mounts or adapters are required. Thus, it is light, strong and repeatable. And this mount pattern was designed to maintain full utility of the fixed iron-sights on the weapon. The downside to this system is that the shooter cannot make a solid cheek weld—the optic is placed so high above the intended line of sight, an add-on cheek riser must be used to elevate the comb to an operative height. But in doing so, the iron sights cannot be used. Weapon utility is compromised in this condition. To maintain full utility, the rifle can be aimed and fired with the head suspended above the stock comb. But accuracy and shooter comfort (and thus his proficiency) during prolonged use are both equally compromised.

After the AR-10 and AR-15 projects had moved on, the great men of Armalite would eventually produce the AR-18. This was an attempt to broaden the company’s reach and market share by offering a more affordable option to the AR-15. This weapon platform included an optic base that was formed in the shape of a triangular dovetailed wedge, tapering toward the rear. The dovetail was engineered and oriented such that the scope, while mounted, could only shoot tighter onto the dovetail under recoil. The mount uses a spring plunger to keep the mount pressed firmly forward onto the dovetail in case of reverse recoil or incidental rearward pressure. And as a failsafe, the optic mount incorporated a swinging lock that would be actuated by the user’s thumb before the dovetail could be disengaged. The system allowed for one-handed attachment or removal of the optic from the firing position. As excellent a design as it is, the exact pattern has only ever been used on the AR-18 and its commercial variant, the AR-180. It is an excellent and ingenious device that deserves another chance at widespread success. It is the opinion and wish of the man writing this that Armalite should bring this mount back to commercial presence immediately.

The basic idea of the wedge-type mount may be attributable or derived from other sources. Years before the AR-18 existed, the BALVAR scope and mount from Bausch and Lomb relied on a spring plunger to keep the scope wedged into an adjustable base. The presence of a spring plunger used to press the mount into a wedge is present in several European optics mounting systems. SIG used something akin on the STG57 rifle. We see more modern generation of SIG rifles still using a similar mounting system—with a spring plunger forcing the scope base onto a triangular dovetail wedge (although quite small in comparison to the Armalite). Some mounts for the SIG system feature a mechanically arrested plunger to provide a more positive lock than spring pressure alone.

Warsaw Pact Rail

The Warsaw Pact Rail is commonly encountered on AK variants and other small arms of Eastern-European or Soviet origin like the PSL, SVD, VSS, etc. (post-1950). This rail base is a horizontal dovetail riveted to the side of the rifle; opposite the ejection port. This configuration lends well to the basic design of the AK—the sheet-metal receiver top cover is not solidly affixed to the receiver (some top covers do exist that incorporate a scope base but tend to lose zero every time the cover is removed). The scope mount clamps and locks onto this rail while a simple pin provides a positive stop against the rearmost face of the rail. This hard stop combined with friction generated by the clamping mechanism is generally sufficient to resist recoil. The mount has been proven to be imminently reliable in strength and tends to “return-to-zero” after removal. There are mounting adapters for the Warsaw Pact Rail that provide Picatinny rails, STANAG rails and even direct ring-mounts. The only demonstrable flaw to this system is its bulk and location. Some mounts of this pattern can increase a rifle’s width by almost an inch. The only imaginable failure would be attributed to the height of the mounting adapter. The optical device may be up to 3 inches away from the base rail. This extra-tall structure can compound the moment load on the mount. Perhaps not a demonstrable concern, but the possibility can give pause to the average “western” shooter who is used to a low-set scope mount right atop of his rifle.

Picatinny

The “Pic rail” is obviously based on the old weaver base, but with a more comprehensive, precise and robust structure. The rail’s profile and relative proportions have been refined to provide a predictable and consistent surface for any nominally crafted accessory designed to interface with the system. The Picatinny is correctly named M1913—the MIL-STD-1913 criteria defining the new mount was adopted and published February 3, 1995, by the DOD. Later, it was adopted into the NATO standards of agreement as STANAG 2324. It is presumed that the development and standardization of the mount were in response to the need identified in the first Gulf War (if not all other recent previous military actions). As warfare evolved away from a daylight-only venture on a directional battlefield, our soldiers needed their rifles to exercise some optical versatility. The battle rifle would have to become capable of operating with iron sights, red-dots, short-range and long-range telescopic sights and even dedicated night and thermal vision scopes—and of switching between them routinely. The Picatinny was the answer, and continues to be the answer, to the multi-role universal weapon system. Beyond universal adaptability, the Picatinny ensures near-perfect return-to-zero for optics after removal.

NAR

The “NATO Accessory Rail” is best explained as a redefined Picatinny rail. The new standard institutes a revision in the overall tolerance and operative datum points in an attempt to improve consistency and strength of the accessories meant to interface with the rail. The older Picatinny defined the four outer faces along the edges as the critical interface. The NAR calls out the relation between the top flat and two lower angles as the critical data points. The new definition ensures that the mounting devices made to this new spec make solid contact on those three datum planes. It has been insisted that this system will eventually allow for power and data transfer between the weapon and the accessories and peripherals. This ideal is expected to lead to the integration of smart systems into the battle rifle. Battlefield communication, navigation, onboard logistics and even a soldier’s vital stats are expected to become centralized in the rifle of the future.

STANAG

This is an acronym for “standardization agreement” among NATO nations. There are thousands of STANAGs in place to ensure that we and our allies are operating by consistent procedures and with compatible equipment. For example, the implementation of STANAG 4172 made 5.56 NATO a standard among NATO nations. The STANAG 4179 standardized the magazine pattern among 5.56 NATO chambered small arms. STANAG 2324 defines the universal adoption of the MIL-STD-1913 rail as the optic mount for small arms. Despite all the specifics and code-speak, there is one mount configuration that has become known simply as the STANAG. You’ll be hard-pressed to define it by more specific terms.

This mount pattern consists of a pair of square pockets at each end of the base. These square recesses interlock with lugs that protrude from the optic—usually these lugs are cast into or machined directly into the body of the optical device. Mounting relies on a pair of large screws to fasten the optic to the mount base. Return-to-zero after removal is nominal at best, but the system proved reliable enough to become the most widely used standardized mount system in Europe before the M1913 Picatinny came into favor. The STANAG mount pattern was a standard kit on numerous commercial and military arms from last century. Variants of the FAL, FN49, MAS, Swiss K31, SIG SG-510 and most HK rifles have been originally made, or can be fitted, with aftermarket STANAG-patterned scope mounts. The STANAG mount held enough market shares, as did the optics designed to interface with it, that one can still easily procure any array of adapters to convert a Picatinny-equipped rifle to accept a STANAG optic or convert a STANAG -based rifle to accept adapters for Picatinny style optics.

ACCESSORY MOUNTS

It seems unlikely that the Picatinny could ever be replaced as the prevailing standard as the optics mount for the small-arm. It has experienced continued success as an accessory mounting platform on the battle rifle; its presence may have spawned the booming accessory market as it is today. But there is a great need by both the consumer and professional markets to accessorize and expand a rifle’s capabilities. The obvious place to affix this burden was the handguard. These handguards were typically aluminum and exhibited four lengths of M1913 Picatinny rail at the top, bottom and sides (hence, quad). From the mid-‘90s every premium and professional grade AR-15 was expected to include a “quad” rail as standard kit. Some RIS (rail interface system) handguards are strong enough to serve as a mounting point for other weapons. There are indeed 12-gauge shotguns and grenade launchers designed to grab directly onto a Picatinny handguard. This solves some of the difficulty of removing the lower half of the handguard to expose the barrel for launcher mounting. This capability also allowed launcher mounting on barrels that might lack the specific provisions for direct launcher attachment. Picatinny rails were soon found on upper receivers, buttstocks, magazine pouches and even the sides of scopes and the tops of scope rings. A shooter could accessorize his rifle to a point of nausea. However, the high-profile, obtrusive shape and inherent weight of the pic left much room for refinement. It was soon realized that it was impossible to utilize the total 39 inches of rail afforded by the average rifle length quad handguard. The average shooter might only utilize 2 to 4 inches of rail, to attach one to three peripheral items.

Around 2009-2011, we saw a growing trend in “quad” handguards. They began losing the bottom and side rails—only the top rail section would remain. The rest of the handguard would present with a regular pattern of tapped holes or pockets arrayed around an otherwise smooth handguard. The user was free to attach small sections of pic rail where he needed them. So, the RIS, as it was originally created in the “quad” pattern would soon need to evolve. Many brands released their own modular handguard system, and some still survive as proprietary offerings with a fair fan base. There are two clear heavyweights in terms of accessory mounting systems. VLTOR Weapon Systems gave us the KeyMod, and shortly after, Magpul Industries presented the world with the M-LOK. After exhaustive R&D and the associated cost, these companies made their new standardized patterns public domain. Any manufacturer of weapon accessories could reproduce the mount and the interfacing accessories.

KeyMod

The VLTOR Weapon Systems KeyMod system was the first new modular mounting pattern to become standardized since the M1913 Picatinny. And for many years, it was the best if not the only option to the “quad” handguard. The design is complex as it demands a level of precision in the manufacture of the handguard and accessory mounts. The “key” as it is described, comes from the shape of the pocket. The widest portion is a 3/8-inch round hole, with a narrow pocket extending from one side. The narrow section is relieved on the back (or inside of the handguard). A contoured “nut” passes through the wide portion, and then becomes mechanically locked behind the shoulders of the narrow section. The accessory mount features a fixed cylindrical lug on the back face that locks into the large cutout behind the nut, thus preventing it from slipping out the way it entered the pocket. If the binding screws remain tight in the nut, the mounting arrangement will stay put. The only limitation one might point out is the thin web of material between each keyhole. In destructive testing, this narrow web is regularly where material failure initiates.

M-LOK

The M-LOK pattern calls for a small T-shaped recess in the handguard—narrow cut facing outward while the head of the “T” is cut on the back, or inside surface. Lateral locking is achieved by a fixed stud set between two T-nuts. The stud and one T-nut essentially match up to each end of a short pocket (each pocket is 1.26 inches long), while the other T-nut straddles the web between the pockets (.315 inch). Each T-nut is engaged by a screw—accessible from the outside of the accessory adapter. Upon tightening the screw, the T-nut swings 90 degrees until the head of the T comes into full mechanical interference with the back side of the slot. The nature of this design transfers load forces to the steel locking screws and appeals directly to the strength of the material used in the handguard’s construction.

These two systems provide the same service—modular accessory mounting on a rifle’s handguard. Some have wondered, and others argued, about which is superior. Pullout and shear strength of the M-LOK have been tested and proven to be superior in strength to the KeyMod—up to three times stronger under abusive testing. Some M-LOK pattern handguards have been tested to resist 1,400 pounds before mount failure. KeyMod can be expected to fail near 400 pounds. Also, M-LOK’s return-to-zero after removal is up to 50% better than KeyMod. That said, most accessory mounting bases are short Picatinny rail sections fastened onto the handguard, and accessories are mounted to those rail sections. It is safe to assume that under actual use, only the accessory would be removed from the Picatinny section; the Picatinny’s return-to-zero is largely dependent on the clamp or mount chosen. It is worth noting here, that direct-connect accessories do exist for each pattern. These accessories are largely limited to flashlight mounts, forward grips and sling attachment points.

And as far as abusive testing to the point of material failure, by all intents and purposes, nobody who has bought a rifle with their own hard-earned cash should ever be expected to subject their rifle to that kind of use. As these patterns are indeed open-source, any company may produce the handguards as well as the accessory mounts for them. The patterns are well defined, but there is no guarantee as to material quality or dimensional tolerances used in their construction. Once again as we see the proliferation of a market we will also see knock-offs and clones and the diminished quality that comes with them. Any of these handguards would be more likely to fail under normal use due to material and manufacturing faults than failure directly attributed to the mounting pattern you’ve chosen. Quality never disappoints. The comparison test in reference above was performed by USSOCOM, and results were published in May 2017. The test is exhaustive and conclusive; it’s worth a quick study. The numbers demonstrate fact, but real-world application and consumer acceptance will decide the fate or coexistence of these two mounting patterns.

There will always be room and opportunity to improve on any current system. It might seem unlikely that we’ll see any major shift from our current systems considering our current state of refinement and the level to which the world has become vested in the Picatinny-type rail. The NAR might just be the last chapter in this treatise.

This may be the first piece of armor that every man can put to good use. We all don’t find ourselves in the path of incoming gunfire or breaching buildings in search of terrorists or hostage-takers, but may indeed find ourselves putting our bodies at imminent risk of damage, or at least discomfort. Motorsports, team sports, or some careers may ask that we take a bump here or there. Imagine the level of protection that comes from a “cup” made of ballistic material- capable of stopping a bullet. Yes, NUTSHELLZ makes a bulletproof cup. They were initially developed for the armed professional (police, SWAT), but have also found favor with athletes and soldiers. The NUTSHELLZ cup is more pliable and ergonomic than the typical unit found in a sporting goods store. This cup features a ventilated rubber rim. An added benefit to donning the NUTSHELLZ is the tremendous confidence that comes from knowing that your important bits have never been safer. This elevated confidence level has been shown to improve performance on the job and on the field by reducing an individual’s inhibition and restraint in a physically demanding scenario. NUTSHELLZ are available in level 1 (Kevlar) and level 2 (Spectra) ballistic protection. Injuries to the genital region of the body and complications thereof can be very severe, and the ill effects of injury can be life-long. NUTSHELLZ offers the best protection. And yes, live-fire demonstrations have been conducted on human test subjects. SAR does not recommend live fire testing of this product.

NUTSHELLZ. www.armorednutshellz.com

One must not underestimate the importance of practice when it comes to the carry and potential use of a firearm. Simply having a gun does not fix all your problems. If and when your sidearm is called on to protect against someone intent on doing you harm, that sidearm must be an effective and instinctive tool in the hand.

Umarex aims to make you better and more effective with your pistol of choice. In fact, Umarex currently offers almost 60 “stunt doubles” to match your current handgun lineup. There are BB and pellet variants. There are blowback and non-blowback variants to many of the offerings. SAR really does suggest browsing the Umarex website to see the available product line. It’s impressive. It’s comprehensive. The idea is that you can buy a very inexpensive (from about $50 on up to $250) clone of your favorite sidearm, that shoots BBs. Yes, we speak of air guns. They’re not just for kids anymore. These are detailed operational replicas of full-power centerfire and rimfire pistols. These BB guns can be utilized for target practice and handling familiarization and drill practice without the expense and restriction of shooting a firearm. No trip to the range is necessary. These can be put to use in the basement or garage, provided an appropriate “trap” to collect the BBs. Sure eye protection is still recommended, but imagine the advantages and sense of security that comes from becoming really handy with your carry piece.

SAR was provided with the Umarex analog to the Walther PPS. The PPS is a player in the budding field of slim carry pistols. It’s less than 1” in width, as all the controls are blended into the outside contours of the pistol. There are no snags and no protrusions. It’s a proper compact pistol that makes for excellent concealability. The slide and frame contour is totally melted down to remove every corner. The grip does manage to maintain a full hand placement (no loose pinkie) while offering a minimal print signature under clothing. It’s a fantastic carry piece. The Umarex CO2 powered clone matches the Walther PPS on all counts. The only shortcoming was a 2 ounce disparity to the total weight. That’s easy enough to overlook. The Umarex with a fresh CO2 bottle is only peanuts off the weight of the PPS with an empty mag. This minor detail is easily forgotten.

The operation of the Umarex PPS is very close to the real thing. The 18 round magazine loads from the bottom of the grip. The slide reciprocates and delivers a satisfying kick when fired. The slide release is totally functional as in the real firearm. The trigger pull is smooth and accuracy was actually better that with our own 9mm PPS. Steel 3-dot sights and a functional accessory rail for flashlight use make this a dead-ringer for the real thing. Even the modular grip panels are present- only in the CO2 gun, the grip insert conceals an integral hex key for activating a CO2 bottle. And for added realism we actually experienced two “jams” during a 500 BB play date with the Umarex. The slide became stuck rearward and forced user intervention to correct the failure to get the gun back into play. Good for Umarex. We prefer and expect that this practice analog deliver a realistic experience to validate it as a trainer. There could not be a better way to practice and become proficient with a pistol.

Umarex USA. 7700 Chad Colley Blvd. Fort Smith, AR 72916. https://www.umarexusa.com