Such items have existed as long as there have been firearms, and, in truth, scale weapons have existed much longer. “There were skilled craftsmen making miniature weapons including cross bows, siege engines and, of course, even suits of armor,” said Wayne Driskill of Wayne Driskill Miniature Firearms (waynedriskillminiatures.com), one of the premier dealers of scale weapons. “I like to say that as soon as someone used the jawbone of an ass as a weapon someone else stepped up and used a jawbone from a baby ass for his son.” 

Driskill added that many of the scale models of larger items such as the siege engines and similar weapons were engineering models, but since the late Middle Ages and Renaissance, these served another purpose—namely, “salesman samples.” In some cases, this was a way for journeymen artisans to show off their skills; it was easier for a tradesman to carry scale replicas of actual weapons. 

In more recent times these have simply been a way for individuals to show off their skills. In this regard it is akin to model builders, but instead of putting together a kit, those who make scale weapons build everything from scratch. One irony is that while today’s modern world has allowed for all sorts of advancements in 3D printing, laser cutting and computer-aided design (CAD), the art of making scale firearms is a dying one. Perhaps that is because it is, in fact, an art form as few are learning the trade. 

“We’re the last of a dying breed,” admitted Zavie Kucer, who grew up making scale replicas of firearms. It was a skill he learned from his father David Kucer, who is now legendary amongst collectors worldwide and who has been working on the scale replicas for nearly 60 years (kucers.com). 

David Kucer grew up as a self-described “immigrant kid” in Montreal, and during a trip to visit his grandparents in New York City he took in the world of miniatures. The elder Kucer became intrigued with miniatures, while his interest in firearms came from his time in the military. 

“His job in the Canadian Army was to repair firearms,” said Zavie. “When he got out of the military he started to tinker with making miniature guns. His father had a metal shop, which offered the right tools to make these replicas. So he trained as a gunsmith and worked on everything from small arms to 25 pounders, and combined with his skills with tool and dies it just came together.” 

Fully Functional 

What sets the world of miniature firearms apart from so many other scale replicas is that these pieces are fully functional. In the Victorian Era, craftsmen produced the scale versions not only as the aforementioned samples to sell actual firearms but as a collectible to those with means. These included pinfire guns that were novelty guns that could fire blanks or even live miniature ammunition. 

One of the leading makers of these has been Bob Urso of Washington (boburso.com) who said he likes to think that he fills a middle ground for collectors. “I fill that niche between the inexpensive and the very expensive miniatures,” added Bob Urso. “With my guns I capture the look of the gun, and that includes duplicating the grips where I can. However, the action is greatly simplified compared to what others like Zavie Kucer does. I like to say they make a ‘true miniature’ while mine are simplified, but you can shoot the 2mm round.” 

While some of these are detailed and intricate, there is a word that shouldn’t be used to describe them, however: cute. “Cute is for puppies, and these pinfire guns are absolutely still dangerous,” explained Wayne Driskill, who has, since 2009, been the president of the Miniature Arms Collectors & Makers Society, a group that was founded in 1973. “Some will shoot, and some can kill you just the same as a full-sized gun.” 

However, most of the miniatures were not made as weapons, and that is true of the scale firearms made by the Kucers. “Our guns could shoot in theory, but in practice not really,” explained Zavie. “We don’t even make the ammunition, so these do go ‘click, click’ when you pull the trigger, but they don’t go ‘boom.’ But it is still a weapon and could be dangerous if used incorrectly.” 

This includes the scale machine guns, some of which have been built to function. This includes a miniature of the British STEN MkII, which was reportedly made by Leon Crottet of Switzerland, and is capable of full-auto fire. Due to the fact that they use custom-made miniature cartridges, these miniatures are reportedly not subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA) regulations of their full-size counterparts, but it wouldn’t be out of the question that these could raise the attention of law enforcement if used irresponsibly! 

True Americana 

While scale replicas of firearms have been made for centuries, there are plenty of vintage wheel lock and flintlock miniatures in collections. For the Kucers the sweet spot has been in the American small arms of the 19th century. The focus for the father/son duo has been those guns made from 1840 to 1890 and included cap and ball pistols and Winchester repeating rifles. That said, the Kucers have worked on 20th-century firearms as well, with the Colt 1911 being another favorite. “Among the favorite guns I’ve made include a Smith & Wesson Victory Model, which is one the Canadian soldiers used,” said David Kucer. “I also worked on a Smith & Wesson lever action pistol known as the Volcanic. That was an interesting project.” 

The Kucers also explained that they’ve relied on a time-tested method for making miniatures—one that has gone back to the days of these being salesman samples. That involves having a real one, copying each part in scale and producing an exact copy in miniature. This is why, despite the fact that they don’t produce ammunition, the firearms are otherwise fully functional in every other respect. “My dad’s approach was always to have an original, take it apart and copy each piece,” said Zavie. “More importantly this also involved using the same materials and the same method of manufacture. To replicate the guns in such detail requires this level of examination of the firearm. Drawings and even diagrams aren’t good enough.” 

As a result there is a lot of hand finishing involved that couldn’t be accurately represented in a drawing. “We always have to have the original,” added Zavie. “This allows us to make an exact copy of everything including the screws, the springs but also the bluing and the tempering.” When the Kucers produced a Colt 1849 revolver, it featured brass and silver plating, along with a stage coach scene engraved on the gun just like the original.

However, there have been a few guns that haven’t been made due to the complexities of the original. “There was one I really wanted to do,” said David Kucer. “It was a Colt Lightning Rifle, but it was too complicated and too big for our equipment.”

The scale of the weapons varies, but popular today with collectors are those that are in the one-third and one-fourth scale. Obviously the larger the scale, the more detail collectors can appreciate, but part of the appeal is in how small one can go. “It becomes increasingly difficult to make a functional firearm when you go smaller,” said Wayne Driskill. “When you get the cylinder working on these really small guns, it is like working on a watch. You’re talking tens of a thousand of an inch in precision. But it can be impressive to see something like the Colt Navy Revolvers in 1/12 scale, which is smaller than G.I. Joe but is still functional. That is doll house size!”

Modern Copies

The Kucers are part of a dying breed, made worse by the fact that the only production-made miniatures were produced by the now-defunct MiniArt in Russia and by Aldo Uberti, Srl—the latter being the Italian maker of full-sized historic firearms (ubertireplicas.com). 

The mass-produced guns by Uberti can be a good entry point for the new collector, at least compared to a similar handmade gun from Kucer and others. In comparison, a Kucer-made example could be near to $5,000 while a similar Uberti version might be several hundred dollars to $1,000 on the high end. However, some would argue the craftsmanship is a world apart. Then there is the new wave of low-end diecast versions that have come out of China. These are still a step up from toys but lack the overall detail of the handmade miniatures. 

“From my perspective there is no comparison,” said Zavie Kucer. “My father and I make 10 to 12 pieces a year, and our prices mean we’re in a completely different demographic of collectors. What I’ve seen is that new collectors start low and get comfortable in the field and move up. That is true of real firearms, and that is true of miniatures.”

Bob Urso added that he used to produce about 30 a year, but has slowed down in recent years. “I’m 76, and I’m retired,” he added. “This is a labor of love for me. Plus there are some very good makers in the Ukraine and Russia that are producing what I used to.”

This is why the diecast versions will never appeal to the serious collectors, as there are now lower cost, high quality alternatives. While the diecast versions might be worthy of decorating a desk at the office, they aren’t the sort of things that are meant to be on display and likely won’t appreciate over time the way these quality scale miniatures could. In fact, because there are so few being made for collectors it is now like buying real vintage firearms. 

“I’m not really getting any ‘new stuff,’” said Wayne Driskill. “What I’m now dealing in is recycling the stuff that was first sold 25 or more years ago. And just like old art, sometimes it can be a factor of 25 to 50 times more depending on who made it. Certain artists who made these guns back in the day bring more money than the unknowns.”

And that is where, again, it is easy to see the connection to works of art. Not just in the craftsmanship but in terms of how the good “stuff” will only appreciate over time. 

At the English Easter Maneuvers of 1891, the 26th Middlesex Cyclist Regiment demonstrated what is believed to be the first use of a machine gun fired by a cycle carriage. Military planners were impressed by the display, but there proved to be a rather significant issue with this concept: two bicycles mounted side-by-side with a platform for the Maxim gun in between. It simply weighed too much. At 96 pounds the bicycles of the era, with solid rubber tires and lacking the gears of today’s carbon fiber mountain bikes, were simply unable to pull the weight of the gun up even a slight incline. Two riders, even on level ground, would struggle to manage more than a few miles an hour. British designers tried to improve upon the design, and one concept included additional bikes that could aid by towing the twin-bike platform.

The Origin of Military Bicycles

Anyone who has visited parts of Europe, notably France, Italy and the Netherlands, can attest that these people love their bicycles. Bicycle racing is one of the most popular sports in Europe, following only football (soccer) in overall popularity. For many Europeans cycling is part of daily life as people commute to work, get to the store and when possible, get away from it all.

It is therefore not surprising that the bi-cycle also has a long and colorful history that includes service in various armies in Europe, and for that matter the world.

However, just as no one person, or persons, can lay claim to actually inventing the automobile, the same holds true for the bicycle. The first person generally credited with building a two-wheel device that would be the forerunner of the modern bicycle was German Baron Karl Von Drais, who in 1817 devised an in-line contraption that was propelled by the rider’s feet. This horse substitute, which was aimed at the well-to-do, didn’t catch on, however.

Other inventors and tinkerers attempted to create a human-driven machine, but it actually wasn’t until the 1860s that Frenchmen Pierre Michaux and Pierre Lallement introduced a pedal-driven system that would propel bicycle technology and subsequently the riders forward. While these early bicycles were actually awkward to ride, military planners saw a potential, and bicycles were employed by French scouts and dispatch riders during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871.

Just as technological advances were being made in the development of automatic weapons in the 1880s so too did the bicycle see significant innovation. English inventor John Kemp Starley built on this development and produced the world’s first successful “safety bicycle,” which was dubbed the “Rover.”

Released in 1885, its design would be recognizable even today. It featured equally sized front and back wheels, with the front being steerable and a chain drive to the rear wheel. Throughout Europe military planners saw a potential for scouts, but also for a new type of mobile infantry.

Across the Atlantic, a handful of American National Guard regiments experimented with bicycles. The First Signal Corps of the Connecticut National Guard formed the first military bicycle unit in 1891, when the bicycle was used by messengers and relay riders. Various challenges ensued including one that had a Connecticut National Guard cyclist prove he alone could deliver a message faster than an entire flag signaler team, while a relay team carried a single dispatch from Chicago to New York City in just four days and 13 hours, with much of it in rainy weather. A follow-up challenge brought a message from Washington, D.C. to Denver in just over six days!

The Bicycle and the Machine Gun Come Together

Military planners proved that the bicycle could be used to deliver messages, but the bicycle also found use for portable topographers and even telegraphers. In one case, a rider used his bike to study the grade of hills and other terrain to help commanders in the field determine if the land was traversable with cannons and wagons.

In the 1890s, multiple nations conducted field tests that included adding a sidecar mounted with early machine guns as well as side-mounted rifles that could be fired from the handlebars. During the Second Anglo-Boer War in South Africa, which began in 1899, the bicycle first had its baptism of fire when it was used by messengers, was adapted into portable stretch-ers and even used as a part of a specially devised two-man cycle to patrol the railroads. In the latter case about 20 were built for patrol work, however, none is believed to survive today.

One of the most notable concepts was produced just after the war ended, when the English company of Vickers & Sons & Maxim created a large, two-man tricycle that featured a platform for a pair of machine guns. More correctly a “tri-cycle” than “bicycle,” it featured three wheels and was designed to carry 1,000 cartridges along with two Vickers machine guns.

This system allowed the two rear-facing guns to set up and fire simultaneously within mere minutes. However, the total weight was more than 375 pounds not including the riders! As with the earlier British design this meant it was almost impossible to pedal up a slope and instead had to be pushed. By removing one of the guns, tripod and ammunition, the tricycle’s weight was reduced to a far more manageable 126 pounds. The tests proved that the bicycle, at least in concept, could be used as a weapon’s platform.

The relative “success” of the bicycle caught the eye of American Albert Pope, who offered his own design which featured a Colt M1895 “potato digger” machine gun affixed to the front of the frame. It was of course impossible to fire while riding, and the weight of the gun seriously impacted the balance.

End of the Line

While designers continued to tinker with the designs, what truly resulted in the end of the line for the bicycle and machine gun were the trenches of the First World War. By that time the bicycle was employed by armies on both sides to help troops to get to the front line, but as the war bogged down into the hellish nightmare of trench warfare the two-wheel machines were relegated to rear echelon duty. Cycles were used to some degree by sharpshooters in less static areas as well as by scouts and, of course, dispatch riders.

A generation after the trench warfare of the First World War, the outbreak of war in Europe and Asia put the cycle back in the field. The German Army, even during its rapidly moving blitzkrieg, still relied on horse-drawn carriages to transport men and equipment, and bicycles also played a part.

Wartime shortages throughout World War II also resulted in many nations utilizing the bicycle to save on fuel. During the invasion of Malaysia, there were thousands of Japanese soldiers rolling towards Singapore on bicycles. As rubber was in short supply, it is reported that Japanese soldiers learned to ride on the rims when the tires went flat and couldn’t be repaired.

Ironically, the nation that is most associated with military bikes is one that stayed neutral throughout both world wars, Switzerland. That nation’s Bicycle Infantry was introduced in 1905 and only phased out in 2001; for nearly 100 years the bikes that the mountain nation used were known for their high quality and equally high durability. While Switzerland experimented with mounting machine guns on bikes over the years, like most other nations it found that the bicycle was best used as a tool for infantry.

In the end it was the introduction of motorized vehicles that signaled the end of the line for the bicycle and the machine gun.

The Second World War was one of great technological advances. It was first war to see the use of jet aircraft and radar in combat, and it was fortunately the only time the atomic bomb was actually used as a weapon against an enemy city. One area that saw the most progress was small arms development—at the start of the War, many of the infantry weapons could rightfully be described as “antiquated.”

Almost all of the major combatant powers were using bolt-action rifles that were little improved from those used during World War I. Only the French Army seemed to be best prepared for another conflict; its Army developed a shorter bolt-action rifle, the MAS-36, a weapon designed with trench warfare in mind. Yet the German blitzkrieg ensured a quick victory, and as a result, the French small arm proved completely inadequate for this new type of fast moving warfare. 

All of the soon-to-be combatant armies sought to develop weapons that could provide offensive mobility. The Germans developed the first general purpose machine gun with its MG-34, while also making advances with submachine guns in the late 1930s. The Soviet Red Army, which was modernizing and undergoing post-purge reforms, learned valuable lessons in the brutal Winter War against Finland. 

In the post-World War I era, the U.S. military had an arsenal of reliable weapons including the Browning M1919 .30 caliber machine gun and the Thompson M1928A1. But where the U.S. ingenuity proved forward thinking was in the development of a semiautomatic main battle rifle. 

The Europeans may have created various automatic weapons, but the fact remained that when the War broke out, most of the soldiers of Europe were still carrying bolt-action rifles that had been developed two generations earlier. By contrast, when the United States entered the War it went into action with the M1 Garand, which General George S. Patton described as “the greatest battle implement ever devised.” 

Enter the Garand 

Whether it was the greatest battle implement is a matter of debate. However, the rifle gave U.S. GIs a serious advantage on the battlefields across Europe and the Pacific. Some 5.5 million M1 Garands were manufactured, offering a higher rate of fire over the bolt-action rifles used by the enemy, while also utilizing a larger caliber cartridge than the submachine guns of the era. 

The origins of the M1 went back to the First World War, when American military planners had seen that bolt-action rifles weren’t providing enough offensive firepower. This lead to the development of the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) and even the Thompson submachine gun, but it was clear that there needed to be a replacement to the standard infantry rifle. 

During World War I there were attempts to improve the rate of fire with bolt-action rifles, and one of these included a unique design from John Douglas Pedersen. Aptly named the “Pedersen Device,” it was actually just an at enabled the rifle to fire a .30 caliber pistol cartridge in a semiautomatic mode. It didn’t have any impact on World War I, but it did inspire the U.S. military to consider the need for a new semiautomatic rifle. Numerous firearms designers lent their talent towards the development of such a weapon. 

One competitor to the M1 Garand was Melvin Johnson’s M1941 Johnson Rifle, which unlike the designs by Pedersen and Thompson, actually saw some use in World War II. Some 70,000 were produced—making it a rare and desirable rifle for WWII small arms collectors. The Johnson Rifle utilized energy from recoil along with a rotating bolt—a revolutionary design, which had less recoil than the M1, as well as a greater magazine capacity. In the end, however, the Garand design won out, which itself was no small feat.

The M1 Garand was not perfect out of the gate, and it actually took the Canadian-born John C. Garand nearly 15 years to perfect the weapon. It featured an operating system similar to the Johnson design that included its gas-operated, rotating bolt. The M1 Garand could fire 40-50 rounds a minute, which was a considerable step up from most bolt-action rifles of the era. It also featured a rear adjustable aperture sight and front wing protected post, and most importantly, the rifle was designed to fire the .30-06 Springfield cartridge. That was same cartridge used with the M1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle, the BAR and the .30 caliber Browning machine gun. 

The Soviet’s SVT-40 

With its iconic PPSh-41 submachine gun— not to mention T-34 tank—it is somewhat understandable that a largely forgotten piece of Soviet equipment is the SVT-40, the Red Army’s first large scale attempt at a semiautomatic rifle. One reason it was widely forgotten is that despite the advantages the weapon offered, by War’s end it was largely withdrawn from service, yet it remains an important part of Soviet small arms design legacy. The Samozaryadnaya Vintovka Tokareva (“Tokarev self-loading rifle, Model 1940”), or SVT-40, has often been mislabeled as the “Soviet’s take on the M1 Garand” by gun collectors. But this isn’t close to accurate in no small part due to the fact that gun designer Fedor Tokarev had been working on his design essentially at the same time that Garand was refining his semiautomatic rifle. 

There were big differences in how each of the weapons was developed. One key difference is that in a democracy, multiple designers were competing for a contract, while in the Soviet Union fear of a one-way trip to the gulag, or worse, a bullet in the head, were often the greater motivators! Moreover, John Garand spent 15 years developing the rifle bearing his name—his only real claim to fame—Tokarev was an established gun designer who created the TT-30 and TT-33 self-loading (semiautomatic) pistols. 

Tokarev also developed a submachine gun prototype, but in the 1930s turned his attention back to a semiautomatic rifle. The first version entered service in 1938 as the SVT-38, which fired the same 7.62x54mmR cartridge as the Mosin-Nagant. It featured a gas-operated action along with a gas cylinder cup. By Soviet standards it was a complex weapon, and when it was used in the Winter War with Finland (1939-1940), it wasn’t well received by the Red Army. Soldiers reported that the gun was too long, difficult to maintain, and worst of all, it had a removable box magazine that had a tendency to fall out at inopportune times. The SVT-38 was also not well-suited to the Soviet’s corrosively primed ammunition, and it required near constant cleaning—something the Mosin-Nagant rarely required. Due to the shortcomings, production of the SVT-38 ceased by summer 1940, and only some 150,000 units were produced. 

Such a failure could have earned Tokarev that trip to Siberia (or worse), but Josef Stalin’s purges of the Soviet Red Army had taken their toll. The country was unprepared for the coming war with Germany; Tokarev was given another chance, and he immediately refined his semiautomatic design and designated the new weapon as SVT-40. It was lighter, less cumbersome and, more importantly for a nation that faced a massive onslaught, it was much simpler to produce.

Original plans were to replace the Model 1891/1930 Mosin-Nagant with the semiautomatic rifle, with upwards of one third of all soldiers being supplied with the SVT-40 within just a couple years. The German invasion in June 1941 derailed those plans, and worst of all, hundreds of thousands of the SVT-40s were captured. By winter, the Soviets were fighting for dear life. As a result, the Soviet military stuck with the Mosin-Nagant, as it was easier to produce, but the close combat firepower of the PPSh-41 was also recognized. The nation was under siege, and it was impossible to keep up production of all three weapons. While about a million SVT-40s had been produced by late 1941, the number actually declined as the War continued. By the end of the “Great Patriotic War”—as the Soviets dubbed World War II—only some 1.6 million SVT-40s were produced. 

The semiautomatic rifle that Tokarev had worked so hard to develop and refine thus had far less impact on the War than the American M1 Garand. However, its design was noted by the Germans. 

The German Gewehr 43 

During the 1930s, the German military had 

rearmed, which led to the adoption of the new MG-34 general purpose machine gun, and later the MP-38/40, the iconic and erroneously named “Schmeisser” submachine gun, but even in 1941 with the invasion of the Soviet Union, the German military was still largely equipped with the Kar 98k bolt-action rifle. 

In 1941 the German military sought to develop a semiautomatic rifle, and two different firms—Mauser and Walther—were charged with its development. Nearly 13,000 Mauser patterns were produced, but neither it nor the Walther design proved reliable enough or did not meet the military’s demands. Instead, the designers looked to captured stocks of the Soviet SVT-40 and noted the simple gas mechanism.

The resulting Gewehr 43, or G43 as it has become known, has been dubbed the “German M1Garand” by firearms enthusiasts. However, the G43 has nothing in common with the M1 Garand. It would be fairer to suggest it was the German take on the SVT-40’s action while taking elements from the Mauser-developed G41(W). The gun was accepted and entered service originally as the Gewehr 43 in October 1943. However, due to the fact that the main bolt-action rifle was officially a “Karabiner” (carbine), and Gewehr meant “long rifle,” in 1944 the weapon was re-designated the Karabiner (K43). The two are identical in every way apart from the letters stamped on the side. Even today among collectors the rifle is generally known as the G43, while some published sources use the K43 nomenclature. 

German military doctrine was to provide each infantry company with 19 G43s, including 10 that would be fitted with scopes for marksmen. However, as the War effort turned against the Germans, this goal was never achieved. 

Lock and Load

While all three rifles saw use during the Second World War, as noted, the M1 Garand has largely gone down as a major success—notably when compared to the Soviet’s SVT-40, which didn’t perform up to expectations. The German G43 also came up short compared to the M1 Garand.

Moreover, it should be remembered that all three rifles were ideal for the combat requirements of World War II, but all three were obsolete by the early 1950s. The M1 Garand saw use in the Korean War (1950-1953) and remained in service until 1959. While ahead of its time in the 1930s, it had a few notable shortcomings. One of the unique features of the M1 was its “en bloc” clip, which held eight rounds. This allowed for quick reloading of the rifle, where the clip was inserted with a push by the thumb, but one major downside was that if done incorrectly, the bolt could slam on the operator’s thumb, resulting in the all-too-common “M1 thumb!” It also couldn’t be “topped off” with extra bullets. 

By contrast, both the SVT-40 and G43 featured 10-round detachable magazines. This allowed for reloading by changing the magazine or by feeding five-round stripper clips. The M1 Garand had a significant advantage in offering higher capacity compared to the German’s Kar 98k, but this advantage was lost on those times when the Garand went up against the G43. 

Of the three rifles, the G43 is the heaviest, but each comes in under 10 pounds. The SVT-40, at 48.3 inches, is the longest, and it’s just slightly shorter than the Model 91/30 Mosin-Nagant (itself a shortened version of the original M91 Mosin-Nagant). The M1 Garand also had an effective range of 500 yards, slightly less than the 550 yards of both the SVT-40 and G43; however, that 50-yard difference could be largely a moot point depending on the respective shooter. 

When it came to accuracy as a sniper rifle, the G43 has largely been considered the superior of the three weapons. As noted, the German Army planned to equip upwards of half of the G43s with a scope for use by marksmen and snipers. In fact of the 402,713 G43s that were produced, a total of 53,435 were outfitted as sniper rifles. These were fitted with Zielfernrohr 43 (ZF4) telescopic sights with 4x magnification. 

By contrast, of the 1.6 million SVT-40s produced, less than 52,000 were the sniper variant—the Red Army found that the weapon performed poorly as a sniper rifle and terminated production of the sniper model in 1942. The U.S. Army tended to rely on the venerable M1903A4 Springfield for use by snipers, but in June 1944 adopted the M1C variant of the Garand to supplement demand. However, during World War II less than 8,000 of the M1C variant of the Garand were produced, and few saw active duty. During the subsequent Korean War, the United States Marine Corps adopted the M1C as its official sniper rifle. 

Legacy of the WWII Semiautomatics 

As noted above, the M1 Garand remained in use throughout the Korean War, and only in the 1950s was a replacement sought. There were attempts to “modernize” the M1 Garand by adding fully automatic firing capability and replacing the en bloc with a detachable box magazine. Numerous prototypes were developed, and this eventually led to the T44 prototype, which was finally adopted in 1957 as the M14—a rifle that would remain in use until the mid-1960s when it would be replaced with the AR-15/M16. 

In the closing year of World War II, the Soviets also reconsidered the need for a semiautomatic battle rifle and interestingly noted that the size of the SVT-40 was an issue. At the same time, the Soviets had developed an intermediate cartridge between the 7.62x54mmR used in the Mosin-Nagant and SVT-40 rifles and the 7.62x25mm pistol cartridge that was also used in submachine guns such as the PPSh-41. 

The 7.62x39mm was comparable to the intermediate round used in the German’s StG44, the world’s first true assault rifle. In 1943, even as production of the SVT-40 was being tapered off, Soviet designer Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov worked to develop the Samozaryadny Karabin sistemy Simonova (“self-loading carbine of the Simonov system,” 1945). It would more commonly be known as the SKS. Visually it does resemble a reduced SVT-40, but the operating systems are different—and any resemblance is likely due to the Soviet origin. However, the SKS did serve as intermediate step to the AK-47. 

The G43 didn’t lead to any future gun development, due in no small part to the fact that Germany lost the War, and arms development essentially ended for a decade. 

The greater legacy of all three weapons is that in the years after World War II, the age of the bolt-action rifle had truly come to an end. 

One of biggest reasons people collect firearms is for the joy in shooting them, but there is also a whole category of “wall hangers,” old firearms that are not structurally sound, too fragile to be fired or rendered inoperable. 

The idea of having a deactivated machine gun might seem like heresy to some collectors, but for others this is a way to collect what isn’t otherwise available in a functional weapon. Of course, other factors in opting for a non-functional version include legality and cost. 

First, let’s cover the issue of legality. Currently there are 41 states that allow ownership of “machine guns” per the restrictions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). While it is beyond the scope of this article to describe the process of acquiring or transferring firearms, it is worth noting that much of the country does allow private ownership of machine guns (and other weapons that are restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934) that have been deactivated per ATF guidelines. What is important to understand is what exactly is meant by deactivated. 

The ATF has addressed this: “A machine gun receiver that has been properly destroyed may be used to assemble a ‘dummy gun’ that is not subject to the controls of the National Fire arms Act or Gun Control Act. When sections of destroyed machine gun receivers are used to build a dummy gun and the severed sections welded back together, the dummy gun receiver must be at least one (1) inch shorter than the original machine gun receiver. The bolt, if present, must be welded to the receiver in the closed position. The breech of the barrel must be welded closed and an obstruction welded into the barrel. Alternatively, a solid metal/plastic bar in the same shape and configuration as the original model maybe used as a ‘dummy receiver.’” 

As with the ownership of live weapons, the ATF’s rules only apply on the federal level. State and even local laws can still restrict or prohibit the ownership of deactivated firearms. New York City, for example, bans replicas as well as toy guns, so a deactivated machine gun isn’t legal to own; and many states have bans on “high-capacity” magazines, so that part of the weapon would still be a problem even if the receiver is non-functional per the ATF. It is always recommended that when collecting deactivated weapons, one consults with local, state and federal laws. Ignorance of the law is not a defense and improperly deactivated weapons are considered very much live—and thus illegal! 

Don’t Confuse “DEWAT” with “Dummy Gun” 

One of the biggest areas of confusion around deactivated machine guns is in what these should be called. Too often sellers at gun shows and online use the moniker “DEWAT,” which is a form of deactivated machine gun, but it is essential to understand this is only a specific type of non-functional weapon—and it is one that is essentially as regulated as a functional machine gun, even if it cannot be made into a functional weapon. 

DEWAT is an acronym for “deactivated war trophy” and generally refers to firearms that were brought home by World War II-era servicemen. The original program was established in 1945 as a way to allow those soldiers to keep the machine guns as war trophies (hence the name). The weapons were allowed to be turned into what the Internal Revenue Service—which oversaw the transfer of machine guns and other NFA items before the creation of the ATF—described as “harmless ordnance curios.” An important point, however, is that although not regulated as “firearms,” the IRS was still required to be notified when the DEWATs were transferred. 

Even today, DEWATs can only be transferred via submission of ATF Form 5, as “unserviceable firearms,” but unlike a functional weapon, it is transferred free of tax. 

“It is really a term from the 1950s and 1960s,” explained Alex Cranmer, CEO of New Jersey-based International Military Antiques (IMA), which has become one of the premier sellers of display weapons and other military collectibles. “DEWATs involved removing the firing capacity, but left the receiver intact. It typically means severing the bolt from the front of the bolt … or the bolt was fusion welded shut. Otherwise the gun was complete and left alone.” (EDITOR’S NOTE: In that period, owners frequently used lead poured into the barrels to make a DEWAT, but this was not legal because the lead was easily removed.) 

The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 updated the law on machine guns, and as Cranmer noted, “this is when it was determined that the machine gun is really the receiver. DEWATs were grandfathered into their own new category, but even now require a transfer.” 

The change was made because, simply put, it was all too easy to reactivate a machine gun if it had been deactivated in such a manner. 

“The government says once a machine gun, always a machine gun except under certain circumstances,” added noted machine gun collector Robert Segel. “DEWATs were generally considered the ‘red-haired step child’ of the time with no real interest or value. However, over time, and with the introduction of CAD machines and advances in technology, DEWATs, if registered, could be re-manufactured into live, transferable machine guns.” This can be done using a tax paid Form 1, or a Class 2 manufacturer may make the DEWAT into a live gun using a tax exempt Form 2. 

Dummy or Display Gun 

Today it is easy to search the terms dummy or display guns on auction sites including GunBroker.com, but those are really collector terms, not official nomenclature. 

“Dummy gun doesn’t really exist as an official term,” noted Cranmer. “ATF doesn’t call it anything, except that it isn’t under the provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968. ATF sees these items as destroyed. Another term is demilled as in demilitarized, but that could also imply parts kits as much as a firearm for display.” 

What is crucial for collectors to understand is no matter what it is called, a non-functional machine gun needs to have a “destroyed,” or if possible, replaced receiver. Thus some dummy guns could include a solid aluminum block, while others have been torch cut so that at least one-half inch of the receiver is removed. 

“There is no gray area here,” explained Cranmer, whose company has worked with ATF for decades to clarify what is, and what is not, within the bureau’s guidelines. “If you have a gun that doesn’t have a torch cut or solid receiver, it is probably a machine gun, and that is a serious problem.” 

Where it gets confusing is with Maxim/ Browning-style belt-fed machine guns—and in this case it is necessary to have the right side-plate removed. 

“It used to be the left side-plate on some of the belt-fed guns, but more recently it is has been decided that on all of these, the right side-plate is removed,” added Cranmer. “It is important to note that you can have no barrel, no internals, but you have the side-plate, and it is still a machine gun to the ATF!” 

Today there are now replica side-plates that ATF has approved that are too thick for the weapon to function but externally look quite good. 

Origins of the Display-Only Guns 

The ability to create items that were for display only came about in part due to the GCA in 1968, which banned the importation of machine guns, but not the parts. In the 1960s and 1970s there had been a market for reasonably good replicas that had come out of Japan. 

However, while there were display versions of World War II submachine guns such as the Thompson and even the German MP40, there weren’t replicas of larger machine guns. 

“There were a lot of machine guns overseas, many rare and desirable that one could not find at home in the U.S., as the government wouldn’t allow the import of those,” said Segel. 

It was possible then to import the parts, minus the side-plate or receiver, and beginning in the 1990s companies such as IMA began to create solid replica receivers and non-functional side-plates. 

“Other means were also used to satisfy ATF that the gun could not be re-manufactured to fire,” added Segel. “Thus, this rebuilt representation would be allowed without registration. What this allowed is for individuals or museums to have a display of historically significant weapons that did not require registration and could be had at a reasonable price.” 

Collecting Non-functional Machine Guns 

As noted some purists might balk at the idea of owning a gun that doesn’t do the one thing it was designed to do, but there are considerations. 

The first is still about the cost. Because of the FOPA of 1986, the price for live machine guns has only increased, and they are expensive to operate due to the cost of the ammunition. For some collectors, non-functional display guns were a good way to fill a void in a collection that still had many historic parts. 

For the general collector of militaria— such as helmets, uniforms and field gear— either from general or specific conflicts, machines guns can be part of a larger display, and having a non-functional piece can be as good as a live weapon, maybe even better. Whereas a live machine gun should be properly stored, a dummy or display piece doesn’t require the same level of due diligence. 

Cranmer described the display guns as being much like a classic car without an engine or an old warplane hanging in a museum. These display weapons look the part, and for collectors that is good enough. 

“In today’s economy, this is becoming a satisfactory way to own and display automatic weapons without government interference, and more and more of these display pieces are coming on the market,” said Segel. 

However, this doesn’t mean that display weapons should be considered “cheap” by any means. While these were fairly common in the 1990s, in recent years the market has seriously driven up the prices. Deactivated World War II-era German machine guns such as the MG34 and MG42 can now fetch prices in excess of $2,000, while a Thompson submachine gun from the era is rarely found for under $1,000. It isn’t uncommon to see a Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) sell for more than $2,000, while rarer weapons are even more expensive. 

A German MG08 with an original sled mount can be as much as $10,000—but in this case the sleds are so rare that these sell for $6,000 to $7,000 depending on their condition. It has really come down to supply and demand. 

“The so-called ‘dummy guns’ are getting harder and harder to find,” said Cranmer. “Parts sets are no longer being imported, and once we used to see all kinds of different machine guns that were sold as surplus from governments around the world, and that isn’t happening.” 

Cranmer noted that in just the past 30 years prices have skyrocketed. “Back in the 1990s you could find an MP40 parts set for $250, but today a display gun can sell for $3,000 or more. So many people don’t want the hassle of owning a firearm, especially a class III machine gun, that display weapons are a good option.” 

Advice for Beginners 

While not nearly as difficult as purchasing an actual NFA weapon, such as live machine gun, collectors should still be wary when purchasing a display weapon. When buying a belt-fed machine gun, make sure that the side-plate has been removed, and if the right plate is present, make sure that it is a correct replica. If this doesn’t look right—even if the gun is a rusty hulk of steel (something this author has seen)—it isn’t technically deactivated per the ATF. 

The same holds true for the receiver. It needs to be torch cut in three places, based on the ATF guidelines, or replaced with a solid block. It gets even trickier with some simple weapons, such as a STEN gun. If the bolt can be cocked back on such weapons that isn’t a good sign even if the barrel is plugged. 

Collectors should consult with dealers who have experience with such display weapons and not just take the advice from someone who is trying to sell the item. As noted, a plugged barrel doesn’t matter; nor does a welded bolt. Those may have been fine for registered DEWATs (and still could be, provided the item is transferrable), but otherwise it is a big problem one should avoid. 

“If it looks like it functions,” said Cranmer. “You need to walk away.” 

Today, even when you can find a “toy” machine gun for sale, it is bound to be bright plastic with an orange plug on the end—but that is when you can actually find such items in the few remaining toy stores. There was a time when an aisle at the toy store or department store toy section resembled a scaled down gun shop. 

There were kid-sized muskets, bolt-action rifles, cowboy six shooters and the most prized toy firearm of them all—the machine gun! Chances are if you were a boy (or perhaps a girl) growing up between the 1930s and the 1980s, you remember those toy machine guns, which were arguably the envy of every kid who didn’t have that pretend heavy weapon in their toy arsenal. 

History of Toy Guns 

The concept of a toy gun is actually a fairly new one, and while there have been toy soldiers in one form or another for eons, it was only in the 19th century that the “toy gun” emerged. Part of the reason is owed to the fact that many children certainly didn’t experience a childhood that included a lot of playtime. This was true for the working classes, where many children began to work at a young age. Those rural children were more likely to handle a real firearm for the purposes of hunting to help put food on the table.

The upper class and even the gentry also likely hunted but more for sport. Finally, there was the fact that the military in many nations was a career—but few boys “played at war.”

This changed as the middle class grew in the 19th century, and one of the earliest mass-marketed toy guns was the “rubber band guns,” which were first introduced in the 1840s. Stephen Perry is credited with patenting the rubber band gun in March 1845, and it began the childhood love affair with pretend guns. 

Even in the latter half of the 19th century in the United States youngsters were more likely to have their own actual firearm than a toy. In fact, the original Daisy air rifle was first introduced in 1888, and it was marketed door-to-door to farm families as a “first gun” for young men (and perhaps a few young women). 

Post-World War I and the Toy Machine Gun

Machine guns were truly an innovation spawned from the technological leaps of the Industrial Revolution. Invented just 4 years before the Daisy air rifle, the Maxim Gun was the first successful machine gun. According to the legend, its inventor Hiram Stevens Maxim was looking to make his fortune when a fellow American he met in Vienna suggested, “Hang your chemistry and electricity! If you want to make a pile of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others’ throats with greater facility.”

In 1884 Maxim patented the machine gun, which was soon adopted in one form or fashion by the major powers of the world. While it would take another 30 years until its potential was truly unleashed—during the First World War (1914-1918) the machine gun quite literally ended the lives of millions of men. 

The devastating firepower of the machine gun meant that the armies dug in, and then each side scrambled to find smaller but equally deadly weapons; by 1918, the “submachine gun” was born. One of these inventions was General John Thompson’s “Annihilator”—rebranded the Thompson Submachine Gun after the War. Sales of Thompson’s weapon were slow, but by the end of the 1920s it was soon adopted by criminals—and used by Al Capone’s gangland enforcers in the 1928 St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. 

By the 1930s, gangsters were popular villains in the movies, and while this was long before the days of officially licensed merchandizing, toy companies such as Marx’s began to market gangland toys to youngsters. The first toy machine gun is believed to be the Marx’s Sparkling “G-Man Tommy Gun,” which featured a tin assembly and real wood stock. It included a drum machine and when “fired” a spark was produced on a flint located under the front sight. 

The G-Man/gangster theme continued with Marx after World War II, as the fight to bring down the bad guys moved to the living rooms of America with TV’s The Untouchables. Marx released the hard plastic “Untouchables Tommy Gun”—a 23-inch long toy that was originally only available as a Sears or Montgomery Ward exclusive. It retailed for $2.79 when it was released in 1959, and this may have been the first official toy machine gun tie-in with a TV show. The packaging featured an image of Elliot Ness played by Robert Stack! 

These early toy machine guns were loud and colorful with designs that were a bit “art deco,” and it is safe to say that Marx took wide latitude with the designs. While labeled “Tommy Gun,” the generic go-to word for the day (probably like how to anti-gun politicians every black gun is an AR today), these barely resembled an actual Thompson. However, it has been suggested that this was in keeping with the themes from comic strips and comic books of the day where the guns on the printed page also rarely resembled any gun from our reality. 

The other factor may have been that Marx as a toy maker didn’t want the toy guns to closely resemble actual firearms—especially after the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was the first serious legislation of firearms in the United States. The toy maker may have feared there would be a backlash and sought to go with a more “artistic” or “stylized” take on the toy guns.

Cold War Toys

Marx wasn’t the only company to produce little weapons for kids in the post-World War II era; beginning in the 1960s there was some serious competition from Mattel, Inc.—the company that would go on to create Barbie! 

The Mattel “Tommy-Burst” machine gun was introduced in the 1960s, and it far more closely resembled the actual weapon. The stand-alone “Tommy Gun” was marketed for around $3.95, while the Guerilla Model, which featured a camouflaged version complete with soldier strap, was marketed with kiddie binoculars, a case and a toy hand grenade. That deluxe version sold for $7.95.

The toy gun was released to coincide with the popularity of the World War II TV series Combat, starring Vic Marrow as Sgt. “Chip” Saunders, who happened to carry the M1928A1 version. Interestingly, the Mattel version was a mix of the M1928A1 with its Cutts Compensator but featured the Thompson M1A1 side charging handle. The “Tommy-Burst” was designed for use with caps, but most accounts were that it performed middling at best. The visuals were clearly what made this such a desired toy in the mid-1960s. 

In addition to the Guerilla Model, Mattel also introduced the Tommy-Burst Detective Set in 1961, which featured the 24.5-inch “Official Mattel Tommy-Burst Automatic Cap-Firing Gun,” the 6.5-inch “Official Detective Snub-Nose .38” revolver, a “Private-Eye Snap-Drawn Shoulder Holster,” and a “Detective Squad Badge, Personal I.D. Card and Wallet.” The fictional Dick Tracy™ had been a mainstay in the comics for decades, and Mattel rebranded its Thompson toy accordingly. About the only difference from the other models was the official “Dick Tracy” sticker on the stock. Interestingly Tops Plastic Company also produced a water gun version that was solid red plastic, but for collectors, the Mattel version is the more desirable today.

The detective toys of the 1950s and early 1960s eventually gave way to spy toys, influenced by the arrival of James Bond and similarly themed suave secret agents. While real-world intelligence agencies dealt with issues such as the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis, kids were able to play with Bond-styled gizmos and gadgets.

Multiple Toymakers/Multiple Plastics Corporation (MPC) started this trend in 1962 with a James Bond attaché case based on the one that 007 carried in “From Russia with Love,” while Topper Toys responded with “Secret Sam,” an attaché case that fired plastic bullets and had a working camera. MPC then upped the spy-vs.-spy ante with “B.A.R.K.,”—the “Bond Assault and Raider Kit,” which featured a mortar and rocket pistol.

Topper Toys came out with a real topper in the form of 1964’s Johnny Seven OMA (One Man Army), which became the best-selling boys’ toy of 1964. Marketed heavily on TV, it was unique in that it would transform into seven different modes including grenade launcher, anti-tank rocket, anti-bunker missile, repeating rifle, Tommy Gun and automatic pistol. As many of these “rounds” fired from the gun, Topper marketed additional spare ammunition and also introduced “accessories” that included a Johnny Seven helmet and walkie-talkies!

While Johnny Seven OMA was a huge hit with kids, and has been a staple in popular culture over the past 5 decades, it is notable that Bob Keeshan of Captain Kangaroo refused to allow the TV ads to appear on the show. Apparently the Captain wasn’t of the military-themed variety in the least. However, the toy was actually satirized in an episode of the spy farce Get Smart.

Mattel also joined the Cold War fray with Agent Zero—a character not quite as iconic as Bond but still notable for the fact that he was played in a series of commercials by a young Kurt Russell. The product line included the “Zero M Radio Rifle,” which was a working AM-FM radio, because apparently spies wanted to catch some tunes while on a mission; but the “must-have toy” was the “Zero M Night Fighter”. Essentially another Thompson, it was marketed as being designed for “night action” and featured a camouflaged design and scope. 

By the end of the 1960s, Mattel had marketed its scaled down Thompson submachine guns under a number of monikers, and the “Zero M Night Fighter” was marketed as the Mattel Marauder Division Tommy-Burst Automatic Cap Rifle, which was the same as the above model but with a faux wood stock and a special division insignia! Another standout from Mattel was the strangely named “Tommy Burp Mattel-o-Matic Cap Gun,” which was similar to the early “Burst” model but in new packaging.

Marx also introduced its own version of the Tommy Gun, which was released in the U.K. and later the United States. Unlike its early models, the “Trigger Action Tommy Gun” actually did resemble the actual Thompson—and the designers likely copied the Mattel version as it is a similar hybrid of the Thompson M1928A1 and M1A1 models.

Most of the toy guns of the era were certainly in the submachine gun category—but a few companies did produce some “heavy” weapons. One rare example was Maco Toys’ “U.S.A. Machine Gun,” a fairly accurate version of the M1917A1 water-cooled machine gun complete with tripod. It even shot “harmless pellets!” 

The Toy AR

Mattel would use the Marauder name on another toy—its 1966 Mattel “M-16 Marauder”, a pint-size assault rifle that was marketed for not needing caps, never needing to be reloaded and didn’t need batteries. Instead, it featured an internal mechanism that created the sound of automatic fire, no doubt annoying parents nationwide.

The “M-16 Marauder” is somewhat infamous today among the less informed who insist Mattel manufactured parts for the actual Eugene Stoner-designed Armalite AR-15/M16. According to some sources dating back to the 1980s, “the handgrip of the M16 rifle was made by Mattel.” This is a complete myth, but apparently some soldiers joked about the synthetic parts on the real M16; a running joke was, “You can tell it’s Mattel.” The fact that the M16 arrived in Vietnam as the toy “M-16 Marauder” hit the market likely only confused the issue. 

Mattel wasn’t the only company either to market a toy version of the battlefield weapon, and in 1967 Marx introduced its own “Sound-O-Power” line that included its M16 Military Rifle, a battery powered toy that featured a speaker in the stock to project the sound of gun fire. 

Toy Gun Control

The Vietnam War was not surprisingly hard to market, and by the 1970s, war toys weren’t exactly in vogue as much as they had been. The 12-inch G.I. Joe figure transformed from soldier to adventurer, and due to the energy crisis and oil embargo of the late 1970s, he was retired. When Joe returned in the 1980s he was reduced in size—but that just presented an opportunity for vehicles and other playsets!

Toy guns faced other issues, including calls for bans. In fact, New York City had banned black, blue and silver toy guns since the 1950s—but for the record, pinball and early video games were also banned. By the 1980s—due in part to a few tragic cases of mistaken identity where children and teens were shot by police—toy guns were the subject of federal legislation.

U.S. Code §5001, included in 1986, states that “each toy, look-alike, or imitation firearms shall have as an integral part, permanently affixed, a blaze orange plug inserted in the barrel of such toy, look-alike, or imitation firearm. Such plug shall be recessed no more than 6 millimeters from the muzzle end of the barrel of such firearm.” 

Today, all toy guns transported or imported in the country must have this blaze orange tip, or the whole toy must be of transparent construction. 

Remembering the Toys

While many of the animated TV series of the 1980s—from G.I. Joe to The Transformers—were little more than half hour commercials designed to sell action figures, in the 1960s the toy commercials were like short movies designed to build interest in the toys. As noted, a young Kurt Russell hawked products, and selling toy guns to kids wasn’t seen as wrong in the least.

“These toy guns were marketed on TV and in catalogs, as well as the daily newspapers,” said Jeff Owenby, who collected the toys as a child and has documented the toys online. “The toys were marketed as singles and in sets, with the sets being very popular around Christmas time.”

While many of these toys retailed for just a few dollars in the 1960s and early 1970s, today collectors have to shell out big dollars—a Mattel “M-16 Marauder” in good condition can sell for more than $500 on eBay, while the really early toys from the 1930s can exceed $1,000 with original packaging. 

One irony is that back in the day, even if the toy versions weren’t quite accurate, most kids didn’t know the difference—but thanks to movies and video games what kid doesn’t know an AR from AK. However, Owenby said he has fond memories of the “Tommy-Burst” and added, “It was a close replica down to the smallest detail.”

In the 1960s when Owenby was growing up he said the sight of a kid with a Tommy Gun wouldn’t even turn heads. “Back then, these had red tips but all the kids took them out of them. But you could walk down the street with a toy gun, and the neighbors wouldn’t think anything about it!”