“In the Attack; The object of the machine-guns- in co-operation with Artillery, Mortars, and Tanks, will be to provide the covering fire necessary to enable the Infantry to penetrate the hostile defences……The climax of the Infantry attack is the assault, which is made possible by Superiority of Fire”- Major C. H. B. Pridham in the chapter “Final Lessons of the Great War”; in his treatise “Superiority of Fire”.

One more lesson to ponder from the men who fought the great battles. In a time of strife, the singleness of purpose and a full understanding of what you have to do to accomplish your objectives is critical. Any waffling or indecisiveness can cause a devastating loss. The objective of the modern warrior in attack should be “Superiority of Fire” in its many modes.

I keep hearing the siren song of “Electronics”, “Computers”, and “Stealth”. While all of these are good accessories, the basic fighting must still be done by men on the ground. The infantry and its various support groups must always move in, whether it is first or last, they will always be in harm’s way.

The United States Marines have a code, in that every Marine is a rifleman, skilled in the use and care of his Weapon. Any person who wants proficiency or claims to be “Trained”, should be aware of the intimate functions of his weapon. The machine gunner is no exception.

The Small Arms Review has the pleasant task of exploring the military firearms of yesterday and today. Our purposes are for study, but this magazine is also meant as an “Owner’s manual” for you to keep and use. If you are a civilian involved in sport shooting and are an SAR enthusiast, we hope that our magazine will continue to give you a good reference library and answer your questions. We also hope to continue being a forum for the Class 3 world and the other associated orphaned groups of military firearms enthusiasts.

If you are military or law enforcement, SAR hopes to provide even more of a service. We hope to go in depth into the firearms you use or may encounter in your professional life, and supply you with the reference material necessary to be as proficient as possible. Your pool of knowledge can be expanded from various limiting doctrines if you truly understand the weapons you carry.

After all, in the midst of the battle, it is still a man with a gun that must stand up for freedom. The gun is one of many tools, but in dire circumstances usually the most important. If he is not trained, and has not prepared his weapon, then he can easily fail when the most important tasks appear. SAR hopes to help prepare you for the tests you may face, and allow you some enjoyable reading and camaraderie in the process.

– Dan Shea

The Marines Respond

Subject: Marine corps Participation in the Objective Individual combat Weapon (OICW) Program

Ref: “Marines Won’t Take OICW” article, the S.A.D.W. Column in Small Arms Review, Vol 1 No. 5, February 1998

1. The referenced article suggests that the USMC has made a decision against the adoption of the OICW. A decision to either adopt or not adopt the OICW has not been made. Furthermore, a decision of that nature would be premature due to the stage of the weapon system development.

2. The USMC feels that this is a promising Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) program. We have supported it with Science and Technology funding, Joint Services Small Arms Program (JSSAP) participation, program support by participation in the OICW Integrated Process Team (IPT), and have assisted the Army in their drafting of the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) for the program.

3. While the USMC has concerns about “Cost vs. Performance”, Life-Cycle Costs, and tactical fit, there issues are currently being addressed through the OICW programs IPT process. The Marine Corps is confident that the answers to these issues will be forthcoming and will provide sufficient information to make an informed decision on the future of the OICW in the USMC.

4. Lastly, regardless of the final Marine Corps position on the OICW, the USMC is aware that many of the technologies demonstrated during this ATD may have broader applications. For example, the fire control and fusing technology translate to the Objective Crew Served Weapons (OCSW).

D.G Haywood
Program Manager, Infantry Weapons, Marine Corps Systems Command

Dear SAR,

The current issue of SAR (Vol 1 #7) contains Mark White’s well written and informative article, “Suppressed Sniper Rifles: 101”. I thoroughly enjoyed the article and found it to be thought provoking and educational. However, there are five areas where I would like to take issue.

He stated that the speed of sound varies from “1,089 to 1,114 fps in dry, 65 degree F air, depending on who one listens to.” There is a common misconception that the speed of sound in air varies with humidity, barometric pressure, and a host of other variables. Unfortunately, this is not true, and it varies only with the square root of the absolute temperature (degrees Kelvin or Rankin) at altitudes below 36,000 feet. At 65 degrees F the speed of sound is 1,123 ft/sec. (Reference Minzer et all, “The ARDC Model atmosphere, 1959,” USAF Cambridge Research Center, TR No. 59-267). The reason that the speed of sound changes with significant changes in altitude is related to the change in ambient air temperature at high altitudes. It is true that the speed of sound varies with the medium (water, pure gases other than air, etc). While it is true that acoustic impedance and sound attenuation vary with humidity, this is unrelated to the speed of sound.

He praised one suppressor manufacturer for maintaining a tight bore aperture throughout the suppressor (0.007” clearance each side of the bullet). Although this will significantly reduce one component of the sound signature (Blowby), it is an invitation to having bullet strikes depending on the ammunition. At the moment a projectile exits the rifling, it starts a transition from being shoved through a high friction tube rotating about its physical center to flying in a low friction medium and rotating about its center of gravity.

This introduces some yaw for a number of feet before it stabilizes, the degree of yaw varying with the projectile shape and rotational velocity. The same effect is apparent when a jet fighter is catapulted from an aircraft carrier. Some subsonic rifle caliber loads, particularly with boat tail projectiles, do not have adequate rotational velocity and will yaw badly. I am referring specifically to Lapua .308 subsonic ammunition, which is notorious for bullet-baffle contact on a perfectly aligned suppressor even with 0.050 inch clearance each side of the projectile. The degree of yaw is apparent when viewing high speed photographs. The major suppressor manufacturers (Knight, AWC, Gemtech) allow adequate clearance each side of the projectile to compensate for yaw in conventional ammunition.

I agree with the author on the stability of the two point suppressor mount. It does provide excellent suppressor alignment provided the bore is concentric with the outside of the barrel. Our experience with shortening rifle barrels to a more optimal length is that the bore is not concentric with the outside of the barrel except at the breech and original muzzle (and sometimes not even at the muzzle). As a result, when using a two point mount on a shortened barrel, it is necessary to re-contour the barrel to restore concentricity.

I do not wish to get into blast baffle design, but I strongly disagree with two of the author’s statements. First, the high velocity impact of hot, partially burned powder particles will peen the rear surface and diminish the bore aperture (hole diameter) regardless of the material. It is just faster with softer materials. We have experimented with a variety of hardened steels, including hardened tool steel and steels plasma coated with tungsten and tungsten carbide. With time and over-temperature abuse from machine gunners, there will be erosion from almost all materials. The author further stated that asymmetry in the blast baffle will cause inaccuracy. We have not found this to be true, and the major suppressor manufacturers generally have some degree of asymmetry in the blast baffle with repeatable accuracy, decrease in group size, and predictable shift of point of impact with mounting and dismounting of the suppressor. Both Knight and Gemtech have developed quick disconnect suppressor systems that have proven repeatable accuracy with extensive military testing.

Last, the author commented that the bullet flight noise of a “rapidly moving .308 bullet will sound louder than a .22 pistol… “This is contrary to testing done at comparable distances from the source (bullet flight path and pistol muzzle) by both Knight Armament and myself. Generally, the .22 pistol will be significantly louder, varying somewhat with pistol barrel length. The sound level of the bullet flight noise is actually slightly less than the sound of a .22 rifle. Interestingly, testing of military ball ammunition has shown that the 5.56mm projectile is about 3 dB louder in fight than the 7.62.

Respectfully

Philip H. Dater, MD

Mark White’s Response to Dr. Philip Dater’s Letter

I’m reminded of the old bit of humor “If a man speaks in the forest, and if there’s no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?” In this case we were dealing with a device ( a suppressor) designed to reduce gunfire noise from .223 and .308, bolt-action sniper rifles.

The human ear is the standard by which we base our observations, and by definition it is a perfect instrument. Unfortunately, the human ear lacks uniform calibration, to which a finite and universal number can be attached. Electronic instrumentation can provide finite decibel numbers, but at this stage of development those numbers are seriously flawed because most of today’s instrumentation lacks sufficient rise time and sophistication to catch the very brief sound pressure rise, pitch and duration of suppressed gunfire. The thing a human ear can do exceptionally well is listen to different pairs of shots fired in close sequence to determine which is louder. If we hear two shots in the forest, and if there is no instrumentation to back us up, are we wrong?

When we listen to .223 and .308 projectile fight noise in the field it is our distinct impression that the larger diameter bullet makes significantly more noise. We tested a .22-250 Sound Tech can in the Nevada desert at SOF last fall, and a number of sophisticated observers noted that the projectile noise was less than what they heard with a .308. Quantified measurements taken and documented research conducted in Finland back us up on this.

Al Paulson went through the procedure of listening to bullet flight noise by having a trusted accomplice (100 meters away) fire both a .223 and a .308 round one meter from his face. He reports that both events were painfully loud, and (in layman’s terms) likened them in intensity to the muzzle blast of a .22 pistol at one meter. Of course the muzzle blast from a pistol is more massive and contains a number of frequencies for a longer duration. The two sonic cracks coming from a high-powered rifle bullet are of a purer quality and only last for a very brief duration.

When we fire ammunition at the edge of the speed of sound through a calibrated chronograph we notice a sonic crack on some days, but not on others. We’ve done this for over 20 years with thousands of rounds. Even when temperatures and velocities are similar, we sometimes hear a crack and sometimes don’t. We feel that humidity and barometric pressure (and possible some undefined factors) are playing a role in the sonic phenomenon, in addition to temperature. Higher humidity lowers the density of the air because water (hydrogen bonded to oxygen as a gas) is lighter than air (essentially 1 part oxygen and 4 parts nitrogen) as a gas. Lower the density of a medium and you will lower the speed with which sound travels through that medium. Tap on a long steel beam (or a stainless counter in a cafeteria) with a quarter (higher density, faster speed) to get a feel for how much faster sound can travel through a denser medium.

We’ve noted a ‘rack’ at 1050 fps (at 65 degrees F), and conversely, have seen situations where a ballistic crack did not occur at 1150 fps. Our chronographs divide a second into 4,000 parts, and are calibrated from time to time to encourage acceptable accuracy. We are definitely not alone in this. Many of our colleagues notice it as well. Again, same suppressed firearm, same ammunition, same chrono, same temperature. On some days there will be a ballistic crack. On other days there will not. Something is causing this. Is it pollen or air pollution or extremes of barometric pressure? Spend enough time with a .22 rifle equipped with a muzzle can and target ammunition and you will begin to notice differences from day to day.

With regard to particle peening of the blast baffle, we mentioned that in the article and agree with Phil that softer materials will peen more easily. When I worked in a shipyard we used carbide nozzles in sand-blasters, and they did not decrease in diameter. It might be that the softer grades (C-1 & C-2) of tungsten carbide would resist peening without shattering. C-6 carbide is harder, and I would expect it to shatter under a .308 muzzle blast. In any event, a bolt-action rifle will never be cycled fast enough to replicate full-auto fire, hence we did not consider full-auto fire as it relates to blast baffle design.

With regard to tolerance between baffle and bullet, we did not suggest that tighter is better, we merely remarked that at least one manufacturer is getting away with minimal spacing. We also suggested that the cone of dispersion would allow closer tolerances nearest the barrel’s muzzle. With regard to the blast baffle and its effect on accuracy, we have noted that (in our experience) asymmetrical blast baffles had a negative effect on both stability and accuracy. Steeper, more effective baffle geometry seemed to have a greater negative impact. Is it possible to design a steeply asymmetrical blast baffle that doesn’t have a negative impact on accuracy? Perhaps, but we would have to see it and test its performance before issuing a blanket endorsement. Certainly, Knight’s Armament, Gemtech and others are producing accurate systems what work well with asymmetric baffles, so it can be done.

It is critical that a sniper rifle maintains optimal accuracy at all times. It is our feeling that adequate clearance between bullet and baffles, a heavy, rigid barrel, and a heavy, two-point suppressor mount are important aspects in the equation for dependable suppressed accuracy. Some unusual things happen during extremes of heat and cold, and one does not want to discover this for the first time on deployment.

Great minds can differ in their opinions. Different groups of people can develop various systems that operate effectively. Some laws of nature are never going to be changed, but there may be two or more different operating systems that can both work dependably and accurately.

Mark White

Dear SAR,

This morning I was riding into work on the bus, and having missed the express, I got stuck on one taking a whole class of 5/6th grade kids to the Science museum. So have to sit in the back surrounded by obnoxious kids. One kid asked if I have any money in my briefcase, I nod, and he asked if he can see it. I then tell him I have something better, which is the SAR with mini-gun equipped Suburban. In a couple of minutes I have a dozen kids who think I’m God, especially with the tracer-laden centerfold. One asked why I keep calling it a mini-gun, so I show them the picture of the GAU-8 next to the VW bug. This then takes them to a whole new level of hyper. I pity the teacher who had to contend with them after I jumped off at my exit. One kid even yelled bye from a window as the bus rolled past.

On the down side, one kid was of the opinion that assault rifles were much more powerful than a mini-gun. Hopefully they learned something from me.

Wood

Dear Wood,

It is amazing how interested a young mind is when an adult can actually take the time to pay a seconds worth of attention to them.

Your last paragraph seems to sum up one of the greatest problems we have with young people today, and that is the amount of time they sit in front of the electronic baby sitter. ED

Tula Instrument Design Bureau (Tula KBP) of Russia delivered a real surprise in January 1998 when it showed literature on a new bullpup assault rifle designated the A-91M. Tula representatives were reluctant to discuss details of the rifle with the author other than to state that it is not yet in full production. The A-91M, despite its designation, bears little resemblance to the A-91 compact assault rifle also manufactured by Tula KBP. It is not simply a bullpup version of the earlier rifle. Moreover, while the A-91M is similar in appearance to the Kalashnikov family, it is not a Kalashnikov or one of its derivatives with bullpup furniture, as are the Armenian K-3, the Chinese Type 86, the Tula OTs-14 “Groza,” and the recently announced South African CR-21.

Despite being manufactured by the same Russian firm that produces the OTs-14, which is truly a Kalashnikov – derived bullpup, the A-91M is apparently quite different. One indication that the A-91M is different is the lack of an obvious ejection port. The sole opening in the upper receiver is a small oval hole just to the right of and beneath the rifle’s carrying handle. This small aperture is the ejection port; spent casings are ejected straight forward, not to the side or downwards as is the case with most other rifles. When the bolt is forward and the magazine inserted, the rifle’s receiver is completely closed, thereby minimizing the opportunity for entry of dust and foreign matter into the rifle’s operating parts. Even with the bolt to the rear, the ejection port is so small that the receiver of the A-91M is still virtually a closed system as long as a magazine is in place. The gas system of the A-91M appears somewhat different than that of Kalashnikov derived weapons. The gas block itself is completely different, but whether the A-91M uses a Kalashnikov-type bolt carrier and operating rod as do most other Russian designed gas – operated rifles remains to be seem. All furniture is polymer. The non-reciprocating charging handle is located at the left front of the carrying handle and can be pivoted up or down at the shooter’s discretion. The barrel of the A-91M appears to be located below the line of recoil forces, which will probably make it highly controllable in fully automatic mode by minimizing muzzle rise. The flash suppressor is a western -style “birdcage, “ rather than a typical Russian suppressor. The selector lever is similar in shape and function to that of Kalashnikov weapons, but is in a different location. Since Tula claims that the A-91M is intended to be fully ambidextrous, there is probably a mirror image selector on the left side of the receiver. The only Kalashnikov component that appears to be shared by the A-91M is the magazine, which may be either steel or polymer.

Although the designation of the A-91M would indicate that it is derived from the A-91 compact assault rifle, this is open to question, given the functioning and overall design of the A-91M, which appears to be significantly different than the A-91. If the A-91M was, indeed, derived from the A-91, it has been extensively modified. The A-91 is a very conventional small, gas-operated assault rifle that ejects to the right from a Kalashnikov-type ejection port. (See drawing.)

The A-91M mounts a new 40mm grenade launcher above the barrel designated the GP-97. The rear mount of the GP-97 mates to a large boss at the base of the front sight post. The grenade launcher’s forward mount probably clamps to the barrel at the enlarged portion midway between the forearm and flash suppressor. In available photos, the GP-97 appears to be offset slightly to the right with its trigger located against the forward pistol grip where it can easily be manipulated by either right or left handed shooters. The GP-97 appears to be essentially an inverted GP-95 grenade launcher with the trigger mechanism and mounting system relocated for positioning above, rather than beneath, the rifle barrel. The GP-97 fires standard VOG-25 and VOG-25P 40mm grenades to a range of 400 meters. The A-91M also can fire muzzle launched projected grenades. Whether the flash suppressor is standard NATO configuration is not known, but it appears to be very close dimensionally to the 22mm NATO standard.

Because the A-91M only recently became known in the west and none have been made available for evaluation, technical details of this new rifle are lacking. Why Tula chose to chamber the rifle only in 7.62x39mm is a mystery. The OTs-14 Groza for military use is chambered in this caliber rather than 5.45x39mm, so the A-91M may be intended for use by special army units. Nonetheless, any rifle chambered in 7.62x39mm can easily be redesigned to fire 5.45x39mm, 9x39mm, or 5.56x45mm. If Tula is serious about marketing the A-91M outside Russia, they will soon introduce it in alternative calibers. On the whole, from what can be deduced from available photos and the little information provided by Tula personnel, the A-91M appears to be a generally well-designed and executed bullpup rifle. Whether or not it will be viable in the world’s highly competitive small arms market remains to be seen.

MORE ON CATCO’S‘ STEN RIFLES’

As touched upon in our SHOT Show 98 report, CATCO Inc. in the USA is offering semi-auto Indian 9mm SA-2 MkII Sten Guns (‘Sten rifles’) with extended barrels, new machined receivers & semi-auto parts plus some Indian components at $599 dealer (5 extra mags for $39.95).

Standard length barrel versions (semi-auto) are available to Class 3 licence holders. And a CATCO receiver & semi-auto parts kits is sold for self-assembly using purchasers’ own Sten MkII surplus parts kits (not supplied) at $299 dealer. As at end-Jan 98, the first 100 ‘Sten Rifles’ had already been shipped, with more to follow. A .40 S&W version was also likely.

CATCO also sells no-gunsmithing scope mounts for SMLE, Enfield No 4 and Indian 7.62mm NATO Ishapore 2-A rifles, plus two-shot magazine extenders (base units) for Makarov, High-Power, CZ-75 & Witness, Beretta 92/Taurus and Glock pistols. By the by, we’re told Gibbs Rifle Co. imported 67,000 of the Ishapore 2-A rifles into the USA, and Century Arms another 6,000 to 7,000.

(CATCO Inc., 1325 Imola Avenue W, #5045, Napa, CA 94559, USA, Tel (707) 253-8338, Fax (707) 253-7149. They also have an address at: 316 California Ave., #341N, Reno, NV 89509, USA, which appears to handle orders for everything but the Stens) (Tel/Fax nos. are the same as for Napa address)

HECKLER & KOCH MILITARY UPDATE: This year H&K Inc in the USA is also offering the 5.56mm G36 for US government & law enforcement sales (at prices from $932 downwards), plus an optional cheaper deal on the 7.62mm NATO PSG-1 semi-auto sniper rifle by dint of excluding the $2,000 Hensoldt 6x42mm scope and providing just the 30mm scope rings.

Other new intros include extended selector levers, (also ambidextrous versions), for MP5 & HK53 SMGs plus HK33 and G-3 series rifles. And the side-folding Choate buttstocks first seen on the MP5K PDW are now offered for standard MP5s, HK53s and HK33 models. H&K Oberndorf has apparently been making the MP5K PDW as a production item for two to three years now, and we understand H&K (UK) at Nottingham has now also commenced manufacture. The barrels are reportedly about 1.5” longer than those on the old standard MP5K and apparently have both 3-lug mountings and threads for suppressors.

Cartridge case deflectors with removable case collection bags are available for the MSG-90 semi-auto sniper rifle and H&K machine guns. And the 50-round G8 magazine can be supplied for any weapons accepting the standard G3 box magazine. Knight’s Armament Mk23 (SOCOM) and new USP45 Tactical screw-on suppressors are also listed, together with Eagle Discreet Carrying Cases & Shoulder Carry Rigs for SMGs & rifles.

SACO LIGHTWEIGHT 40MM AGL: National Defense magazine gave further details of the lightweight 40mm automatic grenade launcher which Saco Defense has recently admitted it has been developing. The magazine says the new launcher, reportedly designed by the late Gene Stoner, weighs only about 36 pounds, by comparison with 77 pounds for the Mk19, and has a slower rate of fire, at 250-300rpm, another feature – along with the closed-bolt mechanism and much heavier recoiling mass – intended to reduce dispersion.

It has been tested using standard ammunition, re-fuzed by Bofors to provide pre-programmable airburst capability which we believe may be similar to that of the 40mm 3P ammunition developed for the Bofors air defence gun. If so, this would most likely deliver an area burst pattern.

New software-controlled fire control equipment from Computing Devices in Canada incorporates a laser rangefinder, and the launcher has a detachable barrel. First burst (three round) hit probability of nearly 100% is being claimed. We hope to offer more details shortly.

US SOCOM is said to be taking an interest, but given general budget economies and the fact that the US forces are still – we believe – in the process of receiving issues of Saco’s standard Mk19 Mod 3 launchers, we’re not sure of the new model’s chances on the home front. It could however be an attractive export item, if the high-tech fuzing is affordable.

REMINGTON NIGHT VISION ADAPTER: Law enforcement accessories from Remington Arms Co now include the RB 9712 night vision scope adapter & monocular. It comes in two versions, Gen II+ (RB 9712A) and Gen III+ (RB 9712B). Weight is under two pounds and battery life with AAA cells an average of 63 hours. Estimated tube lives are 2000+ hrs (Gen II+) and 10,000+ hrs (Gen III+).

Users have the option of attaching the device (via a snap-on mount) to the scope eyepiece of their chosen precision rifle, or it can optionally be used as a hand-held night vision monocular. With appropriate mounts it can be attached to single-lens reflex or video cameras, not to mention spotting scopes. For rifle mounting, extra high scope rings are required to allow easy bolt clearance.

INDUSTRY & FOREIGN NEWS

US TO RESCIND ALL EUROPE EXPORT LICENCES?: As the May 98 G8 Summit meeting in Birmingham (UK) approached, a major US flap blew up, apparently out of the blue, over firearms export licences to Britain & Europe.

Press reports said the US had ‘discovered’ that its own export controls had no effect on what happened to weapons on arrival in Europe, and Washington was unhappy at guns being legally exported from Europe to countries to which the US would rather they didn’t go.

Reportedly, neither the UK nor the EU enforces what was described as a US government requirement that re-export of American weapons must first be approved by Washington, and European ‘law enforcement officials’ (at Interpol, it seems) apparently felt powerless.

However, this US restriction, which requires the completion of a State Department Form DSP-83 (end-user certificate) is only relevant to military, not (excepting large consignments) commercial exports, which – from the thrust of the press reports – are the chief subject here.

The exports story first appeared in the New York Times and was widely picked up thereafter. It was alleged that ‘thousands’ of ‘high-powered and semi-automatic’ (note the emotive language) US pistols & rifles had found their way to Rwanda, the Balkans, Algeria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran and to criminal elements elsewhere.

Reportedly there are 250 licences for UK companies still in the mill, covering 14,000 handguns, and the NY Times said the US State Department was considering revoking them all. US London embassy communications were also cited, alleging that the EU was not supporting US firearms controls.

Whatever individual officials in US or European law enforcement agencies might think, the EU itself seems unlikely to welcome Washington wielding a big stick on this issue, particularly since it would directly impact the ability of countries like the UK to sell freely to EU partner states within the ‘common market’.

But it gets worse. The NY Times said that Washington was also pondering the revocation of handgun export approvals to all EU countries, citing outstanding licences to Germany (over 84,000 weapons), France (nearly 23,000) and Italy (almost 19,000).

It was suggested that guns exported to all these states had gone on to other destinations – the Turks, for example, had complained that the Kurds had received guns from Germany, where handguns were allegedly often trans-shipped immediately on first arrival at ports.

The report mentioned a number of UK small arms exports, to Indonesia, Turkey & Sri Lanka, all places the US would typically have refused to supply, and implied that British weapon exports to the UAE, Oman & Qatar could end up in Iraq or Iran.

It even questioned UK exports to the Channel Islands, Singapore & Malta because these were (but so what?) ‘Offshore banking & trading hubs’. And sales to Italy, Spain, Portugal & Greece were criticised because all these countries have ‘long sea borders’ and an alleged reputation for smuggling. However, the story was short on hard evidence as to exactly what proportion of weapons supplied out of European countries were actually of American origin, which is the only aspect on which the US government can expect other states to accept that Washington has any legitimate say.

If the US State Department, the FBI or Interpol actually wanted to make some progress on this matter, they have chosen a very unfortunate way to advance it. Collectively, the allegations in the NY Times report make a case not only for the US to cease exporting firearms at all, but for the rest of the world to follow suit. Clearly, this is quite unrealistic and isn’t going to happen. It is also pretty rich stuff coming from the USA, which is the world’s largest producer, consumer and importer of firearms of every type.

We can now safely expect that the US ‘disclosures’ will become the focus for frenzied activity at and around the G8 Summit by non-governmental organisations with an ‘arms control’ axe of one sort or another to grind. The US administration should bear in mind the implications for its own manufacturing industry. Though US commercial firearms exports are not huge in relation to production & imports, they are nevertheless significant for a number of companies, for example Remington, USRAC, Mossberg and Smith & Wesson.

A general cancellation of export licences would have a major impact on distributors, dealers and shooters throughout Europe, since it would presumably affect all American rifles, shotguns, handguns and associated ammunition. Though there are alternatives closer to home, many are much more expensive. And any arbitrary government action which hits US producers and damages their business is an issue on which we would also expect the American NRA to take a strong line. More later when the Birmingham summit meeting has come & gone.

Incidentally, the NY Times stated without qualification that Conjay Arms in the UK bought 1,600 ‘handguns’ from a US company in February, and since this was around the time all handguns were finally banned in the UK the paper says US and British ‘officials’ (but who?) concluded the guns were bound for a third country. There’s only one thing about this aside – it’s strenuously denied by Conjay, which has assured us (& the NY Times) categorically that it never made such a buy.

(nb: whilst the NY Times chiefly used the term ‘handgun’ in its article, we’re not sure if that’s actually what is meant – it could have become shorthand for ‘hand-held weapons’ (aka ‘small arms’) in general).

UK GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: On 21 Apr 98 the UK Foreign Office issued a response to the reported threat of US firearms export approvals being rescinded, stating (inter alia) that:

‘The British government fully shares US concerns over the proliferation of small arms. Any import of controlled firearms from the US requires a valid import licence. Export licence applications to export weapons from the UK are subject to the UK’s normal export controls. Transfers within the EU are subject to the EC Weapons Directive. We will not licence for export equipment which might be used for international aggression or internal repression.’

We interpret this response as coded language intended to reassure the US of the UK’s good intentions while suggesting to Washington that the UK and Europe have their own quite adequate controls, which do not require US oversight. The FO did not appear to have picked up on the confusion twixt military & commercial weapons.

.303” UK AMMUNITION SELL-OFF: Those in the UK seeking supplies of .303” ammunition from UK MOD surpluses – including the relatively recent Greek stock from Pyrkal – will, we’re afraid, most likely be disappointed. The MOD offered 4.5m rounds to Royal Ordnance, including ball, blank and bulleted blank (for Bren LMGs), and the last 3m of this consignment were sold overseas in a job lot to Century International. It is not thought any more .303” stock will be disposed of, but Royal Ordnance is checking.

PIRATED GECO 9MM AMMO: An item in Deutsches Waffen-Journal said that forgeries of Dynamit Nobel’s commercial Geco 9mm ball ammunition existed, distinguishable by poor quality printing on the packaging and by different coloured lacquers used for neck and primer sealant – red for genuine DN 9mm, violet for the copies. Cartridge cases also differ in color from the originals, likewise the bases of the bullets. Headstamp dates are 1969.The article did not discuss comparative performance or indicate the likely source of the forgeries, but you can probably envisage the same list of potential culprits as we can. China or the former Soviet bloc are likely to be the leading candidates. Our German sources tell us that forgeries of Dynamit Nobel’s RWS Meisterkugeln airgun pellets have also been seen.

MONGOLIA BANS GUN IMPORTS:
Itar-Tass said at the beginning of April 98 that a total ban was being imposed on imports of guns and ammunition into Mongolia while the authorities put through new legislation to regulate the trade. Last year, licences were granted to import 5,000+ firearms and 21m rounds of ammunition.

SIGARMS ACADEMY: Like Smith & Wesson and H&K Inc before it, Sigarms Inc in the USA now has its own ‘firearms academy’, offering training for ‘the armed professional’ in pistol, shotgun & rifle handling, weapon retention, concealed carry, officer survival etc. Armourer and instructor training are also provided.

(Contact: Sigarms Academy, Corporate Park, Exeter, NH 03833, USA, Tel (603)679-2003, Fax (603)679-1639, WWW – http://www.sigarms.com)

NZ PM PLAYS DOWN GUN CONTROL ISSUE: The New Zealand PM, Jenny Shipley, warned against hysteria in the debate on possible further gun controls in her country, pointing out that people – not guns – kill people. The government is currently still studying a report, which has now been on the table quite some time, that recommended new measures including registration and a buyback of military-style weapons.

We’d very much like Ms Shipley to meet PM Blair in the UK and gently explain to him the facts of life – chiefly that scapegoating legal gun owners will not halt firearms crime, but instead creates overnight a large number of implacable political opponents.

Q1- I am in the process of obtaining a WWII British STEn gun from my father’s uncle’s estate. Is it safe to use modern Milspec ammo in it, or do I need to handload downloaded ammo for it in order to avoid damaging it?

Ed R.

A1- No problems at all with military ammo. The STEn should function reliably with almost any 9×19 mm (Parabellum or Luger) ball ammunition. You may experience difficulty in feeding truncated cone or hollow point variations. Some STEns were made in 7.62 x 25 (Tokarev) and .45acp, so make sure you have a 9mm STEn.

I would caution you on one thing since you are obviously a handloader. If you download the ammunition, it may reach a point where there is not enough back pressure to engage the sear on the bolt’s return stroke, yet the bolt has gone far enough to the rear to pick the next round on the unintended return to battery. Since there is a fixed firing pin, this means you will fire a bullet after you released the trigger. Your STEn will empty the magazine out like a sputter gun, and serious danger could be the result. It’s called a runaway gun, and it shocks the operator severely. Keep the pressures in the recommended ranges.

Q2- I have been privy to many of the books detailing weapons used during World War I by both sides in the conflict. However, I have never seen a picture or a narrative in reference to the “Balloon Gun” Can you help? Or, at least point me in the direction of a book that may contain this information.

Andrew Geller

A2- Vickers made an 11mm variant of the famous Vickers gun, and it was an air-cooled belt fed machine gun using Maxim’s lock style. Balloon Guns had a gear system that synchronized them with the propellers on the airplanes they were firing from. Dr. Ed Weitzman is planning a feature article in SAR on the Balloon Guns in an upcoming issue. You can find more information on this in Dolf Goldsmith’s book “The Grand Old Lady of No Man’s Land”, available from Collector Grade Publications (905)-342-3434

Q3- Dan – Could you please enlighten others and myself on the process of sending a Title 2 weapon out for repair. I am aware of the Form 5 process, and calling the company who is going to do the repair, to let them know that the firearm is on the way. My concern is sending the firearm through the mail (excluding the U.S. Postal Service) via UPS, FED-EX, etc. Also, what is the best way to ship without everyone opening the package because it is insured for ________ amount of tender. Should I use another class 3 dealer, and use his insurance?

I have looked through back copies of MGN, and the Machine Gun Dealers Bible, but to no avail. Maybe SAR can do an in-depth review on the subject at hand.

For your information, the said firearm to be shipped is a HK51 (3-shot Fleming Sear). The selector switch is extremely hard to operate, using just my thumb. It looks (to me at least) that the trigger pack mechanicals are all aligned properly. Thanks G.B.

P.S. Dan, you estimated 10 years on overturning the Machine Gun Ban of 1986, any predictions on the next 10 years?

A3- The two big ones are Fed-Ex and UPS. During the Gulf War, I had a PD in Texas ship me some HK’s. They were transferred properly, and unfortunately when Fed-Ex was handling the shipment, a G3 barrel stuck out of the box. The shift leader went berserk and called in all the alphabet agency people he could find, because of the “Terrorist” weapons. Even though there were Form 5’s enclosed, and instructions on who to call at the PD or at LMO, Fed-Ex didn’t take care of it. I was tracking the firearms because my customer had flown in to see them. Finally, after two days, I got a response from their office in Memphis. It was an “inquiry”, and they were moving quickly towards a task force or something. I had them call D.C. and it all quieted down real fast, but it impressed me. I don’t use their company unless I have to. Similar experiences with UPS having a package break open and show a machine gun resulted in them looking at the paperwork, calling my office, and getting things repackaged and delivered.

I tend to use UPS as my carrier. It’s about six dollars per week to schedule a daily pick up. Once they have been supplied with the copy of an FFL, and that makes them an informed shipper, there is no problem with shipping firearms. UPS seldom loses the packages- in twenty odd years, I can only think of a couple incidents. You can’t go to a dealer and drop off an NFA firearm to be shipped, unless you sit there until UPS picks it up. Leaving it at the dealers is an untaxed transfer! I have seen ATF work that into a prosecution before.

If you can’t conveniently get to a UPS facility, UPS has licensed, authorized pick up locations. Many of the “Mail-Box” type stores are legally regarded as UPS locations. This works well for firearms, but I would establish a working relationship with such a store. I wouldn’t walk in and say “I want to ship my machine gun” to the clerk.

Always ship insured, always include a photocopy of the paperwork as well as contact points, and I suggest in your case that you attach an ownership tag to the firearm with your contact point. That is because you do not have a UPS shipper number. Remember that “High ticket” shipments must have at least 2 inches of packing material around them, and a sturdy box. Get out the bubble wrap and tape. UPS can indeed inspect any shipment it wants to, but if the box looks sturdy, they usually let it go as is.

Regarding my prediction on how long it would take to overturn the 1986 ban on further manufacturing machine guns for private ownership; my opinion at the time was that the pendulum would have to start swinging in the other direction. (Remember that this section is my opinion.) I figured that it would take ten years to get the situation turned around. I did not think of, nor could I have conceived it to be possible, that someone like Bill Clinton could actually get to be the President of the United States.

His total lack of a moral base allows him to do almost anything he pleases. I don’t think that Clinton really cares a hoot about gun ownership of any type, any more than he cares about tobacco. It is entirely political. His backers and supporters want gun bans, so he gives them what they want.

One thing that has happened is that the anti Second Amendment fanatics have wised up- they are doing their homework on how to ban different “Scary” guns without having to go through the legislature. Using Presidential Executive orders and re-examining existing laws for new meanings has been very successful for them. They are creating havoc in the ownership of firearms.

In that same time period, our side has been paralyzed by image problems and in-fighting. We need our dirty laundry aired like we need another term of Clinton as President! Take a lesson from our opponents on these issues- most of them stand together, arms linked, singing the same song, while we bicker and fight and can’t generally present a united front. What message do the political wind testers in office get from this? That we lack resolve?

We will not get the 1986 ban overturned until the courts face it as a constitutional issue, or we get control of Congress and the Presidency at the same time. Remember that “Making machine guns legal” even though they already are, is not going to be politically popular. No legislator in his right mind, or his political handlers, is going to make machine gun ownership his rallying cry.

Our hope lies in the courts having to rule constitutionally, or in maintenance amendments to popular bills going through Congress and getting signed. The courts are more likely to be our ally, as they must present a modicum of constitutional ethics. If they don’t, then at least we know where we stand.

Questions to: Dan Shea C/O the Small Arms Review

American Military Bayonets of the 20th Century.

By Gary M. Cunningham
Foreword by Scott A. Duff
Scott A Duff Publications
P O Box 414 Export, PA 15632
ISBN 1-888722-08-8
Price 17.95 & 4.50 S&H

I know, I know, this is a magazine that deals exclusively with military firearms. So what am I doing writing about a book that deals exclusively with American bayonets? The answer is that for the military collector of American small arms the most common accessory (besides extra magazines, ammo, spare parts, etc.) is the issue bayonet to the weapon.

Bayonets have been in service with the United States since the revolutionary war. They have been seen in every domestic and foreign American conflict from the birth of our nation on, including most recently the Gulf war.

Mr. Cunningham begins his book by describing the nomenclature of bayonets and their corresponding scabbards. He also includes a definition section on the nomenclature so that the reader does not miss out on what the author is trying to convey in the text. His format is simple and efficient, he starts at the model 1892 bayonet and works his way up to the current issue M-9. There are no photos in this book, just very detailed line drawings. When Mr. Cunningham covers a bayonet, he doesn’t just discuss variations, he covers them all.

For collector’s looking for information on a bayonet in their collection or for those looking to add the correct bayonet to their favorite American service rifle, this book is a wealth of information. I highly recommend it for your library. – Stephen Stuart

Japanese Rifles Of World War II.

by Duncan O. McCollum
Excaliber Publications
PO Box 36
Latham, NY 12110-0036
ISBN# 1-880677-11-3.
Price 17.95 plus 4.50 shipping

Unlike other rifles in World War II, the Japanese rifles used by the armed forces are for the most part neglected in the popular gun press. Mr. McCollum tries to rectify this in his sixty-one page work.

Mr. McCollum’s text covers all the standard issues rifles of the era (Type 38 and Type 99 series) and includes some of the more specialized and rare firearms used by the Japanese such as; the Type “I”, Type 2 paratrooper, naval special Type 99, Type 02/45, Chinese type 19 carbine, and school training rifles.

The author also includes sections detailing markings and production numbers
of the rifles. The marking list includes arsenal marks, arsenal location, and the approximate serial number ranges of the rifles.

One of the place’s where this book really shines is the black and white photography of the different production variations that can be found on the individual rifles. Variations of barrel bands, sights, safety knobs, and cleaning rods are covered. Accessories on bayonets and the different types of rifle slings are covered only on one page, leaving the Japanese military collector wanting more.

Some of the black and white photos are a little spotty at times, but the information in this book makes up for these small errors. For enthusiasts hunting for more information on that “weird” Japanese rifle their father or uncle brought back from the big war or a collector of military weapons, this is a good book to find information on Japanese military rifles. – Stephen Stuart

The French 1935 Pistols, A Concise History

By Eugene Medlin & Colin Doane
Eugene Medlin
100 Golden Barrel
El Paso, TX 79927
Price 22.95 plus 4.50 S&H

While at a recent gun show, I was able to purchase a French 35A pistol with holster at a whopping $92.00. While having the pistol transferred to me on my Curio & Relic license (no waiting period), a gentleman and his son came up to me and said, “that thing is horrible, it’ll blow up like all the other cheap Spanish guns”. At this point in time I just nodded to the gentleman and finished filing out the forms.

The above might sound a little strange for the beginning of a book review, but it proves a point—most people have little knowledge about French handguns, especially the automatic models. Mr. Medlin’s and Mr. Doane’s book go to great lengths to change this.

The authors cover all the basics on the French model 35 series of semi-automatic handguns, specifically the 35A and the 35S series. The authors use excellent documentation and black and white photos to thoroughly cover their subjects. They include in their work not just the standard example but also several common fakes that can be found in the collector market (namely 35A’s with fraudulent German military markings). The authors also include detailed chapters on holsters, ammunition, and published literature on the pistols.

This is an excellent text on the French 1935 series of handguns. It is a joy to read and a great addition to a firearms reference library. In fact, the only problem with this book is it’s too short (only 143 pages). It leaves the reader wanting more. I only hope the authors in the future decide to do other works on French pistols, because this one was top notch. – Stephen Stuart

Problem Solving With Low Signature Weapons: Part I

Low-signature weapons are excellent tools for solving a remarkably wide array of tactical and public-relations problems. Yet relatively few law-enforcement agencies use low-signature weapons (LSWs) to their full potential. The practical employment of LSWs extends far beyond special-response units to marksmanship training cadre and, perhaps most of all, to the small-town or county officer for whom animal-control problems represent one of the most common call-outs. The following discussion explores eleven useful missions for low-signature weapons, which achieve their low sound signatures by the use of silencers, which have been more properly called sound suppressors since the mid-1960s. Some suppressors require specialty ammunition for optimum performance while others are designed to employ standard duty loads.

Throughout the century, the development of improved silencer technology has stimulated the evolution of tactical doctrine (as well as sporting applications), and the increasingly sophisticated tactical doctrine and sporting uses have in turn stimulated the further improvement of suppressor technology. A biologist would refer to this process as co-evolution. Armed professionals have learned that sound suppressors make effective tactical tools when employed for any of several reasons. Suppressors are typically used to either: (1) hide the fact that a shot has been fired; (2) hide the location of the shooter; (3) reduce public-relations and media-relations problems; (4) enhance command and control; (5) preserve operator hearing, especially in confined spaces; (6) reduce the likelihood of detonation when operating in a potentially explosive atmosphere; (7) improve the quality and safety of live-fire training; (8) reduce muzzle blast and recoil; (9) safeguard human night vision and electronic night vision devices; (10) reduce the risk of so-called “friendly fire” accidents; (11) increase operational security, and (12) improve both practical accuracy and the speed of follow-up shots. While a suppressed weapon may provide several of these functions simultaneously, the tactical user will commonly view one of these functions as the primary task of the suppressed system for a given mission. Some of the complexities involved with each of these applications are worth exploring in detail.

Hiding the Event

The uninitiated commonly believe that a silencer always hides the fact that a shot has been fired. While this effect can be achieved with the proper combination of weapon, cartridge and environmental circumstances, attaining this level of performance can be difficult. A suppressed firearm is generally used to hide the fact that a shot has been fired for one of three reasons.

(1) In the military environment, hiding the fact that a shot has been fired is essential for quietly eliminating a sentry, point man or other hostile without alerting nearby individuals. In the law-enforcement environment, officers face an increasing incidence of hostage situations. When that involves quietly dealing with multiple armed suspects in a large building, the risk level increases dramatically. The ability to quietly remove one threat without alarming other armed suspects can save lives.

(2) Both law-enforcement and military operations also may need to quietly eliminate a guard dog. While the 9x19mm round from the H&K MP5 SD has not proved to be effective in this role, an MP5 chambered in .40 S&W and employed with a good muzzle can holds more promise. Some departments prefer an integrally suppressed Marlin Camp Carbine in .45 ACP from companies like John’s Guns or SIOPTS for this role. Finally, the new Ruger Model 96/44 lever-action rifle and the Ruger Model 77/44 bolt-action rifle, fitted with a Dark Star suppressor from Sound Technology and employing heavy .44 Special rounds, provide effective tools for dispatching animals as large as deer.

(3) An increasingly common law-enforcement requirement is to quietly destroy selected objects (such as vehicle tires or yard lights) prior to a dynamic entry or pursuant to another tactical operation. Unless there is considerable environmental noise (such as a helicopter overhead in the law-enforcement realm or a nearby firefight in the military realm), hiding the fact that a shot has been fired generally requires the use of subsonic ammunition to avoid the loud ballistic crack that would be generated by a supersonic projectile.

It is important to understand that the use of subsonic ammunition limits the effective range of a weapon. If the suppressed firearm employs subsonic ammunition with a poor ballistic co-efficient (such as the 9x19mm and .45 ACP pistol cartridges), then the system could have a maximum effective range on the order of 100 yards (91 m). If the subsonic weapon employs ammunition with a good ballistic coefficient (such as the 7.62x39mm and 7.62x51mm NATO subsonic rifle cartridges), then the system could have a maximum effective range on the order of 200 yards (183 m). The outstanding 300 Whisper cartridge developed by J.D. Jones for SSK Industries can deliver 1 MOA accuracy at 200 yards in the proper suppressed weapon. The 53 grain 5.56x45mm Ultra Stealth subsonic round from Engel Ballistic Research will deliver 1 MOA from a 1 in 9 barrel at 87 yards (80 m), while Engel’s 220 grain 7.62x51mm Thumper subsonic rounds will deliver 2 MOA at 87 yards (80 m) with a 1 in 12 barrel. Both will defeat Level III-A body armor. Bullet flight noise produced by these subsonic rifle cartridges is less than the sound produced by an arrow in flight. The dominant sound with a well-designed suppressor then becomes bullet impact.

In practice, placing accurate hits at random distances out to 200 yards with a subsonic rifle cartridge is very difficult. Two factors create most of the problems: the rifling’s rate of twist, and range estimation. While current laser range-finding binoculars solve the latter problem, finding a source for barrels of the proper twist rate can be a challenge.

A fast rate of twist is typically needed to stabilize a subsonic projectile of conventional weight, although a new 7.62x51mm subsonic round developed by Black Hills may provide acceptable accuracy out to 100 yards using rifles with a 1 in 12 twist (like the Remington PSS) and good accuracy with a 1 in 10 twist (like the Savage Model 110FP “Tactical Rifle”). But that’s not universally true. Several superb custom rifles with barrel lengths of 20, 24, and 27 inches (51, 61, and 69 cm), featuring either polygonal or cut rifling, would barely place five shots on a sheet of 8.5×11 inch (22×28 cm) paper. Some shots were very high and some were very low, suggesting irregular ignition (a common problem with small powder charges in large-volume cases). Shooting on a hot, dry day at an altitude of about 1,500 feet (457 meters), only 20 percent of the Black Hills rounds remained subsonic in the three aforementioned custom rifles.

The Sound Technology subsonic round, on the other hand, delivered better than 0.5 MOA groups in the Savage Tactical rifle with Sound Technology Dark Star suppressor and the barrel shortened to 20 inches (51 cm).

Depending primarily on bullet length, some 5.56x45mm subsonic rounds are accurate to 80-90 yards with a 1 in 9 twist, while the SIOPTS subsonic rounds featuring ultra-heavy frangible tungsten projectiles require a 1 in 7 twist and a Colt milspec (as opposed to aftermarket or match) chamber and then provide excellent accuracy to at least 100 yards. I’ve not had the time to determine the SIOPTS round’s accuracy at 150 and 200 yards at the time of this writing; this may well prove to be a 200 yard cartridge.

Many subsonic cartridges employ a heavier than normal bullet to improve both external and terminal ballistics (which translate into improved shot placement and better stopping power). Using a heavier bullet may require such a fast rate of twist that appropriate barrels are extremely difficult to obtain, even from custom barrel makers. A further complication is that such a fast-twist barrel probably won’t provide acceptable performance with conventional supersonic ammunition, so it is generally necessary to dedicate a rifle to a subsonic cartridge. This is a good idea anyway, since a subsonic 7.62x51mm subsonic round will strike 4 to 14 inches lower than Federal .308M ammunition at 100 yards, depending on the design of the subsonic ammunition. Few centerfire rifles will perform well with both supersonic and subsonic ammunition. The most notable exception is the Savage Model 110FP Tactical Rifle with Sound Technology’s Dark Star sound suppressor and Choate’s Ultimate Sniper Stock. These three components together form a suppressed rifle system that provides superb sound reduction, 1/2 MOA accuracy with Federal .308M supersonic ammo and 1/4 MOA accuracy with Sound Technology subsonic loads.

The ability to instantaneously tell subsonic from supersonic ammunition becomes crucial if both subsonic and supersonic rounds may be used in the same rifle. European manufacturers tend to put a blue tip on the bullet of subsonic rounds, and at least one uses a blue case head. Subsonic 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51mm rounds from Engel Ballistic Research feature a white tip. And subsonic rifle rounds from Black Hills feature nickel-plated cases. Some individuals use a needle file to add small serrations to the rims of subsonic cartridges to facilitate identification during night operations, although a simpler approach is to always keep the subsonic ammunition in a particular pocket, pouch, or magazine of different capacity or construction.

Range estimation is critical when using a suppressed rifle with subsonic cartridge at long range, even if the projectile has a good ballistic coefficient. The 7.62×51 NATO subsonic round, for example, produces a bullet drop of about 3 feet (0.9 meter) between 100 and 200 yards.

It is also important to note that a rifle fitted with a muzzle can should always be fired with the can installed, since the weight of the suppressor plus the amount of torque used to install the suppressor both affect the point of impact. The zero will generally shift 2 to 12 MOA depending on the length and weight of the suppressor, the mounting method of the suppressor, and the rigidity of the barrel. Group size, however, will generally improve slightly when a well-designed suppressor is installed properly (compared to the same barrel as it came from the factory). The only exceptions in my experience involved installing suppressors of conventional weight on rifles with long, thin barrels. Adding a suppressor to a Steyr AUG with 20-inch barrel, for example, seems to exaggerate barrel harmonics and degrade accuracy to an unacceptable level. Short-barreled AUGs do not suffer accuracy problems when a suppressor is fitted, however.

Finally, it should be noted that the psychological impact of seeing an officer armed with a suppressed weapon can work for or against the armed professional, depending on the circumstances. For example, armed suspects confronted by officers of a special-response team employing suppressed weapons are likely to perceive a greater threat level from the officers and therefore may be less likely to respond with lethal force. The flip side of that psychological coin is that some knee-jerk elements of society view suppressors as sinister technology despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Clearly, the thousands of civilians who legally own silencers in the United States represent an impeccably responsible and law-abiding segment of society. Furthermore, a law-enforcement officer employing a suppressor is likely to perform his duties in a more professional manner, since that officer is probably better trained and better motivated, and the suppressor itself provides additional operational alternatives. But the aforementioned knee-jerk phobia regarding suppressors common to media personnel and some civilians may work against the officer’s best interests. Therefore, it would be useful to consider several strategies for avoiding problems in the media and in the courts following an operation using a suppressed precision rifle.

The first strategy is to keep the suppressed rifle cased or in a drag bag while deploying to the shooting position or hide. The second involves what should be a penetrating glimpse into the obvious: the marksman must practice regularly with the suppressed rifle and document his maintenance of that proficiency. This process has both tactical and legal implications. Clearly, any deficiencies in the marksman’s skill level or in the performance of the suppressed rifle must be determined on the practice range and not on a deployment.

Then there is the potential danger of civil liability, which can be minimized by basic attention to detail during training exercises. Cut out the portion of the target containing the first cold shot of the day, initial and date it, and tape into the marksman’s log book. In aggregate, the log book with its actual targets will provide a powerful tool for demonstrating an officer’s expertise in the courtroom, should that ever be required.

Assuming that a suppressed firearm and its cartridge deliver sufficient accuracy and adequate terminal ballistics, it is also important to realize that the muzzle signature is only part of the story when evaluating a system for tactical employment. Two other events are involved with a suppressed gunshot which can influence the stealthiness of that shot: bullet flight noise and bullet impact.

For example, when using a .22 rimfire rifle with a muzzle suppressor for the selective destruction of objects, it is important to realize that the muzzle can will not eliminate the ballistic crack produced by high velocity and sometimes produced by standard velocity loads. The subjective impression is that the ballistic crack is as loud as an unsuppressed .22 rifle, so subsonic Long Rifles or CB Longs should normally be used for the selective destruction of objects to keep the event from sounding like a gunshot. With the resultant dramatic reduction of the weapon signature and bullet flight noise, bullet impact becomes the dominant sound of the gunshot.

When employing a suppressed centerfire rifle with conventional ammunition, for example, the bullet impact in flesh is a loud and distinctive “pukk!” If the target is engaged over an open area with little ambient (environmental) noise, bullet impact can be heard clearly for hundreds of meters. When using a suppressed rimfire rifle or when using a suppressed centerfire rifle with subsonic cartridge, the sound of bullet impact in flesh is considerably less, but it’s still distinctive. When using a subsonic rimfire round on a tire, the muzzle signature might be undetectable to an observer 33 yards (30 m) away around the corner of a house, while the bullet impact may or may not be heard as a hollow thump. When using a CB Long to break a light bulb outside a frame house, the only thing a close observer might notice is the sound of breaking glass, while occupants of the house might hear nothing. The metallic ring of a hit from a CB Long on a tire rim, however, might be quite noticeable to the house occupants.

Merely using a quality suppressed firearm does not provide a carte blanche for the operator. Some other variables that will also affect the stealthiness of a suppressed gunshot include such things as ammunition, ambient noise, location of potential hostiles relative to the target, composition of target, composition of material behind the target, presence or absence of reflective materials (such as pavement or brick walls), presence or absence of absorptive materials (such as grass, bushes and trees), and shot placement.

A final footnote to hiding the event relates to the employment of suppressors with supersonic projectiles at very close range. Entry teams are increasingly using suppressed carbines of rifle caliber (commonly the Colt M4 with a compact suppressor such as the Gemtech M4-96D, Raider from AWC Systems technology, or titanium cans from SIOPTS or the Spec Op’s Shop) because of the weapon’s superior terminal ballistics compared to a submachine gun and because the 5.56x41mm cartridge will defeat most body armor. Armed confrontations in this environment tend to be up close and personal, and a suppressed weapon may be fired at a target which is so close that the supersonic projectile does not travel far enough to generate a ballistic crack. In such cases, the dominant sounds become the suppressed muzzle blast and the sound of bullet impact. Given ideal environmental conditions and a very short engagement distance, plus an excellent muzzle can, suppressed weapons with supersonic ammunition can be very stealthy. This phenomenon has been largely ignored by professional operators, but it might provide an interesting option given the right tactical scenario.

It is much easier to hide the location of the shooter than to hide the fact that a shot has been fired. While particularly valuable for military operators, this phenomenon can also be useful for law-enforcement applications as well.

Some say that Hollywood in recent years has produced more bombs than fell on Ploesti. It comes as no surprise to this writer that John Milius and Tom Berenger teamed up on a notable exception. Their stirring mini series collaboration now stands ready for rental or purchase. After reading what follows, those who saw ‘Rough Riders’ on Turner Network Television may wish to revisit it. For readers unfamiliar with ‘Rough Riders’, Small Arms Review will introduce you to the film whose opening frame reads: ‘To the American citizen soldier, Who answered the call, Climbed the hill, Paid the price, And never let us down.’

Viewing without commercial interruption imparts the full power and majesty of this extraordinary work. This movie gives us the Cowboy Cavalry packing Colt’s machine guns. For us, movies don’t get much better than that. Small Arms Review assumes the intelligence of our readers. Herein we will explore depth and background that will enhance the viewing of this truly wonderful film.

Mr. Tom Berenger originated this project. His research told him that he wanted to accurately portray arguably our greatest President at the pivotal moment in Theodore Roosevelt’s magnificent life. In doing so, Mr. Berenger knew he would celebrate in celluloid the virtues and character of that unique race of people called ‘Americans’. To accomplish this, Tom Berenger thought of only two people — John Milius and Hugh Wilson. Few who viewed the John Milius film ‘The Wind And The Lion’ starring Brian Keith and Sean Connery have ever forgotten it. ‘Rough Riders’ gifted screenwriter Hugh Wilson wrote the first draft. He and John Milius wrote the final script. Turner Network Television, to its great credit, backed ‘Rough Riders’ enthusiastically. For their courage, TNT received more than high ratings and excellent reviews. They financed a modern classic that will stand the test of time.

THE OPENING GUN

From the opening frame, John Milius draws the viewer into the epic world of Theodore Roosevelt and the Rough Riders. On viewing this film for the first time, many will think that it came from John Ford. This does not suggest that John Milius copied John Ford. He did not. The man who gave us ‘Dirty Harry’ built on the firm foundation laid by John Ford. Mr. Milius expanded upon a number of innovations that John Ford incorporated in his films. In terms of historical accuracy, ‘Rough Riders’ far exceeds ‘My Darling Clementine’. Were he alive today, Mr. Ford would have been very proud of Mr. Milius. The following gives some examples of Mr. Milius’ mastery of his craft openly displayed in ‘Rough Riders’.

John Milius tapped award winning composer Elmer Bernstein to write the ‘Rough Riders’ theme. Peter Bernstein conducted it. No composer handles heroic brass and violins better than Elmer Bernstein. Peter Bernstein employs massed violins when needed and at other times lets a single sing like a solitary Moore around a Kentucky campfire. As the opening credits roll, the music establishes the heroism of the Rough Riders against the most appropriate and beautiful artwork imaginable — original Spanish American War paintings and drawings from then Hearst war corespondent Frederic Remington.

John Milius selected artists who correctly matched the scale of the story that he was about to tell. John Ford did this on a smaller scale in ‘The Searchers’. In the opening of ‘The Searchers’, a lone woman framed by a doorway gazes into Monument Valley, Utah doubling for Texas. She strains to see an approaching distant rider. Composer Max Steiner led in with a single woodwind playing the melody of ‘Loraina’ and followed with a lone violin singing ‘The Bonnie Blue Flag’. Those of Southern birth knew the character of Ethan Edwards before John Wayne ever came into clear view or uttered a word. In ‘Rough Riders’ John Milius established the character of the then forming G Troop through Sam Elliott playing Prescott, Arizona’s legendary lawman William ‘Bucky’ O’Neil. Bucky introduces ‘The Minstrel Boy’ as the troop song of G Troop and bids the troopers to draw strength from it. The melody recurs in the film. In the second decade of the 20th century, ‘The Minstrel Boy’ became a song of Easter Rising and the Irish Rebellion. This writer suspects that it’s still sung in Donegal.

The Collaborative Effort

This picture belongs to Tom Berenger. Illeana Douglas perfectly complements him as Theodore’s wife Edith. Mr. Berenger received high praise for his masterful portrayal of the young Roosevelt. Many feet of original film and many recordings of Theodore Roosevelt survive to this very day. Those who have seen or heard any of them (and this writer has) will appreciate what a truly fine actor Mr. Berenger is. He not only captures the look and mannerisms of Theodore Roosevelt, he captures TR’s voice. Sickly and asthmatic as a child, Theodore Roosevelt developed a unique pattern of enunciation. Mr. Berenger explained it thusly, ‘ He’d take a huge breath and then rattle off words until he’d start to lose breath; it gave him his machine gun speaking delivery.’ From his opening frame to his last, Tom Berenger precisely duplicates Theodore Roosevelt’s voice. His tour de force performance begins with Roosevelt’s speech to the Naval Academy cadets on March 9, 1898.

Movie making is a collaborative effort. Magic on the set is rare. Set magic that makes its way to screen is rarer still. ‘Rough Riders’ delivers the rarest of the rare. The entire cast and crew enjoyed making this picture. They put that enjoyment on the screen. The joy begins with costars Sam Elliott and Gary Busey. Though both men list credits longer than we have space for, this writer’s personal favorites are Mr. Elliott’s ‘The Quick And The Dead’ and Mr. Busey’s ‘The Buddy Holly Story’. We begin with Sam Elliott’s portrayal of G Troop Capt. William ‘Bucky’ O’Neil. Sam Elliott gives us many truthful scenes as 1886 and 1895 Winchester packing lawman Bucky O’Neil. In the following, we will discuss only two wonderful scenes. The many others await the viewer.

Bucky O’Neil takes G Troop for its first day at the firing range. The weapons instructor demonstrates the Springfield 30-40 Krag-Jorgenson smokeless repeating carbine Model of 1896. G Troop forms lines for target practice. Bucky O’Neil and author turned war corespondent Stephen Crane, played by Adam Storke, observe them. The troopers shoot miserably. Bucky O’Neil orders G Troop down range to bash the watermelon topped targets with their gun butts. As the troopers rush the targets, Stephen Crane and Bucky O’Neil discuss gunmen, war, and gun fighting. Crane asks, ‘It really is murder isn’t it?’ Bucky cracks a knowing smile and replies, ‘You betcha.’

Bucky explains that John Wesley Hardin and Clay Allison were not great shots but ‘drunken louts’. Their survival rested not in marksmanship but in their ‘ability to murder their fellow man.’ Those familiar with Knob Creek (see March 98 SAR) should know the following. A pistol oriented member of the Alabama Cavalry and this writer had exactly that conversation around a campfire at the Creek four years ago. We came to the same conclusion. Hugh Wilson and John Milius know how to write truthful lines. Sam Elliott knows how to deliver them in high style.

Sam Elliott gives us his most poignant scene when he portrays the death of Bucky O’Neil. Official reports recount the murderous fire that poured down hill from the San Juan Heights. Bucky O’Neil stood up in combat to give his men confidence and urge them onward. At the bottom of Kettle Hill he stood erect, oblivious to the fire around him. He bends down to admonish Brad Johnson’s character Henry Nash who came unarmed from a hospital bed to the front lines. Bucky hands Nash his 1895 Winchester in 30-40 Krag and then again stands up. Nash tells him to get down. Bucky replies that, ‘The Spanish bullet hasn’t been made that can kill me!’. Shortly, a Spanish bullet finds the Captain of G Troop. Bucky O’Neil falls dead on the field.

Though physically much larger than Joe Wheeler, Gary Busey gives what is this writer’s favorite performance in ‘Rough Riders’. This favoritism comes from a personal bias openly admitted by the writer. Standing on the steps of 5th Corps HDQ in Tampa, Joe Wheeler is greeted by Col. Horatio Swayles, well played by veteran actor Larry Randolph. Col. Swayles reminds Gen. Wheeler of the Atlanta Campaign. Fighting Joe replies that Atlanta ‘was not one of my fondest memories!’. The Southern part of that campaign is a favorite of this writer. This fondness comes from Wheeler stories told to me in boyhood and from regularly passing a still extant stately white house in Griffin, Georgia. The stone on its left corner read ‘H’QTS GEN. JOE WHEELER’.

After the battle at Jonesboro, the Orphan Brigade walked to Griffin, Georgia. Here the Orphans became a mounted unit thanks to captured Yankee horses courtesy of Joe Wheeler. The Union Army sent a southward tentacle toward Griffin bent on burning the town, kidnapping the staff at the five Confederate hospitals here, and taking that staff to Camp Sumter (Andersonville). The Orphans stopped the Union Army cold at Bear Creek Station. The Blue Coats took a savage beating at the spot on which the Atlanta International Raceway now stands. NASCAR finishes the Grand National season on ground where Union town burners met stalwart Kentucky grey riders and found themselves wanting.

A Union General later attempted to pull the same torch and kidnap job on the Confederate hospitals at Newnan, Georgia, hometown of the songwriters and singers Doug Stone and Alan Jackson. Alan Jackson once wrote that, ‘Love grows best in small houses’. General Wheeler saved not only the small houses but the big ones. Outside Newnan lies a subdivision named for Wheeler’s friend — ‘Bedford Forrest’. Joe Wheeler rode 25 miles west and engaged the enemy at Brown’s Mill Station outside Newnan. Expecting to encounter defenseless civilians, The Union General found that he faced Joe Wheeler’s mounted pistol fighters backed by Tredegar guns. The ensuing fray proved to be the largest cavalry engagement of the Atlanta Campaign. In fairness, it should be reported that the Union General did make his way to Andersonville. After a crushing defeat, he accepted Joe Wheeler’s sword point invitation to tour the Confederate Prison System.

At the end of the Atlanta Campaign, Joe Wheeler rode west of Griffin and camped at Double Cabins, an Indian trading post turned stagecoach stop that dates from the 1830’s. From there Joe Wheeler left us, pursued Sherman’s western flank, and rode into history. At the end of hostilities, Fighting Joe Wheeler stood as one of the few Southern boy Generals to survive the war. Joe Wheeler rebuilt his life and served with distinction in the United States Congress, thinking that he had sheathed forever his terrible swift sword. Thirty three years later, his country asked once again for his leadership in the War with Spain.

Interestingly, a Bedford Forrest co-biographer and friend preceded Wheeler into Cuba. Gen. Thomas Jordan served with the Cuban insurrectos before his death in New York in 1895. When Joe Wheeler arrived in Cuba in 1898, he suffered from bouts of malaria. General Wheeler reverted to the tactics that had served him so well in his youth. In so doing he well served this nation. Gary Busey correctly captures the spirit and character of the 5’6” soldier who still holds legendary status in the Piedmont of Georgia. This writer has already praised Gary Busey’s performance in a previous article (see SAR February 98). Now the reader knows why. Well done Mr. Busey.

For a good laugh, don’t miss the recipe for ‘footless animal stew’ given by veteran actor Geoffrey Lewis. For two stunningly realistic performances, pay particular attention to Marshall Teague as Lt. John Pershing and Dale Dye as Col. Leonard Wood. Both actors bear startling physical resemblance to the men from history whom they portray. West Point lists only three soldiers who graduated with perfect records — Robert E. Lee, John Pershing, and Douglas MacArthur. In Marshall Teague’s performance, the reader will view the metal of the man in 1898. John Pershing twenty years later would lead the American Expeditionary Force to victory in Flanders Fields.

Julie Alter, CSA’s casting of accomplished actor Dale Dye as Col. Leonard Wood shows sheer brilliance. Two slots on Dale Dye’s report card on life read ‘Capt. USMC (ret)’ and ‘military historian’. Three weeks before anything went on film, Dale Dye set up a boot camp for the actors. He taught them the authentic drills, gun handling, and commands of the 1890s. When the cameras rolled, the actors functioned as a team rather than a group of individuals. On film, not only do the actors look like a cavalry unit, they move like one.

When Mr. Dye stepped before the camera he gave depth to the lesser known Leonard Wood. When Colonel Wood arrived in Cuba he already stood as a Congressional Medal of Honor winner and a universally respected professional soldier. Readers will be fascinated by the exchange of authentic commands between Leonard Wood and John Pershing before the attack on a cabin. Inside the captured cabin, Col. Wood explains the superiority of the Mauser rifle to his assembled men and a Spaniard in a tree. Then, without blinking, he asks them to find El Poso Hill on the map. After viewing Dale Dye’s characterization, readers will know why a military base near the Missouri Ozarks proudly carries the honored name ‘Leonard Wood’.

Class 3 On The Field

You are reading Small Arms Review. We know that you want a tour of ‘Rough Riders’ Title 2 world. Veteran actor Geoffrey Lewis, through his character Eli, opens the tour. Eli carries a man’s gun for settling disputes up close and personal — a sawed off Remington hammered 12 gauge double. Mr. Lewis deftly handles this persuader in a number of scenes. In so doing, he demonstrates the shotgun’s strengths and weaknesses. Armies did not ban shotguns from combat until the Geneva Convention. Smooth bores fought in Cuba and in the Argonne Forest. Special Forces carried pump shotguns in Vietnam as Victor Charlie had not signed the Geneva Convention. Eli’s gun might have met the requirements of the 1934 Gun Control Act but other smooth bores that actually fought in Cuba might not.

DDs played a major role in the battle at San Juan Heights and played a major role in the Tom Berenger film. Krupps, Hotchkiss, and a French 75 took the field to add authenticity to the movie. Second Unit Director Terry Leonard captured many nuances of 1890’s artillery. He caught the precision movements of the reenactor artillerists. Bag guns illustrate Mr. Leonard’s skill. Though much smaller, bag guns operate like coastal artillery. The artillerists insert a ram assisted HE shell and bag of powder, close the breach, and fire. In 1898, the Americans shot 3.2 inch white smoking breech-loaders. A French 75 sans shield does a credible stand-in for the movie.

Those who journey to Knob Creek in the Spring of 97 viewed and heard a massive two inch Hotchkiss revolving cannon fabricated by Thunder Valley Arms. Rich Pugsley correctly stated that this type of gun ‘served in the 1890s.’ I took up a position and watched Rich fire down range. Rich fired at a target at about the same distance as the blockhouse on San Juan Heights was from the Rough Riders. Rich fired live ammo. The movie artillerists fired blanks. Those fortunate enough to have viewed this rare weapon in live fire will applaud the accuracy of Terry Leonard’s footage. The Hotchkiss did fight in Cuba. It just wasn’t as pretty as Rich’s gun.

A brace of Krupp guns provides one of the most interesting historical footnotes to the film. Like the 30-40 Krag carbines, these field guns are not replicas. They are real guns that predate the Spanish American War. The 2.5 inchers carry the model number of 1891. They play an important part in the final battle scenes at San Juan Heights. Reenactors man them as a German gun crews. To view the Krups and the Hotchkiss mountain cannon would prove sufficient, but there is more. Writer Dan Gagliasso reports the following intriguing Hollywood rumor in his article ‘Guns of The Rough Riders’ (see Guns and Ammo, August 97). The rumor states that the movie Krupps actually came to the United States as captured ordnance from Cuba in 1898.

The film shows the guns of three American geniuses at work on the battlefield — John Moses Browning, Sir Hiram Maxim, and Dr. Richard Gatling. In 1898 only two answered muster at San Juan Heights — Browning and Gatling. In the movie, two Gatlings in 45-70 serve under Lt. Parker played by James Morse (see SAR February 98). The 1898 brass Maxims, though contemporary, did not fight that July afternoon. John Milius introduced the venerable belt feds for dramatic effect. Faithful readers know of this writer’s affection for the beautifully crafted 98. If I were able to have several brass Maxims hang around for a month or so, I would. By this writer Mr. Milius is both forgiven and applauded for the 98s. In one scene a Maxim gunner experiences a problem with elevation at full bottom stop. Knob Creek attendees know the immediate remedy.

Most interesting of the belt feds are the 1895 Colt Automatic Guns. In 1914, this gun added a changeable barrel and became the 1895/1914 model. That model accompanied Capt. Herbert McBride and the 21st Canadian into Flanders Fields. Capt. McBride reported that a Colt gun could hold a burst of 10 in the bullseye at 1000 yards. He proved it more than once. The Rough Riders carried the 1895 guns into combat. They acquired them in just the way that John Milius filmed it.

William Tiffany, courageous son of the prominent family, joined the Rough Riders. The Tiffany family presented the Cowboy Cavalry with two 1895 Colt Automatic Guns chambered in 30-40 Krag. Watching the gun crews advance the guns in the jungle and up Kettle Hill provides some of the most interesting frames in the movie for the dedicated emma gee. Properly advancing gun and tripod with precision challenges soldiers, not to mention actors. James Parks in the role of William Tiffany and the other actors handle the gun movement well. The filmed advances remind one of those described in ‘O’Ryan’s Roughnecks’ by the 27th’s William F. Clarke. This writer suspects the skilled hand of Dale Dye. The Colt guns went to Cuba with Rough Rider William Tiffany and served well. Tiffany did not return.

For Our Falcons Yet To Come

Michael Greyeyes plays Delchaney, an Apache warrior and Carlisle University student, who assisted in Rough Rider basic training. Bob Primeaux plays Indian Bob, a Souix who volunteered. Francesco Quinn gives a stirring performance as Rafael Castillo, who left the safety of the hacienda and the love of his life to ride with Teddy Roosevelt. Hamilton Fish played by Holt McCallany, B. F. Goodrich by Titus Welliver, and Craig Wadsworth by Chris Noth joined their friend William Tiffany in harness with the Rough Riders. They, Fifth Avenue boys, could all ride and shoot. When Hamilton Fish reported for duty he was arguably the wealthiest young man in America. He forsook all to ride with Teddy. Hamilton Fish sailed to Cuba and did not return.

Though General Shafter respected Joe Wheeler, Leonard Wood, and John Pershing, he and his staff considered their men amateurs. Joe Wheeler did not share the Corps Commander’s opinion. Fighting Joe had commanded an integrated cavalry during the War Between the States. He knew the 9th and 10th Cavalry could fight and suspected that they might be the most professional soldiers currently in the United States Army. Leonard Wood had trained the Rough Riders.

The real General Shafter tipped the scales at 320 pounds. His gut hung half way to his knees. His aids constructed a portable crane to put him on his horse. He got sea sick on the Cuban passage and stayed on the beach for two days. Joe Wheeler commanded all cavalry and answered only to Shafter. For an ex Confederate who had spent much of his time behind enemy lines, absence of command presented no problem. Joe Wheeler simply rounded up the amateurs, sent out skirmishers, and proceeded to wage war on the Spaniards. ‘Find them, turn their flank, and kick ‘em in the teeth!’

On that fateful day in July, the Black Troopers and the Cowboy Cavalry stood together at the bottom of San Juan Heights under murderous fire. The Rough Riders attacked Kettle. The 9th and 10th, backed by New York infantry, assaulted the larger and more fortified San Juan Hill. Their unflinching slow walk through death’s door inspired all who saw it. John Milius filmed it exactly as it happened. Surely the hearts of 9th and 10th descendants will soar on viewing this. They will soar as surely as do Celtic hearts when Mary Black sings the ‘Song For Ireland’. Therein, free falcons mount Eire’s Atlantic wind and ‘twist and turn in e’re blue sky’. At San Juan Heights, American falcons soared up two death laden hills. Theodore Roosevelt wrote in dispatches that the Black Troopers were the bravest men that he had ever seen. Under Joe Wheeler and Leonard Wood these American falcons won victory together. Members of that unique race known as Americans threw the cruel Spaniards off their well-defended hills.

This film accurately tells the history of America. It tells our history at a pivotal point in our time among nations. With a few concessions to drama, the firearms and their uses rate as excellent. A number of museum quality pieces come into view in close-ups. The Mauser rifle carried by George Hamilton as William Randolph Hearst is but one of many examples. A number of scenes in this film will stun the viewer. The following gives the most impressive example. In ‘The Searchers’ final scene, we see Ethan Edwards standing in light, framed by a darkened doorway. He takes his left hand and clasps his right elbow. At that moment he is John Wayne paying tribute to his long time friend Harry Carey. In so doing, he also honors his costar Harry Carey Jr. That gesture speaks of Harry Carey and how grateful the Duke was to have known him.

In ‘Rough Riders’ we see Teddy Roosevelt sitting on the porch of the blockhouse atop San Juan Hill. He is humbled by the victory won. As the camera catches him we see a fewer starred Old Glory gently waving behind him. At that moment he is Tom Berenger paying tribute to America. His gesture reminds us all of America and how grateful we all are to have known her. All of the above would be good enough reason to watch this movie. It truly does celebrate America. But there is more.

‘Rough Riders’ comes on two cassettes. It lasts more than three hours. It is the kind of movie for a Sunday afternoon. Father and son, uncle and nephew, grandfather and grandson should view this film together. At viewing’s end they should talk about America and being an American. As to why, I will leave the reader with two reasons. First, Gary Busey said, ‘This film is a piece of American history that no one has seen before on the screen.’

As a professional writer I am confident that I could write the second reason. To paraphrase Ernest Hemingway, I could choose the right words and place them in the right order. On this occasion I will heed the words of Dirty Harry written by Harry Julian Fink. Harry Callahan said, ‘a man must know his limitations.’ To find the second reason we turn to the finest writer in the English language. William Shakespeare wrote, ‘This story shall the good man teach his son’ — Henry V — Act 4, Scene 3, Line 58.

In celluloid, John Milius has captured the Rough Riders. Therein he reminds us of how close to each other and how truly magnificent they all were. Tom Berenger said of Theodore Roosevelt, ‘The Rough Riders worshipped him, and he truly loved them. These men stayed a part of Roosevelt’s life until he died.’ In the telling of the Rough Rider story, John Milius reminds us of all of the above. His film says something else to the readers and the writers of the Small Arms Review. ‘Rough Riders’ speaks to all who enjoy the freedom of the Title 2 world. It reminds us of who we truly are. It simply reminds us that We few, we happy few, are the archers of Harry the King.

America’s Agincourt

In one of the opening scenes, Hugh Wilson threw a couple lines like high hard fastballs worthy of John Smoltz. When Hamilton Fish uttered the first line, like a rookie called up from Richmond, I said ‘That sounded like a strike.’ Then Hugh Wilson threw the second one through Craig Wadsworth and I said, ‘That was a strike and I’ve heard it more than once before!’ After a first viewing of ‘Rough Riders’ I could not rest until I knew the origin of the lines. I knew the lines were chivalric, but more. These lines came from the birth of chivalry, chevalier — mastery of the horse. The phrasing reminded me of the manner in which our suppresser guys competed last May. At match end, one gentlemanly spoke for all to the winner. In the most chivalrous fashion he said, ‘You fought the good fight and won fairly. I’m going home and get better!’

One out of eight who nominated the current occupant of the White House in 1992 belonged to the NEA. For those who earned a sound education before the NEA turned public into government schools, Hugh Wilson will take you back decades and you will be grateful for it. For those not so old, if you read Small Arms Review you have initiative. The following will also assist you. I first went to ‘Le Morte d’ Arthur’ and missed the target. I found the target in Shakespeare’s histories. I cut the outside circle with The Bard’s only epic history ‘Henry V’. I hit the ten ring with Act 4, Scene 3. If you wish to stack one behind the other, read Henry’s speech to his men before the battle at Agincourt. The reader should do so before viewing this film. The destiny filled lines of Henry’s speech reverberate throughout ‘Rough Riders’.

A surface viewing provides fine entertainment. If one knows Shakespeare’s lines and their attendant history in advance, one finds ‘Rough Riders’ to be an even finer film. A second viewing showed that Hugh Wilson and John Milius wrote in layers. The viewer can wet his feet and measure it in inches or dive in and measure it in fathoms. Brad Johnson (star of the action drama ‘Soldier of Fortune, Inc’) carries the upper narrative through his character Henry Nash. He opens the plot as an old man reminiscing in his attic about when he was young and so was America. As he goes back in time, he tells of how he joined the Rough Riders. While we follow his story, we also pick up that of the Fifth Avenue college athletes and hear Henry V’s lines. These lines carry the under narrative throughout the picture. Though Henry V’s lines establish the Fifth Avenue boys as ‘educated men’, Hugh Wilson and John Milius are not talking about Fifth Avenue. They are talking about America. And they have much to say.

The brothers Crispis and Crispianus fled religious persecution in Diocletian’s Imperial Rome. They hid in the guise of cobblers and did good works. When finally captured in A.D. 289, the Romans threw the Christian brothers into boiling lead. The Catholic Church elevated the martyrs to sainthood and designated October 25 as Saint Crispin’s Day. In the 15th century England’s newly crowned Henry V, Harry the King, felt he possessed a legitimate claim to the crown of France. He felt his claim more legitimate than that of the Frenchman who squatted on the throne. Between 1413 and 1415, Henry busied himself securing money for his army by taxes, loans, and hocking the crown jewels. In August 1415, Henry assembled the small army that he could afford and set sail to rectify the French affront to himself and the sovereign crown of England. The 7000 man army landed in France, hefted their long bows, and marched ashore following Harry the King. The tiny army won several small victories and caught dysentery. Henry fell back and camped at Agincourt.

An army of 30,000 bore down on Henry’s men. The Frenchmen poised for battle near the Calais road on October 24, 1415. Henry faced two divisions of infantry and one of mounted armored French knights. Against them he could throw 6000 archers and 900 men at arms. That night Henry personally surveyed the looming battlefield. He viewed his only two advantages — deep mud to slow the French horses and a place to skillfully deploy his archers.

The French outnumbered Henry five to one. The trained soldier whom Richard II had knighted for bravery in the Irish rebellion of 1399 decided to fight. Before the battle, Gallic emissaries attempted to negotiate with Henry. The French extended Henry the option of a ransom befitting his station. Henry refused to offer the French ransom for either his life if captured or his corpse if killed on the field. Harry the King vowed to fight on this Saint Crispin’s Day. His lieutenants Warwick, Talbot, Exeter, Bedford, and Gloucester backed him. Westmoreland wanted 10,000 more men. Harry the King wanted not one more. Henry offered to pay the homeward passage of any man who wished to leave before the battle. Harry the King refused to die in the presence of any man who would not die with him. On this Saint Crispin’s Day, Henry would either die for his beloved England or change her course forever. On October 25, 1415, Henry kept his appointment with destiny. The few, the happy few stood steadfast on a field of honor with Harry the King. Henry V engaged the French just outside Agincourt at less than 500 yards. His skillfully placed archers blacked the sky with arrows. A contingent of French knights dismounted in the deep mud and died where they stood.

At battle’s end the defeated French counted 7000 casualties. Henry V suffered 500. Contemporary historians hailed Henry as King of England and France and Lord of Ireland. England treated Henry’s soldiers as royalty for the rest of their days. Henry said of those who fought at Agincourt, ‘We few, we happy few, we band of brothers’. In England’s darkest hour she reached back to Henry V to honor the men who so valiantly defended her. All of England took unspeakable pride in the outnumbered RAF pilots in the Battle of Britain. The British paid homage to those heroic airmen by giving them the bravest unit name from English history. They called them ‘the few’.

On a July day in 1898, Fighting Joe Wheeler faced a better equipped Spanish army on Cuban soil. Leonard Wood, Theodore Roosevelt, and John Pershing backed the grey haired Cavalier. The Spaniards sat up hill, dug in, and fortified. From Kettle and San Juan Hills they controlled the San Juan Heights. Like the archers of Harry the King, Joe Wheeler’s Krag equipped cavalrymen should have been destroyed in place. They weren’t. Against odds and raked by murderous fire, the Black Cavalry and the Rough Riders charged. On that afternoon they changed the course of America. Because of them, America shucked her role as ‘a third rate agricultural experiment’ and took her rightful place on the world stage. Mr. Tom Berenger stated the following about Theodore Roosevelt, ‘He believed his destiny was that war, and either something great would come out of it or he would die in glory.’

KUDOS

Kudos to Bill Taylor, J. P. Jennings, Doug Hollberg, Scott Howard, and Don Thomas for additional research. The author offers his heartfelt thanks to The Frederic Remington Art Museum, Turner Network Television, and Nostalgia Good TV Network for their splendid assistance. For our fortunate readers who live nearby, the author recommends a trip to the The Frederic Remington Art Museum in Ogdensburg, New York. The paintings lent to Small Arms Review represent but a small part of their impressive collection. For those who have not had the privilege of viewing original Remingtons, we offer this caveat. Be prepared to tarry a while and enjoy a stirring part of America’s history captured by the master’s hand.

The following gives an interesting historical footnote to ‘Rough Riders’. Joe Wheeler, at the end of his days, elected to be buried in the blue uniform that he wore at San Juan Hill. On viewing him at his funeral one of his grey riders said, ‘Lord General, what is The Mighty Stonewall going to say when you show up in that uniforn?’

Sources:

‘Rough Riders’ video
by Turner Network Television
1050 Techwood DR
Atlanta, GA 30318
1-800-523-0823

The Frederic Remington Art Museum
303 Washington ST
Ogdensburg, NY 13669
315-393-2425

‘From Shiloh to San Juan Hill’
Joe Wheeler biography
Columbus Armory
1104 Broadway
Columbus, GA 31901
706-648-4698

‘Henry V’ by William Shakespeare Cambridge University Press 1993
Mary Black, Collected
Gifthorse/Dara Records
CD # G2-10006

‘The Searchers’
by John Ford
Warner Home Video

‘Henry V’
by Sir Laurence Olivier
Paramount

‘The Wind and the Lion’
by John Milius
Turner, MGM/UA

‘Guns of The Rough Riders’
by Dan Gagliasso,
Guns & Ammo, August ’97

‘Pocket Diary’
TR’s personal account of the War with Spain, with notes by Curator Wallace F. Dailey
Theodore Roosevelt Collection, Houghton Library
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
Tel. 617-495-2449 / Fax 617-495-1376 publication date 07-01-98
the 100th Anniversary

‘The Campaigns of Lt. Gen. N. B. Forrest and Forrest’s Cavalry’
by Gen. Thomas Jordan and J. P. Pryor. rare book, available in reprints.

THEODORE’S STOLEN GUN

In ‘Rough Riders’ Tom Berenger as Theodore Roosevelt carried a seven and one half inch Single Action Army. The real Theodore Roosevelt carried a double action Navy marked Colt .38, serial number 16334. The revolver carries the butt # 5770 and the year stamp 1894. A Roosevelt relative recovered the pistol for Theodore during salvage operations on the battleship Maine. Theodore carried this pistol through Cuba, up San Juan Heights, and back to his Oyster Bay home Sagamore Hill. After the President’s death, Sagamore Hill became a national historic site. Colt .38 # 16334 rested there until 1991.

In 1991, person or persons unknown stole Colt .38# 16334. To the current possessor of this American treasure, this writer wishes to say the following. The Rough Riders were the kind of men that all of us would wish to meet on the other side. But not if they are angry. The possessor should assuage his guilt, salve his conscience, and save his soul. Colt .38 # 16334 belongs not to you but to the Rough Riders, to Theodore Roosevelt, and most of all to Sagamore Hill. Wipe the Colt free of prints, wrap it in newspaper, stick it in a cardboard box, and mail it back to Sagamore Hill.

The Theodore Roosevelt Association offers a cash reward for the recovery of Colt .38 # 16334. Should any of our readers catch a scent of the Colt’s location, the reader should notify Sagamore Hill Nationa Historic Site and point them upwind. The preceding covers John Law. As members of the Title 2 community know, there is John Law and then there is Murphy’s Law. The following will cover Murphy’s Law if applicable.

Thirty-four members of this writer’s family wore grey. As President, Theodore Roosevelt paid honor to his mother’s side of the Roosevelt family (see SAR February 98). In 1905, Theodore Roosevelt returned the captured battle flags to their Confederate units. A surprising number of the 34 lived to see it. In many homes of the Old South, families still refer to Theodore as ‘The Good Roosevelt’. Readers would find this writer undisturbed to learn that the possessor of Colt .38 # 16334 suffered a singular loss that he could not report to John Law. This writer would be completely unsuprised to learn that a cherished American treasure somehow had made its way back to Sagamore Hill. Should the above sequence of events take place, this writer stands good for the postage. The person accomplishing the sequence I would like to meet. To maintain confidentiality, I paraphrase a line from Forrest Carter’s brilliant work ‘Gone To Texas’. Simply put, ‘I’ll pay you when I see you Josey Wales.’

Source:

Curator Amy Verone
Sagamore Hill National Historic Site
20 Sagamore Hill RD
Oyster Bay, NY 11771
516-922-4788

Long time Class 3 dealer Joe Dorsky called me and said- “Hey- do you want to see the lost Armalites?” I can only think of one way to answer that kind of question- first “Hell YES” then quickly afterwards- “What lost Armalites?” and he proceeded to explain. It seems that the original Armalite AR-18 series guns, which are registered transferable machine guns, were in a private collection in Florida for many years and had never been talked about. The owner had recently sold them to Joe, and he had them in stock while he was waiting for transfers to the new owners. I had a photo trip to Florida coming up, so Joe was kind enough to fit me into his schedule for a photo shoot. SAR readers should enjoy this glimpse into the early Armalite AR-18’s- Dan

In 1963 Armalite Corporation decided to concentrate its efforts on a scaled down version of one of Eugene Stoner’s designs, the AR-16. The AR-16 was built in a small prototype quantity, and was essentially a “Sheet metal” gun, whose purpose was to enable end users who were less financially endowed to have a modern Assault Rifle. AR-16 was in 7.62 x 51 NATO caliber (.308).

Stoner had left Armalite and was pursuing the Stoner 63 series of machine guns, among other things. Arthur Miller, a brilliant contemporary of Stoner’s, was also employed in the development facility at Armalite. Miller designed and implemented the AR-18 program with the other design personnel.

AR-18’s have the appearance of being a sheet metal AR-15, but the similarity is really only in two major places. First, the upper and lower have dual take down pins, and the upper can pivot up to access the internals. Second, the bolt has multiple locking lugs in the same style as the AR-15 series. I could list many other “Similarities”, but the basic function of the firearms is different, mostly because the gas system patent for the AR-15 was sold to Colt, and Stoner was working with other designs.

The main purpose of Armalite’s pursuit of the AR-18 series was in the ease of manufacture- most of the work was done with stampings, screw machine parts, and a few moldings and forgings. Machine work was kept to a minimum. This enabled the sales force at Armalite to attempt to get other countries to adopt the system- purchasing a “Turn-key” plant in their own country- that Armalite would supply, outfit, and get income from. This allowed countries with unsophisticated work forces or resources to make a smaller caliber select fire rifle. (HK has many similar plants around the world). Unfortunately for Armalite, the system never reached the worldwide recognition, and the only real manufacturing was done by their own facility, or as semi-automatics by Howa in Japan, or Sterling in England.

Most of us are somewhat familiar with the AR-18 and AR-180 series guns. This article is only intended to show some of the evolutionary examples that had recently surfaced. SAR will be going in-depth into these under-rated rifles in future issues. In the meantime, we hope you enjoy this view of the Lost Armalites.

Once introduced to the community of Class 3 firearms, we all seem to learn a new language. It would appear to one who is not involved in gun collecting that we have regressed to speaking in numbers, or advanced to some sort of code language, but either way, we can not ignore its presence. Numerous times I have seen the confused and “I really have no idea what you are talking about” look on many a spouse’s face when the conversations begin. The conversations I am writing about are in reference to discussing the ATF forms.

All it takes are a few stops at a gun shop that sells NFA firearms, and you start to pick up this new lingo as well. Rather than explain that a machine gun is transferable, and owned by an individual, often it is simply referred to as a Form 4 Gun. When you are traveling out of State to a shoot or competition, you have to be sure to have your 5320 in, well ahead of time. If your NFA firearm needs repair, you can Form 5 it to another dealer. When a manufacturer builds a new machine gun, he has to Form 2 it. I think you get the picture.

Of all these forms, it is without a doubt that the most popular ATF form is the Form 4. After all, this small piece of paper is actually the welcome letter of our induction into the Class 3 world. The coveted Form 4, when received for the first time, is often erroneously referred to as a machine gun license, a class three license, or even a federal machine gun permit. In actuality it is simply a TAX record for an NFA firearm. Next to the birth certificate and the marriage license, many enthusiasts consider their first approved Form 4 an irreplaceable document.

If you are reading this publication you are probably familiar with the ATF Form 4, so in this writing, I hope to shed a little light on a lesser known form. This form may soon become your favorite, as it can open many doors for you in your quest for a larger Class 3 collection. As with all other aspects of Class 3 ownership there are misconceptions about the Form 1, and I will try to clear some of them up for you here.

The ATF Form 1 (5320.1) is the Application To Make And Register a Firearm. This form is required by Sections 5821 and 5822 of the National Firearms Act, Title 26 U.S.C., Chapter 53 to manufacture and register NFA firearms. This is the form that an individual must submit prior to making an NFA firearm.

Contrary to popular belief an individual can still manufacture firearms for his / her own private collection and use. It is not necessary to be licensed as a firearm manufacturer unless you are making firearms as a business, or for resale. For the most part, there is very little paperwork necessary for an individual to worry about, at least until you get to Title II firearms. This is where the Form 1 comes in.

It IS lawful for an individual to manufacture short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, sound suppressors, A.O.W.’s and destructive devices for their own collection. In a nutshell, the only firearms an individual may not manufacture for private ownership on a Form 1 are machine guns.

The manufacturing tax is $200.00 and is due upon submission of the form. I know what many of you are thinking right now, and the answer is “Yes, even if you are making an A.O.W.” The MANUFACTURING TAX is $200.00 on every NFA firearm, no matter what classification it falls under. If it were an A.O.W., any subsequent transfer would only be a $5.00 tax, but that is a TRANSFER TAX.

For those not familiar with this form, the information required on a Form 1 is very similar to that on a Form 4. It is necessary to provide Uncle Sam with your name, address, and phone number. As for information regarding your intended firearm, they ask for the name of the original manufacturer of the receiver if you are re-manufacturing someone else’s Title I firearm into a title II, the type of firearm, caliber or gauge, model, length of barrel, length overall, and the serial number.
Unlike a form 4, there is an applicant certification on the front of the Form 1. You must answer the same questions that appear on the ATF Form 4473. (Commonly referred to as the Yellow Sheet. This is the one you fill out at the gun shop on every firearm purchase.) You must attach a passport style photo to the back of this form and bring it to your Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO). Your CLEO certifies that he has no reason to believe you will use this proposed firearm for unlawful purpose, nor will you be in violation of any state or local law.

This form is completed in duplicate, and mailed to the NFA Branch of the BATF along with two completed fingerprint cards (FBI Form FD-258), and the $200.00 check made payable to the Department of the Treasury. These fingerprint cards must be supplied by ATF. Your wait is now on. A reasonable amount of time for approval of this form is in the 90-day range.

You can use the Form 1 to manufacture a firearm from scratch, or to remanufacture an existing title 1 firearm into an NFA firearm. A few popular remanufacturing projects include changing the barrel length of a shotgun to less than 18 inches, and remanufacturing Title 1 receivers to destructive devices. In the case of the latter, an individual who lives in an area with no destructive device dealer and wishes to own an M-203 or M-79 grenade launcher, may purchase the bare receiver through a regular FFL dealer and remanufacture it as a destructive device at a later date. When the approved form is returned, the barrel and the remainder of parts can be installed. It is at this time that the destructive device is completed. The barrel cannot be originally from that firearm and it cannot come from the dealer who sold the original receiver.

One very important thing to remember is that you can not start making the firearm you have filed the application for until it comes back approved. This could get you in trouble real quick. If you are manufacturing a short-barreled shotgun you can have the shotgun in your possession in its original title 1 configuration, but DO NOT cut the barrel until the tax stamp is in your possession. You must also make sure that you do not have any combination of parts in your possession that could get you in trouble either. If you have a Remington 870, and you purchase a 12” barrel at a gun show before your Form 1 is approved and returned, you are guilty of conspiracy to manufacture an illegal, short-barreled shotgun. Even though the parts are not assembled, you can still get hit for possession. This also stands true with grenade launcher receivers. A bare receiver is considered a Title 1 firearm, but once you are in possession of a barrel as well, you have a destructive device, requiring registration under Title II. Do a little homework as to what parts can get you into trouble. Do not purchase them until your form is approved.

It is a little more complicated and equally important when you are building a sound suppressor. Unlike other firearm projects, you can not have ANY suppressor parts in your possession until the form is approved.

The Main part of the sound suppressor is the tube. Similar to the lower receiver of an M-16, this is the registered piece and is treated as the firearm. This is where the similarity to other NFA firearms ends and it gets a little complicated. BATF has disallowed possession of ANY suppressor part, except by qualified Class 2 persons or businesses. To make it simple, no one can possess any suppressor parts unless they are a Class 2 Manufacturer. This includes individuals who own suppressors, and even class 3 dealers. Suppressor parts can include end caps, baffles, wipes, diffuser sections, and obviously, the tube.

If you own a suppressor that needs to have the baffles replaced, or needs to be rebuilt, you must ship it to a manufacturer on an approved form 5 for repair. You can not simply buy a few baffles, nor can you just build them yourself. However, it has always been my understanding that if you are the manufacturer of a suppressor on a Form 1, you may maintain it yourself. Just do not be manufacturing any spare parts. This being the case, it is imperative that you do not start construction of a sound suppressor until you receive the approved Form 1.

If you decide to enhance your collection by adding a few Form 1 guns, make sure you educate yourself about the project you are working on. Safety has to be your top priority. You can request ATF forms by calling the ATF Distribution Center at (703) 455-7801, or writing them at: PO Box 5950, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Be safe and have fun.