In the few years of its existence, Qual-A-Tec developed a reputation as one of the most innovative developers of suppressors. Very little was written about their products since they were almost exclusively sold to the U.S. Military and the majority of those went to the Navy. The shield of secrecy was tightly held between the media and the user. I will not violate that shield and will instead try to describe the technologies that were developed.

Let me digress for a few moments to relate how I became involved in the Qual-A-Tec saga. Unlike many silencer designers, my involvement in suppressors came as a result of my job and not from some personal desire to build suppressors for myself. As a mechanical engineer working for the Naval Weapons Support Center, Crane, Indiana, I was assigned to work with the Joint Service Small Arms Program (JSSAP). Major David Baskett has to take the blame (or credit) for getting me involved in suppressors. He worked for JSSAP at Picatinny Arsenal and had become involved with trying to support the Special Operations Forces with special small arms developments. We worked together to establish a group within JSSAP whose job it would be to perform special developments for low demand weapon systems (including, of course, suppressors). We traveled the country searching out suppressors that could be useful for these special military operators. This effort started in the late 1970’s and to those who remember, there was not a lot of suppressor development going on in this country at that time. I recall that the 22 caliber Suppressors that we looked at were all 1.38 to 1.75 inch diameter cans with flat washer baffles. While they were relatively quiet, they were large, heavy and bulky. Looking back, there has been a tremendous amount of improvement made in suppressor technology in the last 20 years. I will try to relate my experiences throughout this “golden age” of suppressor development. I am not a historian, and did not do a good job of documenting the suppressors I evaluated so my look at this history is from the technological developments.

The suppressors of the 1970’s were primarily of two styles. The Navy was using the S&W pistols with the “Hush Puppy” wipe style of suppressors. This System had been developed by the Navy at White Oak and had inserts made with polyurethane wipes and special subsonic ammunition. The problem with the system was that the chamber pressure of the cartridges was quite high (loaded by Super-El) and that led to problems with ejecting the round after unlocking the slide. The other problem was that the terminal effects were poor. I recall a report from a SEAL who had the task to take out the “guard goose” at a Village in Vietnam. He shot the goose twice with the Hush Puppy and only succeeded in making the goose mad and very noisy. Obviously, this lack of lethality led to the guns being left behind during “real” missions. The other suppressors were a mixture of rather simplistic flat washer type baffles in rather large diameter tubes. Many were made from aluminum to keep the weight down and almost universally were not well suited to the real life missions of the military user. What was clearly needed was a real system. Unfortunately that approach was not to become a reality for quite a few years.

The advent of limited partnerships and capital write-offs for R&D expenses lead to some creative funding for a serious development of suppressors. Charles A. (Mickey) Finn met tax attorney Frederick R. Schumacher who set up these limited partnerships to fund development of suppressors specifically for military customers. Qual-A-Tec was the corporation formed to perform this effort. As one of the military customers, Crane took advantage of the offers from Mickey Finn to try and develop new technologies. This happened simultaneously with Richard Marcinko forming up his “Mob Six.” So here was a user in need of new good hardware and a developer in need of a project. Each needed and used the other. This was far from a marriage. It was more a case of consensual intercourse. When Maj. Baskett and I first tested Mickey Finn’s suppressors they were quieter than anything else we had found. At that time he was using simple flat washer baffles spaced at approximately .25 inches. The rear baffles usually had four holes near the outer edge that helped keep the decibel reading lower, but the real key to the suppressor’s performance was keeping the bore though the suppressor to an absolute minimum in relation to the projectile diameter. The 20 or more baffles of course added a lot of weight to the system. While I was still at Crane, Maj. Baskett arranged for me to take one of these to Washington for a demonstration to some clandestine operators. Being young and naive I put through the travel orders and carried the suppressed .22 Ruger pistol to Washington National. I met Dave at the entrance to the Pentagon and we proceeded to go inside to conduct a demo in one of the vaulted rooms. Phone books were gathered and used as the target. I remember everyone present was duly impressed. After the test I packed the gun and ammo into a tote bag and out the door we went. Dave and I repeated the tests later that night at the hotel room and the next day I was back in Indiana. Looking back, I see how utterly stupid one young engineer can be. I guess that by that time I was hooked. Not so much on the desire to develop suppressors but to try and help the Special Operations users. There was so much clandestine paranoia that the user simply would not go out and find the best suppressors available. That has changed a lot in the last 15 years due to the formation of USSOCOM. Back in the 70’s and early 80’s each Special Operations Group choose its own sources for specialized hardware and these sources were closely guarded secrets. Each group wanted the ability to claim that they were better equipped to handle a specific task than another group. This rivalry really held the total development process back. Things have greatly improved. Today there is open competition and users writing well thought out requirement documents. Today’s Special Forces operators are getting much better equipment than those in years past and more will come home from their missions because of it.

Mickey was able to get a few small contracts with Crane. One of the first involved was a .50 caliber Suppressor for a SS41 German rifle that came from the Aberdeen Museum. Crane took an accuracy barrel and sent it to Mickey along with a drawing. Mickey had located a lathe that could form the dual start course pitched metric thread. This weapon was used to establish the base line characteristics for a .50 cal. sniper rifle. Mickey built a suppressor that was used for the proof of concept. This suppressor was a large aluminum affair with titanium flat washer baffles. The first time we tried to mount this suppressor to the rifle happened at the SEAL’S Desert facility. The threads for the suppressor had not been machined properly, but because it was hard to tell whether it was fully seated on the weapon or not we decided to test it. The first shot was fired by myself and it launched the suppressor 20 to 30 feet down range. Needless to say the recoil was quite severe. The suppressor was only a little worse for the error and by the next day was properly mounted and successfully tested. This was probably the first successful .50 cal suppressor ever built.

Mickey also got another contract to improve suppressors for Ingram MAC 10s and the Hush Puppy’s that Mob Six needed. The Ingram suppressors were taken apart and the aluminum spiral cut baffles were replaced with flat washers and spacers. Testing showed that the sound pressure level reduction was improved by six to eight decibels. For the Hush Puppies a baffle was added behind the wipe unit and that improved its reduction by three decibels. The problems happened when the users started using the guns hard and didn’t keep the suppressors locked on the guns tight enough. To anyone who has handled an Ingram much it is easily seen that the alignment goes to heck very rapidly when the suppressor gets loose. The original spiral baffles had a tubular bore from one end of the suppressor to the other. This guided the bullet out of the suppressor whether the suppressor was tight to the weapon or not. The washer type baffles did not do this and eventually a round exited the side of one of the cans. The first of many lessons I learned about the SEALS is that they do not take particularly good care of their weapons. To many who look at their machine guns as investments or objects to study, realizing that the SEALS look at them as disposable tools, made to be used and abused as necessary is a revelation. To SEALS, there are two types of tools, shit and good shit. Shit tools have to be carried, cleaned, maintained and still don’t work right. Good shit needs minimal cleaning and maintenance and does its job, as advertised, every time. Good shit doesn’t get in the way of “Miller Time”. Once this got properly engraved into my mind I started looking at suppressors (and other weapons) from a different light. What must this tool become to be truly useful to these users? That became the driving force behind all of my future suppressor designs.

I had my mid-life crisis, resigned from Crane and went to work for Mickey Finn at Qual-A-Tec. This was not a financially advantageous move on my part and I owe a lot to my family for supporting this choice. I have to look at this as another educational experience on my part. Because Qual-A-Tec didn’t have to show a profit, we were able to devote a lot of time and money to improving suppressor design. Mickey is a very talented man and had a good analytical mind that understood the goals of improving the workings of suppressors. We were able to build and test two or three different designs a day for a couple of years. All of this resulted in a very good suppressor education for me. I mostly documented what was accomplished and had input into the development experiments. I also helped prepare and proofread all of the patent applications. Bob McDonald came to the company a little earlier than I did. Bob ran the shop and built most of the experimental hardware. He also provided input into the design but primarily brought forth new manufacturing techniques. Other people were involved but this was the core of the design effort. The first big breakthrough was the thicker flat baffle with the angled hole through the center. This baffle proved so effective that the diameter of the suppressor tubes were able to be dramatically reduced. I think that each baffle design has an optimum diameter associated with it for each caliber. It became apparent to us that this new baffle had to have higher gas pressure behind it to optimize its performance.

Let me digress a bit here to discuss some of the physics that makes a suppressor work. The measure of the sound from a suppressor is a measure of peak pressure at the muzzle exit caused by the escaping gas and projectile. A suppressor’s job, then, is to keep the pressure at the muzzle at a minimum. The first applicable physics equation is: pv=RT ; also known as the ideal gas law. In that equation p is pressure, v is volume per unit weight of the gas, R is a gas constant, and T is temperature in Degrees Rankin (degrees Fahrenheit plus 459.69). We are obviously not dealing with an ideal gas but some generalities can be made from this equation. First is that if you lower the temperature of the gas you lower the pressure. Likewise if you increase the volume in which the gas resides you also lower the pressure. The next thing that physics will show you is that turbulence causes flow to be reduced. Thus two things that a suppressor must do well are to take the temperature out of the gas and to restrict gas flow by causing turbulence. More efficient suppressors (in terms of decibel reduction) will get hotter in fewer shots than inefficient suppressors. This of course can lead to problems in suppressors for full automatic firearms. That is why material choices for suppressors are so important. They must absorb the heat from intimate contact with the gas as it travels through the suppressor yet conduct that heat rapidly to the outside of the suppressor. There are a few suppressor designers who think and even have patented suppressors based upon other concepts such as noise cancellation. I believe that the performance of their suppressors can be better explained with the physics of temperature reduction and turbulence creation. By the way, this education took several years to sink into this thick skull of mine. Of course knowing this will not make you a good suppressor designer. Applying these physical principals to hardware is still difficult. Looking at suppressors from this aspect will, however, lead the designer to better suppression concepts.

The suppressors which were developed at Qual-A-Tec began to shrink in total volume as the slant face baffles were improved. The spacers between the baffles also have a direct bearing on the efficiency of the suppressor. Like everyone else we started with simple tubular spacers of various lengths. The next generation we fondly called the “crank shaft” because the spacers were welded to the baffles and were undersize tubes with a single port that aligned with the output flow from the slanted baffle. The baffles were sometimes rotated 90 degrees at each baffle thus the crank shaft shape. These suppressors worked well in rifle calibers and some were built in 9mm as well. The next big step forward was the addition of a deep cut into the thickness of the baffle. This cut was joined with cuts from the back along the sides of the angled central bore. Three holes were then drilled to allow the gas which got compressed into this chamber to flow downward along the angled central bore. These baffles had some structural problems, which were eventually cured by adding strips of tubing between the two walls. We again went to the spacer design to gain some more sound pressure reduction. The final choice was a cone that was machined directly on the end of the baffle. This proved to be very quiet but lacked the structural strength to prevent the baffle from collapsing on itself when the pressures or temperatures of the suppressor got too high. This baffle was licensed to H&K and people familiar with their products from the mid to late 1980’s will recognize this baffle.

Qual-A-Tec made some significant advances in the state of the art of suppressors in the few years it was in existence. It probably built less than 500 suppressors and most of those went to military customers. Very few of these suppressors ever made it into private hands except as products built under license by H&K and AWC Systems Technology. It obviously takes a lot of business savvy to make a profit in the suppressor market and unfortunately that was not present in the Qual-A-Tec organization. It was an interesting period of time and I learned a lot from my involvement. Hopefully the military users of the suppressors that have their lineage through the Qual-A-Tec years have gotten superior hardware as a result of this company’s existence.

BATF Reports Pistol Production Declined By Nearly 1 Million Units In ‘95

Reflecting the downturn in consumer demand for handguns occurring in the second quarter of 1995, this was following the legislatively induced gun buying panic of 1994. American pistol production in 1995 declined by nearly one million units from the 1994 total. Specifically, 1,195,266 pistols were produced in 1995, as compared to 2,014,336 in 1994, according to the latest available figures from the Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report issued by the industry’s regulator, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (BATF).

By caliber, pistol production broke down as follows: only 260,059 units in .22 caliber were produced in 1995 as compared to 456,490 in 1994; particularly hard hit by the Brady Law’s attendant five working day waiting period and illegal background check fees imposed by chief law enforcement officers in some localities were smaller self-defense pistol production such as those in .25 caliber which declined by over 50% in 1995 to 51,025 versus 110,732 produced the year before. Similarly, .32 caliber manufacture dropped to 19,220 in 1995, as opposed to 29,818 in 1994. Pistols chambered in .380 totaled just 182,802 in 1995 while reaching a high of 313,915 in the prior year. 9mm products declined to 398,467 in 1995 compared to 752,801 in 1994. Pistols chambered for up to .50 caliber cartridges (including .45 ACP) dropped in production to 283,693 in 1995 versus 350,580 in 1994.

The top three pistol producers during 1995 were Smith & Wesson with a total of 241,906 units in all calibers (versus 269,549 in 1994). Sturm, Ruger & Co. finished in second place during 1995 with a total of 197,489 pistols (compared to 299,647 the year before). Beretta USA Corp. finished in third place in 1995 having made 158,858 pistols (in comparison to 201,517 in 1994).

The disastrous effects of the implementation of the “Brady Law” on manufacturers of popularly priced small caliber pistols often used for self-defense is dramatically illustrated by an examination of some of their production figures.

For example, Bryco Arms made 227,924 pistols in 1994 and only 56,727 in 1995. Davis Industries manufactured 85,124 pistols in 1994 and just 45,171 in 1995. Lorcin Engineering Co., Inc. produced 151,208 pistols in 1994 and saw its production drop to 83,463 in 1995.

Revolvers

Revolver production, on the other hand, declined much less dramatically to a total of 527,664 in 1995 from 586,450 in 1994. Since the 1994 Crime Law imposed magazine capacity restriction of 10-rounds effectively eliminated the market for double-column magazine high-capacity pistols; consumers opted to purchase handguns, which offered the most punch-instead of the greatest number of rounds.

As a result, production of .357 Magnum revolvers increased to 210,379 in 1995 from 170,856 in 1994. Also, .44 Magnum revolver manufacture increased to 90,144 in 1995 from 89,713 in 1994 (Part of the increase in .44 Magnum revolver production is attributed by industry analysts to the increased interest in big bore handgun hunting). Production of revolvers up to .50 caliber, however, declined to 30,269 in 1995 from 36,101 the year before. Manufacture of .38 caliber revolvers declined to 92,913 units in 1995 from 146,630 in 1994. Wheelguns in .32 caliber dramatically dropped in production from 9,160 in 1994, to 4,381 in 1995. And .22 caliber revolvers declined to 99,578 manufactured in 1995 versus 133,990 in 1994.

The top three revolver manufacturers during 1995 were Smith & Wesson in first place with a total of 258,223 (compared to 255,216 in 1994). Sturm, Ruger finished second with 148,439 wheelguns in 1995 (versus 136,394 in 1994). Colt’s Manufacturing Co. finished in third place in 1995 having made 40,085 revolvers (in comparison to 52,672 in 1994).

Rifles/Shotguns

As did revolver production, rifle manufacture pretty much held its own in 1995 as total production came to 1,331,780, a modest decline from the 1,349,116 rifles produced during 1994. Shotgun manufacturing also declined slightly from the 1,254,926 made during 1994 to the 1,173,645 produced during 1995.

The top three rifle manufacturers in 1995 were Sturm, Ruger with 407,785 rifles (compared to 354,355 the year before). The Marlin Firearms Co. finished second in 1995 with 396,215 units (versus 358,372 in 1994). Remington Arms Co. finished in third place with 242,706 rifles in 1995 (as opposed to 204,496 in 1994).

Remington Arms Co. led the top three shotgun manufacturers in 1995 with 426,442 units (versus 403,012 in 1994). O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. placed second in 1995 with 339,881 scatterguns (compared to 373,512 in 1994). And, finishing third in 1995 was H&R 1871, Inc. with 165,813 of their nifty single barrel guns (as opposed to 216,360 the year before).

NFA Firearms

Manufacture of machine guns dipped slightly during 1995 to 9,185 units from 10,248 during 1994. On the other hand, manufacturing of Any Other Weapons (such as short barrel rifles and shotguns, pen guns, smooth bore revolvers, etc.) declined significantly during 1995 to only 110 examples from 572 in 1994. No breakdown by manufacturer or caliber is provided for machine guns or Any Other Weapons in the BATF report.

There were also 8,607 miscellaneous firearms manufactured during 1995, versus 10,918 in 1994. Overall, American firearm manufacturers produced 4,246,257 firearms of all types during 1995 as opposed to a total of 5,226,566 in 1994.

Exportation

The total number of firearms exported increased during 1995 to 441,331 from 422,728 in 1994. Export of pistols, revolvers, rifles and machine guns also saw increases, while exports of shotguns, Any Other Weapons and miscellaneous firearms showed declines.

Leading the gainers were revolvers with 131,634 exported in 1995 (versus 78,935 in 1994). The top three revolver exporters during 1995 were: Smith & Wesson with 113,899 units (versus 56,980 in 1994); Sturm, Ruger sending abroad 8,636 revolvers (compared to 9,383 in 1994); and, Colt’s Manufacturing Co. with export of 5,388 (in comparison to 5,105 in 1994).

The exportation of pistols reached 97,969 in 1995, up from 95,036 in 1994. The top three pistol exporters during 1995 were Smith & Wesson with 66,689 (versus 57,442 in 1994); Colt’s Manufacturing’s 10,351 pistols (compared to 12,890 the year before); and, Sturm, Ruger’s total of 6,399 pistols going abroad in 1995 (in comparison to 5,185 in 1994).
Machine gun exports climbed to 19,259 in 1995 from 16,729 in 1994. Any Other Weapon exports declined to just 27 in 1995, from 56 the year before. No breakdown by manufacturer was provided in either of these two product categories.

Rifle exports climbed to 89,053 in total in 1995, posting a solid gain over the total of 82,226 in 1994. The top three rifle exporters were Remington with 32,315 units sent abroad (versus 26,973 in 1994); Marlin Firearms shipping out 22,951 guns (compared to 14,174 in 1994); and, Sturm Ruger with 22,503 rifle exports (as opposed to 18,764 in the previous year).

American shotgun exports did not fare as well as most of the other firearm categories as total exports dropped in 1995 to 100,894 from 146,524 in 1994. The top three shotgun exporters, by rank, were: O.F. Mossberg with 24,653 units (compared to 46,459 in 1994); Remington sent abroad 19,764 shotguns (compared to 27,835 the year before); and, Winchester Licensee U.S. Repeating Arms Co. exported 18,454 units (as opposed to 27,922 in 1994).

MG Shoot Cancelled

In other news, the annual “North Country Summer Machinegun Shoot” hosted by the Minuteman Shooting Club of New Boston, New Hampshire has been postponed until further notice. The landowner of the Stratford Hollow site has decided to utilize the property for business purposes, thus rendering the range area unsuitable for machine gun shooting. The event had been taking place at the site for the past seven years.

The club is searching for a new range location and may purchase a site to be used exclusively for machinegunners. There are no plans to disband the club or cease operations. For further information, the club may be contacted at 603-537-1009.

Night Vision

Nightline, Inc. (PO Box 16-0819, Miami, FL 33116) has developed some interesting new infrared lighting options of interest to the professional. The MAXA BEAM searchlight is designed for military search and rescue missions. Within its 3.2-pound package is a short-arc, Xenon lamp producing a compact white light source with a 1 1/2 mile range in the spot mode. Crime suspects are easily disoriented with the pulse strobe. Marine patrols can observe suspicious boat maneuverings over a mile away without being detected. Covert IR filters and wired remote controls are available.

Nightline’s Phoenix Transmitter is said to be the first pocket-sized user-programmable infrared (IR) beacon designed for individual combat identification (CID). It is invisible to the naked eye, but has been seen from as far away as 20 miles with night vision systems. Its primary advantage is it’s instant no-tool field encoding capability, which allows any user to easily enter and change its flashing code, thus allowing units to be distinguished from one another.

The Firefly is Nightline’s miniature source of covert infrared light that can be used for an infinite number of applications (e.g. tracking a vehicle, creating a covert launching pad, or marking a rendezvous point). Each of the unit’s LEDs will emit covert light in a 360-degree hemispherical pattern. This 1-inch high strobe light, which can be viewed up to 3 miles away and is powered by a 9-volt battery, will penetrate most types of clothing, foliage, as well as cardboard. It can be placed under water to a moderate depth.

IR filters are now available from Nightline for the popular flashlights sold under the Mag-Lite, Sure Fire and Mini-Mag brands. The filters are manufactured of Polysulfone and block 99-100% of visible light.

The all new AN/PAQ-4C infrared aiming light from Nightline is eyesafe at 1,800 meters and is billed as the world’s smallest and lightest weight military standard aiming light. A combination of preset zero and accurate adjustors enables precise zeroing to be established by firing only a single 3-round shot group. Once boresighted to an arm, the operator simply puts the steady (non-pulsing) laser beam on target and fires.

Using ‘AA’ batteries, activation is by means of an integral switch with momentary and full on positions, or by a remote push button switch. Mounts are available separately. Since the device utilizes a steady, non-pulsing laser, domestic sales are limited to U.S. federal government agencies.

Nightline’s IR Target Pointer/Illuminator/Aiming Laser is the result of extensive field evaluation. Used hand-held or arm mounted, a seven position mode selector enables operation of the aiming light and pointer/illuminator individually or in combination, as well as providing high and low aiming light power.

The differences between infrared light sources and night vision gear is explained in Nightline’s literature. Infrared is part of the spectrum of light: a wavelength too long for the unaided eye to detect. This “invisible” light can be viewed through the use of night vision equipment. Such night vision devices are classified as passive as they do not emit any light, while infrared light sources are active as they do emit a beam of light which can be detected with infrared devices or other night vision equipment.

For the night vision user, light sources that have the capability of transmitting in the infrared spectrum can be very helpful and even critical in applications of extreme darkness.

For example, in an unlit building without windows, such as a warehouse, night vision devices alone would not have sufficient ambient light to operate adequately. Instead of the bright green image expected under optimal conditions, the user would view a black image with what would appear to be “static.” The same effect would occur when operating in rural areas far from city lights, in heavily wooded sites, and during nights with little or no starlight or moonlight. In the cases, the use of an IR light source will provide the additional light that the night vision device might need for successful results. Night vision devices do not normally require IR light sources to operate successfully; it is only in environments of extreme darkness that IR light sources may improve visibility.

Illuminating a warehouse from inside or lighting up the inside of a car or room from a distance of several hundred yards without being detected requires the use of a powerful searchlight with an IR filter. In operations using undercover agents, flashing IR lights may be placed in the pants pocket of each member for quick identification and safe maneuvering of the team.

“There are going to be situations where people are going to go without assistance. That’s just the facts” – LA Police Chief Gates.

No particular reason for throwing in the above quote. None at all. I am not planning on waxing eloquently about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or anything like it. Chief Gates spoke this during the LA riots, and I think it speaks for itself. Raffica just wanted to toss it out there for you all to remember, the next time someone tells you how the “Thin Blue Line” can protect you and your family. I have yet to have a police officer tell me that- usually just a politician. Off the soapbox and onto the answer box….

Q1- I keep getting offered this “High pressure” 9mm ammunition. People say not to use it in handguns, but it’s all right in subguns. Why would they sell it if it can’t be used in handguns? Is it safe or not? Jim B.

A1- Jim, this is the Hirtenberger ammunition. This issue has been hashed around quite a bit, with some people taking the position that it is totally unsafe and others defining “Safe” according to what firearms are being used. I will quote here in a letter that was sent from Hirtenberger AG to Technology Branch of ATF and I received at my office shortly thereafter.

“It has come to our attention that up to 12 million rounds of 9mm L7A1 ball ammunition we manufactured during 1990-1992 for the British MOD shall have been sold on the world surplus market.

At the request of the British MOD this ammunition was loaded substantially higher than the usual order to insure proper functioning of their Sterling submachine guns also under adverse conditions. Because of the information we arranged firing tests of L7A1 ball reference rounds out of the production lots concerned according to CIO standard at the Austrian Proof House in Vienna, and the proof report showed an important excess of the maximum allowed pressure. The maximum allowed mean pressure according to CIP reads 2600 bar, whereas the pressure measured with our 9mm L7A1 reads 3773 bar. This ammunition is therefore totally unsafe for use in even the most modern 9 x 19 handguns.

We were informed that this ammunition is currently being offered to American surplus distributors for sale on the American domestic market. Hirtenberger AG will assume no liability for damages done if this high-pressure ammunition is released on the American market. The purpose of this letter is to inform the US Government of a potentially hazardous situation and we attach a copy of the ammunition’s head stamp for identification purposes, whereby the number 90 (=1990) may change also to 91 or 92.

The accompanying charts of testing that I received showed pressure measured in between 1750 and 2700 bar. I was unable to ascertain where the 3773 bar number mentioned in the Hirtenberger letter came from- nothing on the charts they supplied appeared close to it. Since the manufacturer knows best, and should be listened to, I would strongly advise against using this ammunition in any handgun. At the very least, many of the tests on the chart indicate max pressures for handguns. On the other hand- it was manufactured for use in the Sterling submachine gun, and it apparently met the British specs. Submachine guns are usually manufactured to higher pressure specs, and there is frequently ammunition loaded a little “Hotter” for them. This is by no means the first time something like this has occurred.

It is important to avoid bolt-cranial contact, or in the case of pistols, slide cranial contact. With that in mind, it would be prudent to only shoot this ammunition in healthy, well made submachine guns. The importers who sell it require a signed statement acknowledging that you will not be irresponsible with it. We have fired a significant amount of this ammunition from Uzi’s, Port Said’s, Sten’s, and Sterlings. No problems, very reliable ammo- and no sign of over-pressure cases. You can tell it’s hot by the recoil and somewhat increased cyclic rates. Take all of your safety precautions, and make your own decisions. I don’t have any problem with using this responsibly, but we make sure that there is no chance of mixing this ammunition into any “Smorgasbord” shooting piles. There is a potential for problems here. The manufacturer does not want you using it in pistols.

The 9 x 19 mm Hirtenberger ammunition in question is packed in gray cardboard boxes of fifty rounds per- 124 grain full metal jacket (Ball). The boxes are marked L7A1, and the headstamp is “HP” at 12 o’clock. At 9 o’clock is a circle with a cross in it. Spread over the 6 o’clock position is “L7A1”, and at 3 o’clock is the year- either “90”, “91” or “92”.

Q2- I have an M-60 and have been gathering spare parts. One of my concerns is the “Run-away” op rod. I keep hearing about this, and don’t want these in my inventory. How do I tell the difference? Ron

A2-The early Op rod is not really a “Run-away” piece. It doesn’t usually cause the problem. The original M-60 can turn into a run-away for any of a number of reasons; a worn or broken sear, a worn sear notch on the operating rod, or slightly underpowered ammunition. A freak circumstance of dirt or carbon build up can keep too much friction on the operating rod, making for “Sluggish” operation- it won’t recoil all the way to the sear notch. Run-away means- you take your finger off the trigger, and the machine gun keeps cycling ammunition. This is not a positive condition. Many injuries have occurred from this circumstance.

In the words of my old US Army machine gun instructor, this is “Bad- no like gun keep shooting when no want rock’n’roll”.

Careful inspection of the critical points on the firearm, combined with taking appropriate action as problems are found, will keep it running properly. In this case, the military has “Solved” the problem by adding another notch next to the original sear notch on the op rod. (See the diagram “P” is the standard location, “S” is the E3 additional notch) This modification is on the M60 E3 configuration guns. You can safely use these op rods in your standard M60. The idea is that in the case of a bolt carrier not going all the way to “Engagement” with the sear, as it slips forward it will drop into the secondary notch. This effectively stops the runaway. You may still have a run-away problem if you invert the sear on re-assembly, have a broken or worn sear, have a “Sticky” trigger, or have a carbon build up in the gas piston area (Remember that “Sluggish” problem?). Check all of these, and by all means, use the E3 type Op rod.

No answers yet on last month’s question about the HK-25- we went to press too quickly for anyone to answer, so I wanted to just give you a drawing to think about…. A little “Teaser” for you HK enthusiasts to stay up late at night over…

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

This series by Harold Lewis is designed to assist newer Class 3 dealers in their attempts to make law enforcement sales.

In our last segment we discussed how to get and set up your appointments with law enforcement agencies. We will now discuss the equipment and what information you will need to know to get through your first demonstration. We will begin with firearms. It would certainly be fun to bring an M60 or a Barrett 50 to your demonstration. Unfortunately, you probably won’t be able to sell any of these weapons, unless the Department has “special needs”.

Your inventory will be limited by the types of guns that your local Law Enforcement (LE) needs and the current political climate in your area. The guns that LEs seem to want are shotguns, sniper rifles, full auto sub guns, and semi and full auto rifles. Belt fed machine guns and light artillery do not usually show up on an LE purchase order. That’s good, as it would be a real drag to carry them around anyway. However, many departments do want training with belt fed and antique machine guns for forensic and farmilarization. Many municipalities will not permit full- auto weapons to be used by their police agencies, but they will permit the acquisition of new shotguns or a good sniper rifle. You certainly shouldn’t object if they trade in all their old rusty Thompson and Colt machine guns for new sniper rifles, sub guns and shotguns.

Over the past fifteen years many police agencies have established units trained in military assault tactics. SWAT, TAC teams and numerous other LE groups were formed to, “stop terrorism and fight the drug wars.” Ever since Waco and Ruby Ridge, however, many departments have changed to a more controlled approach to law enforcement. We now have emergency service units instead of assault teams. Whatever they call themselves, they are the only people who are trained to use the weapons that you sell. They will also be the only people you will deal with in the department for your demonstration. Very few LE personnel are trained to use exotic weapons. Most police and sheriffs go through their entire career without ever firing a shot from an automatic weapon. Only a few are chosen for these special units. They are well trained and most of them are very knowledgeable about the firearms they use.

What about handgun sales? Should you get involved in bidding wars on department purchases?

That is a personal choice. If you have had experience in this type of sale you may want to continue. Personally, I would much rather concentrate on selling National Firearms Act Branch (NFA) weapons. I would not mix this with peripheral sales. The sale of hand guns to LE departments is difficult, time consuming and very unprofitable. In most cases you will find that you are in direct competition with the gun manufacturers. Often the other bidders are the wholesalers that you buy your guns from. In either case you will not be able to out bid them. That’s O.K. That’s not what you’re there for. You are there to show and sell them guns that NO ONE else sells and to get the department to give you all their NFA Title II weapons in exchange.

The firearms you select for your demo can come out of your new inventory stock, or you can demonstrate used guns in good condition. In either case the guns should be kept very clean and dry. Make sure they are spotless. Even if the guns have never been fired, clean them before you go out for your demo. Wipe off all excess oil from the inside and the outside of the weapon. The guns will be handled by the LE personnel, and you don’t want anyone getting their hands or uniforms oily, dirty or greasy.

Remember, never carry the guns loaded with live ammo. This is very unprofessional and very dangerous. You are giving a demonstration of new firearms. You are not there to have a shoot out. Do not bring any ammo. You will not need it. The only exception would be if the department wants a live fire demo. In the last eight years I have never had a department ask me for one.

If you do provide a live fire demo, you will have to supply the ammo, and the guns will have to be cleaned. The wear and tear on your firearms may not be worth the time or effort. Other considerations are liability problems, should the department decide to use the reloads that they found in someone’s basement. Do not suggest a live fire demo. If asked, reply, that you are there to show them new weapons. The guns must be kept new and cannot be fired. Most of the personnel you will be dealing with have worked with automatic weapons, and shooting to them is no big deal. They may wish for a quick test fire to see if the firearms reliably cycle department ammunition.

Whichever guns you choose, be sure that you have complete knowledge and full confidence in your ability to handle the firearms you are showing. Never point a weapon at any human being or in an unsafe direction. (as always) Keep your finger off the trigger. Handle all of the weapons as if they were loaded. Read and learn everything you can about the guns you pick. Study the technical manuals and practice the assembly and disassembly of every part. You must know the names of all the parts, and learn all the technical information, weight, length, trigger pull, caliber variations, as well as all the different models available. You must become an expert with the guns that you carry with you to your demo. You should know everything there is to know about them. You should be able to field strip and reassemble every gun blindfolded. If you do not feel that confident in your familiarity with a particular weapon, don’t take it with you. Your lack of confidence, poor handling ability and inability to communicate important information about a particular weapon will give you away as an amateur and someone that the department will not deal with.

The shotgun will probably be your biggest seller. Every department has them and wants new ones all the time.

For your basic inventory, you will need at least two shotguns, one pump and one semi auto. It is interesting to note that the largest police agency in the country only uses double barrel shotguns. They are the exception. Most other departments will only consider pump or semi-auto shotguns.

The Remington 870 with a folding police or full factory stock and eighteen or twenty inch barrels should be your first choice. For your semi-auto I would suggest the Benelli super 90, with pistol grip, ghost ring sights, and a twenty inch barrel. Both of these guns would be a fine addition to your inventory. You may want to have one or both of the guns in a shorter, entry gun configuration. Any shotgun with a barrel under eighteen inches long must be registered with the National Firearms Act branch (NFA) of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). These short barrel shotguns are certainly usable for your demo, but standard title I firearms are a lot easier to get and deal with. If they don’t sell, you can just return them to inventory. There are many other quality shotguns you could choose from for your demonstration. Whichever you choose be sure you know how to handle them.

Today’s modern sniper rifles offer you a very wide variety and selection to choose from. You can spend anywhere from $350 to $10,000 or more for a good sniper demo gun. These prices do not include optics! Most departments have one form of sniper rifle or another. Many small departments still use old, or confiscated hunting rifles that have been dedicated as the sniper rifle. In other departments I have seen old army match M14/ M1A rifles used as sniper rifles. All of these old guns will be a welcome addition to any trade or sale you make. Other departments may have the most up to date and sophisticated guns available. They would welcome some additional new guns into their inventory, hopefully in trade for their old unused Class III weapons.

Sniper rifles can be broken down to three basic groups. 1. Low cost mass-produced entry level guns up to about $900 without optics. 2. Factory mass-produced custom guns from $1,200 to $6,000. 3. Custom guns from $4,000 to $10,000 and up. Many of these firearms are reputed to be the ultimate in surgical instruments. Your choices here should be based on the realistic needs of the local LE departments you visit and the depth of your pockets. Remember your object is to get the departments to trade their old NFA guns for the guns you have to offer. You have to get them excited enough to be willing to give you anything you ask for. Having good quality firearms for your demo will certainly help.

Basic entry level guns

The Savage 110 FP comes in 5.56, 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) and 300 Win Mag as well as several other calibers. It comes with a 24 inch long heavy barrel. The gun is 45 inches in overall length and has a black matte finish.

The Savage only comes with a long action bolt and new guns are all pillar bedded. That’s quite a lot of gun for under $400.00. Don’t let the low price fool you. While equipped with a poor trigger and a marginal stock, the Savage 110 FP shoots more accurately than rifles costing up to 10 times the price! Right out of the box this fine gun is capable of shooting 1/2 MOA or less with good ammo. Many departments on a tight budget will do very well with the Savage 110.

The Remington 700 action has become the industry standard for building custom sniper rifles and target guns. The 700 PSS from Remington comes with a McMillan style heavy composite kevlar stock. It has an aircraft grade aluminum bedding block and a free floating 26 inch heavy contour barrel. Out of the box this gun is capable of 1 MOA or less with good ammo. It comes with a 4 round, magazine. It is available in .223, 7.62×51 NATO, and other calibers. This gun is often sold as a package with a Harris bi-pod, Leupold Vari-X III, 3.5-10X scope, Pelican case and sling swivels. All for less than $1,400 to LE.

Group II

The low end of this group would include the Winchester M70 Classic Custom Sharpshooter. It comes with a 24 inch heavy stainless barrel, a glass bedded McMillan composite stock and a 5 round magazine. Winchester Guarantees 1/2 inch MOA with good ammo. This rifle sells for $2,500, without optics.

The Robar Company of Phoenix makes several grades of fine rifles, from the basic no frills SR50 with a 1 MOA pillar bedded rifle, to the ultimate SR90 – a Remington 700 action, with a match grade, fluted Schneider barrel and guaranteed 1/2 MOA. Prices are from $2,000 up. This group would also include the fine guns made by McMillan Gunworks Inc. of Phoenix Arizona.. McMillan is the oldest custom sniper rifle manufacturer in the United States. The M86SR with a 24 inch barrel is one of the finest firearms available.

Group III

Heckler and Koch makes several guns that can be used effectively as sniper rifles. From the $7,500 PSG1, to the very reasonable G3SG1 \ MSG90, for about $4,000. Other firearm manufacturers in this group would include Parker Hale, Mauser, Accuracy International, H-S Precision and Saco. These are typically in the $5,000 to $10,000 range. Whether you are willing to spend that much money on a demo gun is totally up to you. Several other companies are now making dedicated LE firearms at reasonable prices, such as Steyr and Ruger.

You will need at least two different weapons for your demo. I usually carry the Remington 700, a Savage 110 and a HK 91 dressed up like a PSG1. I also have a Ruger .308 as a backup. I have found that the majority of sniper rifles sold are the guns made by Remington and Savage. Whichever gun you choose, learn everything you can about it.

The weapon of choice for submachine guns is the Heckler and Koch MP5 and its many variants.

The MP5 is on every LE request and wish list. It is just about the only gun that will make departments eager to part with their old firearms. The MP5’s reputation may be overrated but every LE department wants one, two or more. I have found that it is just as easy to carry an H&K SP89 semi auto pistol for my demos.

There is no paperwork to worry about and there are no legal hassles when traveling from state to state. If you have a clean MP5, use it for your demo gun. If your MP5 is a bit ratty, as many dealer sample guns are today consider having it refinished. F.J. Vollmer and Co. does a very nice job for a reasonable price. In addition, Walter Birdsong has a black-T finish that the FBI uses. It is considered the standard finish of the industry. H&K MP5s come in many different variations starting with the MP5A2 fixed stock, MP5A3 with retractable stock. MP5SD2 fixed stock with integral aluminum sound suppresser and the MP5SD3 with retractable stock and sound suppresser. In addition there are several short versions of the same guns, designated by H&K as the MP5K, with no stock. It looks just like the SP89 semi auto. The MP5K-PDW (personal defense weapon) comes with a side folding stock . There are also 7 different trigger groups available for the gun. They are single fire, 2 shot, 3 shot, full auto, Navy full auto with ambidextrous safety and two shot and three shot burst groups. It makes very little difference which variant of the MP5 you have. You will only need one gun for your basic demo.

This is the firearm that you absolutely have to be able to assemble and disassemble with your eyes closed. You must be very confident in the way you handle the MP5. Most of the people you are dealing with have used the H&K extensively. You do not want to be fumbling for the magazine release or the cocking handle when you show the gun. Bring one magazine for the MP5, but do not have it installed in the gun. Install the magazine during your demonstration. Remember NO ammo!

Some of the other submachine guns that are selling today in the LE trade are the new Ruger MP9 designed by Bill Ruger and Uziel Gal and the original Uzi, which is now being distributed by Mossberg. Since Ruger does not permit the sale of Class III to dealers it is difficult to get the MP9 for a demo. Neither the Ruger MP9 nor the Uzi have the versatility and flexibility of the MP5.

In my opinion, the MP5 is definitely the gun to have if you have any intention of doing business with law enforcement.

The final two groups of guns that LE departments are looking for are full auto carbines and semi and full auto rifles. The Colt M16 and all of its different models hold center court. The Colt comes in several different calibers including a short stocked 9mm carbine designed to compete with the H&K MP5. A clean used Colt AR 15 in semi auto is a good, inexpensive way to demo the entire Colt line of firearms. The only difference between the guns is the overall length, firing mode and caliber. The cost of a transferable Colt M16 is over $2,500, while a used AR sells for less than $700. The Ruger Mini 14 and its full auto companion, the AC 556 select fire rifle are also good sellers. You may want to get both the Colt and Ruger. Consider the semi auto versions of both. The Mini 14 costs about $350. A transferable Ruger 556 sells for about $1,700. It may not make a difference to the people you are dealing with as to whether the gun is full-auto or semi-auto. If you go with semi-auto you will not have to be concerned about the legal hassles associated with carrying live machine guns.

For storage and travel I use the large double rifle cases made by Doskocil. They will hold at least three guns if you leave off the optics . You can use any case you like, but I have found that it’s easier to carry one or two large cases with 4 or five guns, than carrying 5 individual gun bags or cases.

Last, but certainly not least, is how you dress and look for the demo. Do not wear any camo, OD green, or black and gray assault outfits. You are not going to a machine gun shoot at Knob Creek. You are not supposed to look like a charter member of the local “militia” swat team. The people you are dealing with are professionals. They may resent it and it will kill any chance you have of making a sale.

You are supposed to be a professional gun manufacturer’s representative. Look the part.

A sports jacket, collared shirt and slacks or clean jeans are acceptable. I wear an H&K staff field jacket. Any manufacturer’s jacket with logo would be O.K.. Do not look like a gun slob. Long hair, pony tails, and an unshaven, unkempt look are out. Do not wear combat boots, army hats, or military field jackets.

In our next installment we will discuss making your presentation. We will also explain how to get the departments to show you all of the guns they have in storage.

Twenty some years ago, when I had been out of the US Army for several years, my interests in machine guns was re-kindled by the discovery that civilians in the United States could own them. I was amazed, intrigued, and finally focused on the idea that “I” could have my own personal M16 rifle. I didn’t even have to join the Army again, I could just “own” it, and shoot when I wanted to. Not for any serious reason either. Like most red-blooded American boys, I didn’t want to hurt anyone, I just liked things that went “Boom”. It’s one of our national sports. Kids with bottle rockets, cherry bombs, Hell, even cherry bomb mufflers on the cars. Loud. Lots of flame. Concussions you can feel in your belly. Combine that with our other national sport of trying to hit targets at extreme ranges, and you have a cross-bred, dyed in the wool, fifty caliber machine gun shooter.

I went through a period of discovering everything class 3, obsessing at various times on silenced weapons, Thompsons, Maxim Guns, pen guns, short shotguns, machine pistols, etc. During the course of those early years of playing around, something became horrifyingly clear. The laws about Class 3 were misleading. Time after time I watched small dealers or friends who were “playing” with Class 3 items get raided, prosecuted, and have their lives in turmoil because of an MP-40 they bought, or a suppressor they made.

There were minefields of regulations to contend with, and the consequences of violating them were severe. I have supplied private detectives, federal agencies, foreign governments, small police departments, big police departments, and thousands of American citizens with class 3 type firearms and ammunition. In that period of time, I have seen some of my contemporaries go to jail, or just go through long painful periods of government intrusion on their lives. Most of this could have been avoided by a good, solid adherence to the law. The problem is that many times those laws and regulations are so obscure and hard to determine the reality of, that it is virtually impossible to stay in compliance. You can “think” you are in compliance, only to find that the government “thinks” you are not! I can name three prominent Class 3s who had years of problems with the federal government because they got a determination IN WRITING, from the local Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms region. They then acted on the letter, and Washington later over-ruled the regional office which left the dealers in violation.

While this may sound insane on the face of it, Orwellian at the very least, it is nonetheless the world we Americans live in. I understood this. I tried as hard as I could to understand the rules and regulations that are in place, and how to work with them. For many years it has been my personal goal to try to foster a system of communication between the firearms owning public, and the agency that regulates them. This is not a megalomania or messiah complex- I have been trying to cover my own butt as much as anyone else. This led to the Machine Gun Dealer’s Bible.

I wanted to take a moment to speak with the readers of SAR about “Why” we have the problems that we do with regulations. These are my opinions, and you can take that for what it is worth. Here they are:

Number One: This is the big enchilada. The gun laws in the United States do not make any sense because they are NOT the laws that the writers intended to write. Sound strange? It’s not really. The people who wrote the firearms laws in 1934, 1968, etc, intended to ban certain classes of firearms. Since they were not allowed to (I’ll get into that in a moment), they wrote prohibitive regulations.

What the hell does that mean? Well, here are several examples that might explain it:

Example A. In 1934, our representative government in Washington DC decided to BAN machine gun ownership by civilians. The lawyers stepped in (In this case an Attorney General and a Supreme Court judge) and advised that, “No, you can’t ban a firearm under the Second Amendment of the Constitution, but you CAN tax it, and in the process, collect a “registry notation”. That is the root of the National Firearms Act Registry that we have today. No one wanted to “Tax” a firearm, they wanted to ban them and not being able to, they opted for making the ownership very expensive and difficult. Maybe now the insanity of that process is a little clearer in your mind. It’s not about taxes, it’s about banning ownership by circumventing the Constitution. Harsh words? Not really. The truth is, no matter how odd, still the truth. This is why NFA ownership is a “tax issue”- citizens were persecuted for not paying the “making tax” on NFA firearms that are not in the Registry.

Example “B”. In 1994, our representative government in Washington DC decided to BAN the newly defined class called “high capacity magazines”. The ramifications of this were staggering to the legal minds on both sides of the issue. Don’t think for a moment that the so-called champions of the First and Fifth Amendments weren’t carefully watching this assault on private property. The end result? Strong language was passed that restricted newly manufactured High Capacity Magazines from private ownership. If a magazine was manufactured before September 1994, it could be legally owned. Now the INTENT of the anti-firearms people who wrote this was to stop the ownership- but the LANGUAGE they used clearly said, Manufactured after. This meant that magazines outside of the United States that were manufactured Before the date were legal for US citizens to own- so the importation battle started. The agency in charge received it’s marching orders from the Clinton administration- stop all importation of these High Capacity magazines, but the agency’s mandate comes from the law, and they eventually had to allow the importation. This doesn’t make sense, unless you realize the intent of the writers was to “ban” the magazines. The hodge podge of nonsensical regulations we have to deal with today are the result.

Example “C”. Assault Rifles – This one really makes people’s blood boil. Here’s the truth. Our representative government in Washington DC wanted to ban the things that they perceive as “Assault Rifles”. I say it that way, because the thing that they are afraid of is any semi-automatic firearm that looks military. They want to ban scary looking guns. We who know firearms know how ridiculous this is, but no one asked us. They just said: “We have to end this danger”. These people do not understand the firearms they are talking about, and they defined the assault rifles by certain secondary characteristics. Kind of like defining a man by whether he grows a beard, or wears blue jeans and flannel shirts. Shave him and put him in a Tuxedo. Now what is he? Just a clean shaven man in a Tux. The distinctions here are lost on the virulent anti- Second Amendment fanatics. They want to BAN firearms, and since they CAN’T do it without opening massive holes in the Constitution, they use regulations. As soon as the ban was passed, we looked at it and said “Hmmm, the thing that is being banned is a combination of threaded barrels, pistol grip stocks, bayonet lugs, flash hiders, and high capacity magazines. So if we remove those, we can still have our semi-automatic rifles”. And- we proceeded to do so… MAK-90’s, FAL’s, AR’s, you name it, and it’s still legal. We are accused of Going around the law. I heard the figurehead of the anti-Second Amendment fanatics, our beloved President, make that point “The manufacturers are just going AROUND the law”. Hell, no, we’re just trying to COMPLY with the law. You people wrote it. We try and comply, and because you don’t understand the subject- it’s OUR fault? I don’t think so..

There are countless examples of the above, and not just about firearms either. That subject is the one that is at hand, so we will stay on it. Remember this: the Constitution will not allow them to write the laws they wanted to, so the laws that are written are circuitous and lacking in common sense.

NUMBER TWO: Here’s where the trouble really gets serious. The agency that is given the job of enforcing these laws must interpret them over the entire country, covering the actions of 300 million people who live in diverse and mutually exclusive cultures. They must do so while trying to enforce the will of the people who write their budgets, and while adhering to the letter of the law as it is written. Interpretation goes absolutely wild when the people at the top (Presently the Clinton Administration) are violently anti-Second Amendment. Clinton and his people want to “ban” firearms. It’s an obsession. The directives that are sent down to the BATF usually take little account of what is Constitutional and what is not.

This leaves the ATF in an uncomfortable position. How do you rectify the law with the desires of the higher ups who have a conflicting agenda? It usually involves alot of smokescreen behavior. Some true believers will try to do anything that will get rid of firearms and firearms dealers, but the majority of the BATF employees are just trying to do a job that has unfortunately been politicized.

A series of rulings by the BATF, and the efforts of people to either comply or circumvent these rulings has led to a Labyrinth of regulation that puts most gun owners (and dealers in particular) in peril. Each court case or regulation sets precedents. Further interpretations by the agency can seem totally disconnected from the Constitution or even the law as written. This is because they have to keep a consistency with the regulations or court cases start coming apart at the seams. If one district rules that a machine gun receiver is complete at a certain point, and that it must be taxed and registered, then the BATF must try to keep the same policy in each case it works on. Since the government will no longer accept the making tax on a new machine gun, this becomes a VERY important issue. Now there are people who sell “Less than 80% complete machine gun receivers” and are considered In compliance, because the receivers are not yet machine guns by law. To a law enforcement person, (who is sworn & charged with stopping the spread of unregistered machine guns) this is blatantly “thumbing the nose”. If you could take the emotions out of the issue, there would be little problem. However, there are always people who push the envelope – if it’s legal, they do it. The borderline area is where most clashes occur.

NUMBER THREE: There was never any effort on the part of the American public to create a system of “car trunk” and “kitchen table” Federal Firearms Licensees. This system was entirely created by the United States government, through the 1968 Gun Control Act and the ensuing years of enforcement by the BATF. The idea was to stop the interstate flow of firearms (mail order guns) by making every person who wanted to accept firearms interstate be registered with the federal government. This was rooted in the Commerce Clause, – the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. In 1968 there was a public outcry to ban certain firearms, and since it could not be done (Constitutionally), the interstate delivery of firearms was heavily regulated. This created a new regulatory and enforcing agency, the new incarnation of the BATF. Most American firearms owners did not take this seriously- they had always had firearms, traded and sold firearms, and some obscure agency was not going to mess with them.

Enter a new era… raids started to happen against citizens who were doing what they had always done. Some of these were very high profile, with people getting shot. Some were actually killed during these midnight raids. At gun shows, ATF agents walked from table to table, and handed out Federal Firearms License applications to anyone who was selling a firearm. If you sold even ONE firearm, people were told, you had to have a license. The fee was only ten bucks a year. This went on throughout the 1970s. Many incidents occurred, and the conventional wisdom became – It’s easy to get a license, so you might as well- just to cover your own liability. As a by-product, you got to order firearms from other states and have them shipped in. Many hobby dealers started this way, and grew into major gun businesses.

The industry that had sold firearms through the mail prior to 1968 adapted and changed to the distributor system that was in evidence by looking at FFL related publications. Shotgun News and Gun List are two prime examples. Now it became an asset to have an FFL- and ATF still pushed licensing on anyone who wanted to sell a firearm. If you called the agency, they would tell you that and send you a form. They had to maintain a consistency with everyone they spoke to, and we ended up with 280,000 FFL holders!

The point of this third item is only that the regulations and licensing were imposed to stop interstate commerce, or at least slow it down. The BATF and its regulations were in fact instrumental in creating the massive system that the media and some politicians have demonized over the last few years.

I bring these three informational bytes to light for one reason. It is critical to emphasize the importance of staying in full compliance at all times. We must keep ourselves aware at all times of what the changes in regulations mean to us as firearms owners, and as citizens of the United States.

Let us hope that we can continue to expand this forum for spreading information. The Small Arms Review is dedicated to all aspects of the study of small arms, but we have a particular mandate to keep people informed of the laws. If you are not involved in the military or law enforcement use of NFA firearms, and are a civilian “tinker”, “enthusiast”, or just a plain, old vanilla ice cream kind of shooter who is interested in these types of things; we want you to be aware of two things. First, in many places in the United States, you can legally own the firearms of your choice. Second, if you do so without complying with the pertinent regulations, you are placing yourself in jeopardy. Take the time to read SAR and other pertinent publications. We have some of the best legal minds in the firearms world writing in this forum. Ownership and licensing are easy, if you follow the rules.

We also have to be more global in our thinking. The anti-firearms people are meeting all over the world, designing and implementing firearms confiscation measures in many countries. I can not emphasize enough that we who are interested in collecting, designing and shooting firearms are under assault. Many times it is not the regulatory agency that is at fault. It is the politicians who pass the laws and send the directives of policy.

Remember that as the election time nears.

The Mighty Mite Gemtech’s Tiny LDES-2 Suppresor

The new LDES-2, .22 caliber sound suppressor from Gemtech represents a major redesign and a significant downsizing of the LDES suppressor. The most visible feature of the new can is its diminutive diameter, only 7/8 inch (22 mm), which enables full use of the sights on a Walther TPH pistol. The smaller envelope also helps the professional operator conceal the suppressor more readily when that is a requirement. The LDES-2 is certainly the smallest successful suppressor that I’ve ever seen. The most revolutionary feature of the new can remains hidden inside the suppressor: a new baffle developed jointly by James Ryan and Dr. Philip Dater soon after they joined forces to form Gemtech.

Ryan and Dater actually incorporated two new baffle designs into the baffle stack of the full-sized Vortex-2 .22 rimfire suppressor. The much smaller LDES uses the rearmost two baffles from the Vortex-2. The still smaller LDES-2 uses a trimmed-down variant of the same two baffles. The key to the performance of these baffles is a series of complex asymmetric shapes that maximize turbulence. But these innovative baffles do not provide enough performance alone when just two baffles are used in a very small suppressor. A coolant medium must also be employed in the LDES and LDES-2. This medium evaporates with each shot and thus cools the gases, robbing them of energy that would be perceived as sound. The coolant medium can be a liquid such as water or Break Free, or a more viscous material such as grease or petroleum jelly. Suppressors that use a coolant medium are commonly referred to as wet cans, while suppressors that do not use a liquid or grease coolant are called dry cans. Thus the Vortex-2 is a dry can. The LDES and LDES-2 are wet cans.

Both types of the new baffles used in the Vortex-2 are quite versatile, and are also incorporated into Gemtech’s Quantum and Operator suppressed Ruger pistols, as well as Gemtech’s Quantum suppressed Ruger rifles. Basic elements of the new baffle designs developed for these .22 rimfire suppressors have also been adapted to a small, high-performance suppressor called the Raptor, which snaps onto the three-lug barrel of an MP5 submachine gun using a patented Tri-Lock quick-couple mount. Designed by Gregory Latka for Gemtech. (The Tri-Lock is the best mounting system ever developed for the MP5 in my opinion.)

Gemtech’s experience with these new baffles enabled their design team to develop a remarkably innovative snap-on suppressor called the Model M4-96D for the Colt M4A1 carbine in just five weeks. The M4-96D snaps onto a propriety Bi-Lock flash hider, permits the full use of all accessories (including blank-firing device, bayonet and grenade launcher), and was one of two contenders (the other is the Model QD from Knight’s Armament whose design was recently awarded the contract) for a new military contract that could run as high as $6 million to meet the requirements set forth by NAVSURFWARCENDIV for sound suppressors, which would technically be a component of the SOPMODM-4A1 accessory kit. The patented Bi-Lock snap-on mounting system, also developed by Greg Latka, is quite different 50 percent of the time, depending on the kind of ammunition being used. I’ve therefore relegated my TPH to service as a photographic model, and will henceforth use a Beretta Model 21A as my test gun. This evaluation will still use the TPH one last time to determine if the suppressed and unsuppressed sound signatures of the two pistols differ.

Both Gemtech and AWC Systems Technology adapt Beretta pistols for suppressors by drilling out the original barrel and inserting a turned-down, threaded barrel blank, which is silver soldered in place and then chambered. I had this conversion performed on a Beretta Model 21A chambered for .22 LR and a Beretta 950 BS Minx chambered in .22 Short. The latter makes a dramatically tiny package when fitted with an LDES-2 suppressor.

Remarkably, the pistol from the Auto Nine Corporation (currently made by Wilkinson Arms of Parma, Idaho, and called the “Sherry”) is virtually as short and thin as the Minx. But the Sherry fires the .22 Long Rifle cartridge, and it does so with profoundly better reliability than the Walther TPH. The original variant of the Sherry used in this study will henceforth be referred to as the Auto Nine. This pistol was designed by Roy Wilkinson, who also designed the excellent AMT Backup pistol. The common heritage of these two guns is readily apparent. Unfortunately, the sights on the Auto Nine are too fine for rapid target acquisition, and the trigger is quite creepy. I would have preferred the simple sighting channel of the AMT Backup to the traditional front and back sights of the Auto Nine, since the .380 Backup provides rapid target acquisition while delivering consistent head shots on a Pepper Popper at 7 yards (6.4 m). Nevertheless, the .22 caliber Auto Nine or its current incarnation—the Sherry—performs well enough to be a serious contender for a pocket pistol’s typical operational envelope of an armspan or two.

That said, if the substantial bulk of the Beretta Model 21A is not a liability, this Beretta remains the best .22 LR pocket pistol in the U.S. marketplace for mounting a suppressor in my opinion. It is interesting that Mossad (Israeli version of the CIA) operatives use .22 caliber Berettas in preference to Walthers and other pistols in the international marketplace.

The Braverman Pen Gun used in this study was threaded and fitted with a thread protector by Gemtech.

Using Coolant Media in Wet Cans

Using a coolant medium to create an artificial environment (a term coined by Lynn McWilliams) provides several advantages over using dry cans. Wet cans eliminate the first-round pop common to most suppressors. Wet cans are much smaller and lighter than dry cans. And wet technology permits the design of a suppressor that can deliver substantially better sound reduction than a dry design.

Artificial environment technology also has several disadvantages. Wet cans liberate a small cloud of mist every time a shot is fired. This could disclose the operator’s position, although this is not much of a concern when wet technology is married to a .22 caliber pocket pistol or pen gun. Nevertheless, the operator’s face, arms and torso are sprayed with sooty droplets of coolant. Thus, eye protection is advisable. Another liability of wet technology is that the suppressor must be recharged with coolant every three to 30 rounds, depending on such factors as the design of the suppressor, barrel length, muzzle velocity of the ammunition being used, and whether the ammunition features a solid or hollow point.

A final consideration for concealed carry is that liquid coolants tend to leak out of the suppressor. While a particular wet can (such as the Backdraft from AWC Systems Technology) may provide superior performance using a liquid coolant rather than a grease or gel, all wet cans tested to date provide plenty of sound suppression when using a lithium grease, which has become my coolant medium of choice for virtually every concealable wet can in the marketplace. The only exception is Gemtech’s tiny new Aurora suppressor designed for the Glock 26; a grease with the lowest possible latent heat of evaporation works best for this ultra-tiny 9mm suppressor, which is about the same size as Gemtech’s LDES .22 caliber suppressor.

With the exception of Gemtech’s Aurora, I’ve found that Mobil Premium Lubrication Grease works particularly well as a coolant medium for a suppressed carry gun, since its lithium content gives it a particularly high latent heat of evaporation. Some operators use Shooter’s Choice All Weather High-Tech Grease since it is packaged in a plastic syringe that makes recharging tiny .22 suppressors very convenient. Mobil Premium Lubrication Grease was used as the coolant medium for all tests reported in this study with the exception of the JRC LDES testing, which was conducted several years ago using Break Free as the coolant.

Testing Procedures

Sound signatures were measured using a Brüel and Kjaer Type 2209 Impulse Precision Sound Pressure Meter (set on A weighting and peak hold) with a B&K Type 4136 1/4-inch condenser microphone, placed exactly 1 meter away from the front of the suppressor or muzzle according to U.S. Army testing procedures specified in MIL-STD-1474C.

The ambient temperature during each test is always given. Velocities were measured in feet per second using a P.A.C.T. MKIII or MKIV timer/chronograph with MKV skyscreens set 24.0 inches apart and the start screen 8.0 feet from the muzzle (P.A.C.T., Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 531525, Grand Prairie, TX 75053, 214-641-0049). At least 10 rounds were fired to obtain an average sound signature or muzzle velocity.

Performance

The diminutive LDES-2 was tested using Federal high velocity, Hansen standard velocity target, and Baikal Junior Brass subsonic LR ammunition in the Walther TPH, the Beretta 21A, and the Braverman Pen Gun. The mean (average) sound signatures appear in Table 3 and net sound reductions appear in Table 4. These tables also provide comparative data previously gathered on the JR Customs LDES, the redesigned Gemtech LDES, the Warp 3 from AWC Systems Technology, and the new Backdraft suppressor from AWC Systems Technology. Related projectile velocities appear in Table 5.

The first thing to notice is that the Walther TPH and Beretta 21A provide identical sound signatures with all kinds of ammunition when no suppressor is attached to the barrel. But the Walther provides significantly more bullet velocity than the Beretta with all kinds of ammunition. It’s too bad the Walther’s light primer hits generate such frequent misfires. Curiously, the Braverman Pen Gun provides less velocity than the Beretta with high velocity and standard velocity fodder, but more velocity with Russian subsonic ammunition.

Whether mounted on the Walther or Beretta, the Gemtech LDES-2 produces a sound signature of 130 dB or less regardless of ammunition, which is good enough for most tactical or recreational requirements in the real world. These sound pressure levels are comparable to many good submachine gun suppressors when used with subsonic ammunition. The LDES-2 provides net sound reductions that run 27-30 decibels regardless of the pocket pistol or ammunition being used. The slightly larger Gemtech LDES provides a superb 35-40 dB of sound reduction, while the Backdraft from AWC Systems Technology provides 33-34 dB net sound reduction.

The little LDES-2 worked surprisingly well on the Braverman Pen Pistol, dramatically taming both the sound signature and the sting of the pistol’s recoil. With high velocity ammunition, the silenced pen pistol has a sound signature of 127 decibels, which is the same sound pressure level as a factory-original H&K MP5 SD integrally silenced submachine gun. When the LDES-2 is used with standard velocity and subsonic fodder, the respective sound signatures of 120 and 122 decibels are noticeably quieter than some mainstream integrally suppressed .22 rifles.

The LDES-2 was also mounted on a Beretta 950 BS Minx pistol and tested with high velocity and standard velocity .22 Shorts. Table 6 provides the mean sound signatures, Table 7 provides net sound reductions, and Table 8 provides related velocity data. These tables also contain comparative data on Ciener’s SBER dry can for the Minx as well as the Cobray mesh-filled BP22 suppressor.

Regardless of ammunition type used in the Minx pocket pistol, the LDES-2 suppressor produced a sound signature of 126 decibels, which is in the same ballpark as the Long Rifle fodder produced when this can was fitted to the Walther TPH and Beretta 21A pistols. It should not be surprising that the net sound reductions produced by this wet can were much better than the performance of the dry SBER suppressor.

Several interesting aspects of the velocity data merit discussion. Projectile velocities are greater when the LDES-2 is fitted to the Gemtech suppressor than when the same pistol is fired without a suppressor. This phenomenon, which is called freebore boost, occurs because the expanding combustion gases continue to push against the rear of the bullet as it passes through the primary expansion chamber of the suppressor. The Minx with Gemtech barrel and LDES-2 muzzle can provided significantly more bullet velocity than the Minx with Cobray suppressor, since the wipes in the Cobray can considerably slowed the projectiles. Finally, it is interesting that the ported extra-length barrel of Ciener’s SBER integral suppressor still managed to produce more projectile velocity than the unported Gemtech barrel.

Tables 9 and 10 show the raw sound data when three magazines-worth of ammunition were fired through the LDES-2 mounted on the Walther TPH and Beretta 21A pistols, respectively, without recharging the suppressor with coolant between magazine changes. It is imperative, however, that the operator tighten the suppressor on the barrel between magazine changes. This behavior every time the magazine is changed should become instinctual with any screw-on suppressor, much like visually checking a chamber to confirm that a firearm is truly unloaded. While unsuppressed sound signatures vary by a few tenths of a decibel from shot to shot, these data provide a representative look at the intrinsic data variability common to suppressor testing. These data also show surprisingly little change after so many shots have been fired through a tiny wet suppressor without replenishment of the coolant medium.

Table 11 summarizes suppressor performance of the LDES-2 on Walther TPH and Beretta 21A pistols. Clearly, recharging coolant every three magazines provides performance within a decibel or two of recharging the suppressor every time the magazine is changed. The exceptional ability to retain a coolant medium throughout prolonged usage is a characteristic of the LDES family of suppressors.

The LDES-2 suppressor can also be used without coolant, providing good performance on .22 rifles but significantly less impressive performance on pistols.

Using a Wet Can Without Coolant

There are several reasons for shooting the LDES-2 and other ultra-compact suppressors without coolant media: (1) the process provides valuable insight into the intrinsic behavior of a given baffle design; and (2) the process is a lot less messy. Table 3 provides the sound signatures produced by the LDES-2 and other small wet suppressors when fired without coolant using .22 LR ammunition. Table 4 provides the net sound reductions. Tables 6 and 7 provide this information when the dry can is fired using .22 Shorts.

When employed dry, the LDES-2 provides a net sound reduction of 13 decibels with all kinds of .22 LR fodder. This performance increases to 17 dB with high velocity Shorts and 20 dB using standard velocity Shorts. Remarkably, that’s within a decibel or two of the performance delivered by the much larger Ciener SBER suppressor.

Thus when employed dry, the LDES-2 lowers the sound signature of a Beretta Minx to well below the European hearing risk limit of 140 dB, so hearing protection will not be required to safeguard operator hearing when firing .22 Shorts in a pocket pistol. When used dry with the Long Rifle cartridge on a pocket pistol or pen gun, however, the sound signature will exceed the European risk limit and hearing protection should be used when the can is employed without coolant.

Tables for LDES-2

Conclusions

Gemtech’s LDES-2 is not only the smallest practical suppressor I’ve ever seen, it provides plenty of sound suppression for most operational requirements. Ideally suited for pocket pistols and pen guns, the 7/8 inch (22 mm) diameter of the tiny muzzle can allows the full use of sights on a Walther TPH pistol. Furthermore, the LDES-2 dramatically tames the blast and recoil of a pen gun, and the little suppressor can be concealed with unprecedented ease. While the larger LDES from Gemtech and the Backdraft from AWC Systems Technology provide superior sound reduction for the most demanding applications, the LDES-2 still provides comparable sound pressure levels to quality submachine gun suppressors using subsonic ammunition. This mighty mite from Gemtech packs very good performance into the smallest possible package. Jim Ryan really did his homework on this outstanding design.

SAR is not entirely about machine guns. We deal mostly with the small arms of war; the firearms and innovations from the user’s and designer’s perspective. Law enforcement firearms and collectors are also of great interest to our readers. This has led us to expand from the full auto “Niche” and to bring you articles on precision military firearms (Sniper rifle systems), and starting with this issue, some handguns we feel are of particular importance.

HK has done some amazing things with firearms for professionals. Much of their business has to do with fully automatic firearms, but they have a large slice of the handgun market for law enforcement personnel. SAR was lucky enough to be one of the first to test the new USP45 Compact; here’s the scoop on one of the newest incarnations of the HK product line.

There is a definite market for reliable small frame pistols. The marketplace is getting fuller every day with offerings from many different manufacturers- some new names, and many of the old standbys as well. It has been my experience that while “smaller” may yield a less conspicuous profile for carrying concealed, loss of the grip size can tend to contribute to a loss of controllability. Placing the bullet where it will do the most good is the point of the exercise- not just keeping it small. When HK took it’s tried and proven USP (Universal Self-loading Pistol) down to the compact size, it was an immediate success. The 9mm and 40 caliber versions have achieved a sizable following in a short period of time.

One of the reasons for this is that they kept the grip frame at a “Three finger” instead of a “Two finger” length. By slimming down the grip and designing it to use a single stack magazine (In .45 ACP), the USP Compact series maintains a “Full feel” when you are shooting. This translates into the controllability of a full frame pistol. Some of the other compacts on the market maintain their accuracy when using 9mm, but when they move up to the venerable .45 ACP, it becomes almost impossible for many people to control. Not so with the USP Compact.

The general characteristics of the USP series are fairly well known. A full detail of the USP Control Lever system is in the accompanying chart, but it deserves some note here as well. Pistol shooters are generally “Picky”. They know what they like, or require on their job, and they usually subscribe to a certain doctrine of shooting. Double Action only, Single and Double, “Cocked and Locked”, de-cocking or not, and right or left-handed controls are all available. Installing different component parts can quickly change these features. It is easy to see where the “Universal” in “Universal Self-loading Pistol” came from.

HK managed to keep most of the features of the full size pistols when they presented the Compact series. Some of the well known qualities of shooting a standard USP required a little creativeness to get into a Compact- SAR generally admires the ability to “Improvise, overcome, and adapt” in all aspects; but these are essential characteristics for firearms designers to have. It shows in the USP45 Compact. It was necessary to change the recoil spring system away from the dual spring utilized by the full size USP series. The shortened recoil assembly necessary to make the reduced frame and slide function properly would have yielded a difficult to control recoil, due to the fact that the dual spring was not readily adaptable to the new length. The engineers solved the problem by utilizing a specially engineered flat recoil spring, augmented by a polymer absorber bushing. This new recoil system is captive in one assembly, easy to remove from the pistol, and easy to clean. It works quite well, and in .45 caliber the recoil was negligible. I was able to rapidly re-acquire targets. That counts.

The abbreviated frame (“Shorter” frame for our friends in Maine) presents another interesting dilemma. Many law enforcement personnel prefer to, or are required to utilize a frame-mounted flashlight. HK has the Mark II HK Universal Tactical Light that is their standard unit. The Mark II fits handily on the Compact frame, with only a slight protrusion to the front. Maybe HK will design a smaller unit for the Compacts, but for now, this one will do the job.

There are at least 4 active or passive safeties on the USP45 Compact, depending on the configuration. ( 1- Manual safety lever in variants 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10; 2- Double-action mode with hammer intercept notch; 3- Firing pin block; 4- Disconnector). Applying the “High pucker factor” brainblock test, the USP45 Compact came up as a “Positive”. These are natural to use, and none interfered with the operator’s state of mind. While it has a lot of features, one of the most interesting safety features is the “Loaded cartridge” indicator. You can visually check to see if there is a cartridge, by noting the increased visibility of a red line (See illustration.)

I would strongly suggest that operators of this firearm take advantage of this feature- and utilize it in the tactile mode. Run your finger over it and memorize how it feels when nothing is in the chamber, then with a round in the chamber. It is a very distinct difference, and if you program yourself in your safety checks to run the finger there, it may save yours or someone else’s life.

The magazine release is ambidextrous and protected from accidental engagement by the flared trigger guard. I found that dropping the mag was easy from any hold, right or left handed, thumb or forefinger release. It all depends on how you train yourself, and the USP is very adaptable. The metal magazines hold 8 rounds of .45 ACP, making 9 with one in the chamber. Floorplates are interchangeable between the two styles- flat or extended. The extended floorplate adds a little bit of length, which might be a consideration for concealment, but with the curved front end it certainly helped with the grip control.

Regarding the concealment of the USP45 Compact; I was not able to try any holsters at the time of testing. A cursory examination of the specs should tell you what you need to know. At 1.14 inches wide, 5.06 inches tall, overall length of 7.09 inches, it’s a seriously small package. Most variants feature the “No-snag” bobbed hammers- the one that I tested had that and I liked it’s styling very much.

HK .45 USP / .45 USP Compact Comparison Sequence.

HK’s polygonal hammer-forged barrels have been extensively written about. The major two differences are the decrease in barrel wear, and the better utilization of propellant gases. This is accomplished by the polygonal structure maintaining a better gas seal with the projectile. Those of you who insist on pushing the limits, the USP45 Compact is rated for +P usage. I fired several mags of +P, and still maintained controllability.

Many of HK’s products have had cutting edge material technology and innovative finishes. This “policy” is evident in most of HK’s history. The information and technology that was learned in the VP70 and G11 projects is evident in the USP45 Compact as well. The frame is of high strength lightweight polymer construction, and all the metal components have received HK’s “HE” (Hostile Environment) finish. The actual HE process is the application of a nitro-gas carburized black oxide coating. HE finish is considered state of the art, and will resist the corrosive effects of most environments, including salt water. This does not authorize the operator to abandon simple cleaning and care procedures; it just adds a little bit of an edge for keeping the life of your handgun.

How did it shoot? Very accurately. The trigger was fairly crisp- I utilized the single action features of course. After a little training I was able to shoot some impressive groups. The HK USP45 Compact is everything it should be. These firearms are being imported as you read this article- the first 25 were coming in next week for the general firearms industry to test out, and HK is planning on giving this a serious marketing campaign. I suggest that you try one out if you are considering a small frame .45- this really is an interesting product.

HK Shooter Conversion Unit

Your faithful correspondent is not, and has never been what would be considered an “Expert” pistol shooter. Why, then, would I write about a handgun? Quite frankly, in my 25 years with machine guns, the pistol has always been a utilitarian tool- as long as I can hit a twelve-inch square at about ten paces, I have been satisfied. That is all that I needed for a confidence level with my defensive handgun. I like 45 Acp, but have compromised to 9mm Parabellum due to the fact that I have a small hand. (I do NOT want to open the “Bigger bullet / faster bullet controversy!) Most of the 45’s that I try are just too big, and they are uncomfortable to shoot- and I have tried a bunch of them. Some of the smaller ones were also uncomfortable to shoot- and I couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn unless I threw the pistol at it. Since the point of carrying a firearm is to place bullets on target, not 30 odd ounces of plastic and metal, I stayed 9mm.

Jim Schatz from HK Federal Operations is a longtime friend, and he puts up with some of the stupidest questions that I ask- usually by saying; “Jim, one of our readers would like to know why (Fill in the blank). I would like to explain in terms that come directly from HK- can you answer this”? There is usually a muffled snicker, then, in small words that I am likely to understand, he gives an answer.

On the day of the test, Jim took into account that I had little formal training with handguns, and spent some time working with me on the Isosceles shooting position. I still couldn’t hit very well with the USP45 standard size- while the recoil was smooth, it’s a pretty large frame pistol.

When I tried the Compact version, the target acquisition started to dial in. After about 10 magazines, I tried a final series of 4 shots at the target’s eyeball. The target was looking at me, clearly aiming a pistol right at myself, and I did my best to muster up some indignation. While this was only a paper assailant, I started to take offense. If Jim would have let me use the MP5 he had there, this turkey would have been doing a two dimensional Spandau Ballet. But, Nooooo, I had to use the pistol. Utilizing my knowledge and training in combat riflery, I decided that it was necessary to put some serious lead into this character’s medulla oblongata- I mean, what if this cellulose scumbag “Flinched” and pulled the trigger in his final spasm? Would the world still be safe for Democracy? I took careful aim, utilizing my newly acquired Isosceles shooting position, and concentrated on my paper opponent. Four shots later, he was still standing there, the way these paper tigers do, and I sauntered up to the target. Three out of four were smack dab in his eye frame! This proved to be a real eye opener for me. (Sorry, I just couldn’t resist).

Jim walked up, seeing that I appeared pretty happy about something, and he quietly looked over the target. I pointed at the four holes interrupting my opponent’s target acquisition mechanism, and he said “Not too bad, not too bad”. This made me happy enough to ignore the mumbled comment he made as he walked away, about how I had been talking about hitting the target “Center of mass”, which was a crass and vulgar lie, by the way. I really did hit what I was aiming at, and the USP45 Compact impressed the heck out of me, even enough to make me plan on buying one for carry use!

The HK USP Control Lever.

The Russian AK47 and its many variants manufactured in other Combloc nations is thought to be the most prolific assault rifle in the world. It has been estimated that there have been over 50 million AK’s produced since first appearing shortly after World War II. The rifle was made famous in the mid 1960’s during the Vietnam war in the hands of the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and the Viet Cong guerrillas (VC). Many of the AK47’s used in Vietnam were actually type 56 assault rifles manufactured in Mainland China. The AK47 had a reputation for being very rugged and reliable under adverse conditions, requiring very little maintenance.

The concept of the assault rifle originated with the Germans late in World War II when they introduced the MKb42(H) machine carbine. The MKb42(H) was soon followed by the MP43 and finally the Stg 44 Strumgewehr. The basic premise of the German idea was to replace two weapons with one, the submachine gun that was a short-range, full-automatic weapon, and the bolt action K98 rifle, a long range weapon. The Strumgewehr was a select fire mid-range weapon that fired the 8mm Kurz round. The 8mm Kurz round was the same caliber as the standard German 8mm (7.92×57) service round, but used a much shorter case at 33 mm (7.92×33), and a lighter 125 grain projectile. Velocity of the 125 grain projectile was 2,300 feet per second.

Upon capturing German Strumgewehrs at the conclusion of WWII, the Russians were interested in the midrange cartridge theory, and immediately set out to produce their own version of a midrange round. The final result was the current 7.62×39 (M43) cartridge and the semi-automatic Simonov SKS rifle to fire it. The SKS was soon followed by the development of the select fire AK47 in the late 1940’s. The AK47 was quickly adopted by the Red Army in 1949.

At the same time period the United States was still using World War II weapons. The US would continue to do so until the late 1950’s, when the controversial M14 was adopted. The M14 was a select-fire, product improved WWII M1 Garand. The M14 was still using a full power round, the 7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester). The 7.62 NATO round was slightly shorter than the old 30-06 round it replaced, but the ballistics were very similar. The closest thing the United States had to a modern assault rifle in the 1950’s was the select-fire World War II M2 Carbine.

At approximately the same time the United States was adopting the M14, the Soviets were updating their AK47’s to the second generation sheet metal receiver AKM. The new AKM used the same 7.62×39 cartridge as the AK47, but the AKM could be produced cheaper and faster. These attributes made indigenous manufacture of the AKM attractive to less developed countries that had limited industrial capabilities.

It was not until the United States adopted the M16 in the mid 1960’s that the U.S. Army had a modern assault rifle.

The .22 caliber cartridge the M16 fired wasn’t exactly a mid-range round, but an entirely new concept, a high-velocity, small 5.56 mm caliber round. The 55 grain projectile could attain over 3200 feet per second from the M16’s twenty inch long barrel. It had many critics, and the M16 had many early problems in the field.

There were many advantages to the new small round. It made full auto fire manageable, and a soldier could carry a much larger ammunition load. What was in question was the cartridges penetration and lethality.

The British government had tried to get NATO to adopt a small caliber cartridge in the early 1950’s, specifically their own .280 caliber round. They had done some research, and like the Russians and Germans, discovered a full power cartridge for an infantry soldier just wasn’t necessary. But the United States insisted on, and got, the .308 standardized as the NATO round.

After a few years in service the M16 and the small caliber, high velocity round had finally proven to be capable of its original task. It now seemed evident that the small caliber weapon was here to stay. All NATO countries eventually adopted the 5.56mm round as the NATO standard cartridge, and many different rifles were designed and manufactured to chamber it.

The M16 after more than 30 years has been in continuous front line service as long as any prior U.S. service rifle. This time it was the Russians who were slow to change. The U.S. M16, M16A1 and M16A2 are now the most prolific small caliber assault rifles in the world.

The Western world was first exposed to the new AK74 rifle in November of 1977. The new Soviet service weapon was chambered for a small caliber, high-velocity round almost two decades after the United States adopted the M16 in 5.56 caliber.

The AK74 is much like its predecessor the AKM. In fact almost half of the parts on the new AK74 were directly copied from the 7.62×39 AKM. The most noticeable change on the new rifle was the addition of a muzzle brake, to control shot dispersion. The AK74 was widely used in the Afghanistan war. It was used by the Russian troops as well as against them. Many AK74s and AKMs were captured and effectively used by the Afghanistan rebels.

Although the AK74 uses a new 5.45mm round, many of the weak areas of the weapon remain. The safety lever is often criticized as being noisy and difficult to manipulate, and the lack of a bolt hold open device are two problems that still exist. The AK 74 is still a late 1940’s design, even if it has been described as super reliable, easy to maintain and service. There is still a lot of room for improvement.

The AK74 reviewed in this article is a new Russian manufactured AK74, 5.45mm.

The rifle’s quality seemed much better than any previous AKM or AK47. The fit and finish were excellent. The wood was beautifully fitted and finished. It seemed to me however, that although it was brand new and late Soviet issue, the design and technology was dated.

The AK74 had a slightly faster cyclic rate than an AKM and was smooth in the full auto mode, but to me it didn’t seem as smooth as an M16A2. The faster cyclic rate of the M16 is the most likely reason.

It was most definitely easier to handle in full auto than a 7.62X39 AKM or AK47. I really couldn’t tell how effective the complicated muzzle brake was. The weapon fires much like an M16, but again is much more manageable than a similar 7.62×39 weapon in full auto.

The 5.45 cartridges for the AK74 are rather rare and expensive in the United States, but unfortunately so are AK74’s. This AK74 was of course a post ’86 dealer sample, so they are unavailable to most folks.

The AK74’s effective range is documented at 625 meters. The full auto cyclic rate is approximately 650 rounds per minute. The tangent sights are much like the AK47/AKM and graduated out to 1000 meters. The reddish colored plastic magazine has a 30 round capacity. The magazine is similar to those plastic versions available for the 7.62 AKM/AK47 except for an added strengthening rib. There reportedly are also Russian produced, 45 round capacity magazines. The overall length of the standard fixed stock AK74 is 36.6”. Loaded weight is 7.9 pounds. The barrel is a four-groove, right-hand, one turn in 7.8” twist.

The 5.45 (M74) round has an overall length of 2.264” and fires a steel core, 53 grain bullet at approximately 2953 feet per second. The actual diameter of the projectile measures closer to 5.54mm. The 5.45, 53 grain projectile is a full metal jacket design, but the front portion of the bullet jacket is hollow. This design places the center of gravity toward the rear of the projectile. When the projectile strikes an object the center of gravity is upset, and the bullet will tumble violently in soft targets.

On paper, the 5.45×39 round is ballistically similar to the older M193 U.S. M16 round that uses a 55 grain projectile. The current NATO M855/SS109 round with its 63 grain bullet is ballistically superior, especially at ranges over 300 yards.

The AK 74 may be fitted with several different accessories. A 40 mm Grenade launcher, an optical sighting device and a starlight type, night vision scope. In previous AK versions, lack of the aforementioned features was often criticized by Western observers.

There are several variations of the AK74. One model features a skeleton metal folding stock and another model has a wooden stock that folds. The AK74 pictured has a fixed wooden stock. There is also a “shorty” version the AK74U. This model is reportedly for issue to crews in armored vehicle where a compact weapon is desirable.

Handling, examining and firing the AK74 was truly enjoyable. As mentioned earlier, they are for the most part unobtainable for the average collector. This unfortunately is due to the passage of many restrictive gun laws in recent years. It is too bad that many must suffer for the irresponsible actions of a few.

Special thanks to Trident for providing the Russian military camo and medals displayed in the pictures, and for graciously providing the 5.45 ammunition used in the AK74 firing evaluation.

Trident
228 S. Broadway
Scottdale, PA 15683
412-887-0286

East European Collectables and Military Surplus

The M1 begets the T4; Origins of the familiar M2

When the Light Rifle Program was introduced, one of the initial specifications was for the selected design to have an automatic fire capability. This specification was quickly dropped in the haste to get the selection process underway. It was initially found that among the entries in the Light Rifle Trials difficulties were encountered in handling many of the guns in full?automatic fire using the new cartridge that had been selected. By the time the successful entrant, submitted nearly too late for consideration, from the Winchester Repeating Arms Company, had passed the Trials and been selected and placed into the hands of the Ordnance Board for standardization and conversion to series production, many were still pushing for the full automatic feature to be included. With the winds of War blowing ever stronger in the Fall of 1941 the Military Liason Commander to the program, Colonel Rene Studler of the Ordnance Board, vetoed this feature as being a hold up to starting immediate production as it would have necessitated a period of engineering study and redesign he deemed to be too long to manage, so it was to be standardized as only a semi?automatic design. As it turns out in the end, the final configuration of the full automatic conversion was so quickly developed that it would have necessitated almost no slow down to the initial manufacturing set up program!

Among its other unique qualities the M1/M2(M3) carbine is the only US standard weapon in which the designs for the receiver between the semi?automatic and the full?automatic versions (where there exists such a distinction) are identical, an all important fact which allowed the design to be easily and readily altered to offer a selective fire capability from its original semi?auto only issuance (and a fact that causes ATF, in modern times, to absolutely HATE this gun!). The first Wartime call for an addition of the full automatic feature to be redesigned into the M1 carbine came from the Pacific Theater of Operations (PTO) following horrific encounters with the Japanese Army in close range jungle combat in which US soldiers had fared badly. The resultant analysis of these encounters convinced many that the OPTION of selective full?automatic fire would enhance the Carbines’ battle effectiveness in close range or confined scenarios. (This was to be the continuing theme song of the Carbines’ converted status: that the selective fire option was indeed an OPTION and NOT to be thought of as the sole means of usage and fire discipline.) In early 1944 then, the Ordnance Department set forth a requirement for the development of a suitably engineered redesign of the standard semi?automatic components to allow a conversion to selective fire that was able to be implemented into the normal production lines of the already being produced M1 variant. The most desirable aspect of any conversion, from the Ordnance Boards’ point of view, would be to allow uninterrupted production while incorporating the new components in the production process. Along with the Army’s Springfield Armory the two original prime contractors to the Carbine Program, Winchester Repeating Arms and General Motors Corp.? Inland Division, were the only developers of practical conversion methods that did not adversely hamper the production programs then underway, as such only their proprietary methods were ever seriously considered.

During the spring of 1944 Inland had been developing a conversion in?house under the authority of two Inland Engineers, Paul H. Hamisch and Frederick W. Sampson, that was essentially a redesign of the existing M1 Carbine fire control system with the addition of the necessary components to allow a selection of fire control modes. They managed to achieve a satisfactory conversion, while only minimally altering the standardized production design, with the addition of few new parts and some simple modifications to existing ones. This was their submission that was designated, when assembled onto a normal M1 Carbine, the T4 and that met the approval of the Board for all aspects of design requirements and production processes. For firing trials as a Service Test Type at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in July, 1944, Inland supplied 4 T4 carbines built from production M1s to the Army. Following these trials, in early September, Col. Studler recommended that the T4 design be tested for standardization, and to facilitate this a contract was let to Inland for the production of approximately 500 T4 carbines. On September 14, 1944, at the conclusion of extensive Service Test Trials by various units of the Army, the Inland T4 was recommended “..without reservation” for standardization as the “U.S. Carbine, Caliber .30, M2”

Winchester had not been so quick to jump on the bandwagon when the Board called for a conversion. They had already demonstrated at Aberdeen Proving ground in March of 1944 a proprietary design, called the Winchester “Number 3 Mechanism”, which they felt would show its superiority over any others. It has been suggested that Winchester had been expecting, unofficially, an approval of their design for the conversion request, and so had not exerted themselves to the Board.

when the Research & Design request?for?Proposal was let to all the Prime Contractors in May 1944. It is a disputed historical conjecture that the Winchester conversion offered some theoretical mechanical advantages over the Inland submission, chief among them that the Winchester Number 3 Mechanism combined into the normal safety lever the additional aspect of a fire control selector, while the Inland design required a separate selector lever. Both the Inland and Winchester conversion used a remarkably similar lay?out and concept, deriving their selectable fire feature from a simple release lever operated by the operating slide during its return stroke, and acting on a simple hammer catch to time the release of the hammer to occur after final bolt lock?up. The Number 3 Mechanism also involved 3 fewer new or modified parts than did the Inland design, a fact that Winchester was unsuccessful in convincing the Board would be a major benefit to production considerations. All the while Winchester was being forced to change over their production set?up to the Inland designed M2 they continued without success to persuade the Army to reconsider their submission based on its obvious merits. Finally they conceded that their delay in introducing their submission had prevented it from being considered side?by?side with the Inland entry and on March 6, 1945, demonstrated one last time their conversion officially to the Ordnance Board who, predictably, stated that no matter the design merits it was a moot point as the M2 had already been in production as a standard design. Winchester knew they had lost and commenced full scale production of the M2 Carbine in early May, 1945. Despite losing out on their proprietary conversion Winchester was designated as the only other Prime Contractor, along with Inland, to be allowed to produce complete M2 Carbines under the auspices of the original Carbine Contracts.

It had come down to a function of opportune timing that the Inland design was chosen for standardization from their “Carbine, Caliber .30, T4”, their submission for testing. The T4 then, was standardized as the “Carbine, Caliber .30, M2” on October 26, 1944. The Hamisch?Sampson conversion was known by two different designations in official Military nomenclature: as a complete from?the?factory gun it was the “Carbine, M2”, as a conversion set of parts, designed to be field installed in existing M1 Carbines, it was known as the “Conversion kit, T17”. T17 kits were produced sparingly toward the end of the War alongside complete guns, to augment the demand from the Pacific Theater, but it was not until the Carbine rebuild programs came into full swing post?war that the T17 kit found its true destiny.

United States Patent #2,465,487

Engineers Paul H. Hamisch and Frederick W. Sampson were granted a US patent protection, United States patent number 2,465,487 on March 29, 1949 for their wartime work on the M1 Carbine conversion program at Inland. Their conversion kit was a basic redesign of the original operating mechanism utilizing as many of the original parts as possible, simply modified where feasible, combined with the addition of a few new parts, resulting in a mechanically simple and totally reliable new mechanism that retained all the Carbines’ desirable features while adding the added protection of full?automatic fire capability.

The actual conversion can be broken down into two distinct elements: original M1 mechanism parts that were suitably modified to accommodate the selective fire feature, and totally new parts added to the mechanism, required for the additional phase of the operating cycle when operating fully automatically.

Using the operating mechanics of the M1 carbine as a basis, it was found possible to slightly alter 4 elements as follows:

1. TRIGGER HOUSING? the standard M1 trigger housing was adapted by milling 2 additional features into the housing, a vertical clearance cut in the right hand side of the rear magazine support guide, and a small double half? circular cut in the left side of this same support face to form a retaining and dismounting surface for the selector lever spring. ( figure 2)

2. OPERATING SLIDE? by milling a semi?circular cut on the right side of the slide box at the juncture of the slide arm to provide an actuating surface for the added disconnector lever to run against and force the disconnector lever downward, necessary to actuate the disconnector block for tripping the hammer in full?automatic firing mode. (figure 3)

3. HAMMER ? by milling a clearance cut in the right hand side to accommodate the added disconnector block assembly; the hammer pivot pin now also serves to hold the disconnector block assembly in alignment against the (modified) sear. (figure 3)

4. STOCK? the stock is modified by milling two shallow surface cuts, one on the right hand side to allow the added disconnector lever to swing freely, the other on the left hand side to allow free movement of the added selector lever.

An additional two parts common to the standard M1 were required to be design altered and cannot be modified or remanufactured from base M1 parts:

1. SEAR? the M2 sear is design modified by adding a vertical ledge surface forward of the pivot pin hole to the top side to act as a contact surface for the added disconnector block to act on and allow hammer disengagement when in the full?automatic fire mode. (figure 3)

2. MAGAZINE CATCH? concurrent with the M2 carbine development request came the request to design a higher cartridge capacity magazine to take advantage of the M2’s increased firepower potential which culminated in the adoption of the familiar curved, 30?round capacity, M2 magazine. Due to the increased hanging weight of the 30?round magazine it was found necessary to augment the two lateral projections of the M1 mag catch by adding a third, finger shaped, projection to the left side of the catch arm to engage with an added third nib on the side of the new design magazine. Employed without this modified mag catch the 30?round magazine will consistently disengage from the M1 catch and drop from the gun when loaded full. Most M1’s were Arsenal updated to incorporate the M2 mag catch Post?War to allow interchangeable use of the original 15?round, or now standardized 30?round, mags. (figure 3)

The preceding six named parts may be interchangeably used in the M1 or M2 carbine as desired (although use of an M2 type hammer in an M1 will require a spacer between the right side of the trigger frame and hammer); they will give no functional change to the semi?auto only operation of an M1 carbine, and were routinely added to M1/M1A1 carbines that were Arsenal reconditioned in Post?War programs. By 1946 all of these parts were only being manufactured (or re?manufactured from wartime manufacture spare parts stocks) in the now standardized M2 configuration as only the M2 carbine was the standard version of the gun officially, with M1/M1A1 now listed as Limited Standard. Originally manufactured M1 parts may be found with any of the original Prime contractors, or their sub?contractors, markings existing in the M2 configuration, and were mixed indiscriminately with Springfield Arsenal new manufactured M2 parts in the rebuilt guns.

The second major division in the M2 conversion set was the addition of seven, actually issued as six, totally brand new parts (see figure 4) that were required to be added to the operating mechanism to allow selective fire as follows:

1. DISCONNECTOR BLOCK, SPRING AND PLUNGER? when operating in the full?automatic mode the trigger is lowered out of engagement, and only the sear is holding the hammer cocked. When actuated by the disconnector lever from the final dwell of the operating slide the disconnector block is pivoted upward from the front on its axis on the hammer pin and presses downward on the top surface of the M2 sear releasing the hammer to fire the cartridge primer. The top of the disconnector block contains a drilled hole for the placement of the disconnector spring and plunger, which act against the bottom surface of the receiver to apply a constant downward pressure to force the front of the disconnector block down in contact with the rear projection of the disconnector lever for reliability of operation. It also raises the rear finger off of the top sear contact surface to improve trigger pull characteristics.

2. DISCONNECTOR LEVER AND PIVOT PIN? as the connecting lever to convert mechanical movement of the operating slide to the vertical movement required of the disconnector block, the disconnector lever rides in the vertical camming surface of the modified operating slide undisturbed until the final dwell of the slide following bolt locking and then the front nose projection of the lever is forced downward by the milled camming cut of the slide causing the lever to pivot on it’s pivot pin raising the disconnector block to trip the hammer. The disconnector pivot pin is riveted (in all but the earliest parts) to the lever, and in the M2 carbine the disconnector pivot pin replaces the front trigger housing attachment pin. The pivot pin is attached to the lever at an eccentric and rotates under influence of the selector lever to either raise or lower the lever into or out of contact with the disconnector block, thereby achieving a selection of operating modes of fire.

3. SELECTOR LEVER AND SPRING? a selector lever is added to the left side of the receiver area and in the front is connected to the disconnector pivot pin by a notched cutout in the selector mating with a notched cut on the pin. The selector lever rotates about this front mating notch on the pivot pin and is held in either of the two selectable positions by the tension of the selector lever spring, which is a half?moon shaped piece of spring steel pointed at the selector lever end and engaging in a hole in the rear of the selector and held in place on the trigger housing by the spring retaining hole described above. The spring is mounted or dismounted by sliding up or down through the dismounting notch cut in the trigger housing above the retaining notch. The selector lever is held only to the pivot pin and does not (SHOULD NOT!) contact either the trigger housing, receiver, or stock for reliable functioning.

The above salient features are the same for either original USGI carbines or after?market commercial clones. MOST mechanical operating parts will interchange between military and commercial production M2’s, although as discussed later, certain commercial carbines did depart from utilizing some of the traditional military parts as a manufacturing necessity as the surplus military parts scene changed.

A note of Caution: from a purely historical standpoint, the “second type” or “round bolt”, which has commonly, but erroneously, been come to be known as the “M2 bolt” was in fact NOT a result of the development of the M2 carbine, at all. It was, in fact, a result of studies by Inland designed to increase the reliability of the M1 carbine by providing an increased surface bearing area between the bolt and the receiver, thereby improving bolt ride during the operating movement of the bolt; it also had the secondary benefit to reduce manufacturing time of the M1 bolt by leaving off the final milling cut to the top surface of the bolt, and was an accepted production modification by the time the M2 came about. Notwithstanding historical errors, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should an M2 be operated WITHOUT a round bolt in place; it was quickly discovered by Inland that the flat bolt was subject to catastrophic failure under cyclic fire conditions due to harmonic torsional flexing and it is EXTREMELY RISKY to use this bolt in a machinegun version of the Carbine!! All original experimental Inland T4’s came with round bolts, as did all wartime production contract M2 guns, and the round bolt was replaced as needed in Arsenal rebuilt or converted M1’s.

Early factory produced M2’s and Arsenal Modified M1 guns often utilized a modification of the M1 stock, although it was found that in doing so, the milling cuts weakened the side rails of the stock and cracks and fractures were common. To alleviate this, the well known “Pot?Belly” style M2 stock was developed and issued. The Pot?Belly stock was identical to the M1 except that it contained more wood in the areas of the side rails to strengthen them against cracking. After WWII ended, all GI stock production was changed over to the Pot?Belly configuration, and as stocks needed replacing these were issued in the rebuilding programs as needed. There were numerous investigations into stocks made of alternate materials and manufacturing methods as fractured stocks were all too common place with the carbine during its’ issue lifetime; stocks made from laminated wood, plastic and even aluminum were all tested, but in the end they remained issued from but two selections of wood, standard Walnut and later Birch as the walnut shortages of Post?War times caused the search for an effective replacement for the normal walnut stock material. Both were used interchangeably and were listed as substituted standard issue. Most “new surplus” M2 stocks available today are of Birch wood and carry a lighter coloration than walnut. Both seem to give acceptable service although the Birch stocks seem to be more variable in their fit and finish.

So you want an M2 Carbine.Okay, which Flavor ??

So what IS an “M2 Carbine”? Well for the modern collector/shooter of NFA Title II weapons the “M2 Carbine” represents a bewildering array of choices and definitions. Defined PRECISELY, it means an original WWII production carbine, produced under the Hamisch?Sampson/Inland conversion design, by either Inland or Winchester, and factory marked M2. Keep in mind that many of the truly original Winchester WWII production M2 carbines were NOT marked “M2”, they were over stamped 2?over?1, only very late production guns were truly fully stamped “M2”; contrast that to the fact that almost ALL true original Inland Div. production M2’s WERE stamped “M2”!! There were no other military contracted M2 Carbines ever produced for the US Government, as from the factory guns. If you will allow a somewhat broader definition of “M2 Carbine”, to include any M1carbine that has been converted to fire in the selective fire mode, or Post?War clone production, the selections grow immensely.

One must start with then, the original conversions that inspired the standardized M2, the Inland T4, which was produced to the extent of approximately 600 guns marked “T4”, which for all intents and purposes ARE M2’s. These guns would command a major premium in the collector markets as such. (There are many known private holdings of T4’s, they are rare and expensive, but out there. Most came from Inland directly after the War. ) Additionally, from the early part of the M2 saga, there are the One?off conversions done by Winchester and Springfield Armory during the initial conversion projects; several Winchester variations are held in the Cody Museum Collection. Springfield Armory examples/prototypes are held by the Smithsonian. There were also several post?war attempts by various people at bettering the Inland design. Granted, these all represent a rare line?up of M1 conversions, but they do exist, and from time to time some have come to the collectors market, although they are not M2’s they do occupy a significant place in the M2 Carbine story and may have interest to some collectors.

The next most obvious example is the MASSIVE number of M1 Carbines which were run through the various rebuilding programs that the Military held between the end of WWII and the Korean Conflict, and after the Korean Conflict ended, up to the Vietnam era. Not all M1’s were rebuilt as M2 configuration, but a LARGE number were. It is then, entirely possible to have a genuine USGI M2 carbine with a receiver marked as having come from ANY of the original Prime Contractors employed for WWII production. This is important knowledge when grading/pricing a gun you are looking at buying. It gets confusing!

When you stray from original Military production guns you arrive at the myriad number of post?war clones , production by such familiar makers as Iver Johnsons, Universal, and Plainfield Machine Co., all of whom made and marketed “M2” versions in several unique variations, such as the Enforcer Pistol, or Chrome plated M2’s, to the Civilian and Law Enforcement markets.

Finally, in terms of complete guns, there were the Presentation and Commemorative guns that came from both the original WWII production programs and later post?war civilian offerings. Some of the absolute most valuable M2’s are those few guns that Winchester Repeating Arms Co. presented to certain special members of management and to a few Military Liason Officers following their completion of the War Contracts; these guns, or certain numbers of them, are known to be M2’s and were registered to the presentee under the NFA ‘34.

The last source of NFA Title II guns are those multitude of “T17” kits that were registered as true conversion kits, in and of themselves, over the years until 1986, and were sold as an inexpensive way to convert an already held M1 to an M2. The vast majority of these kits were simply assembled from commonly available M2 spare parts, marked as required by Law, and then sold as a kit. There ARE however a select small number of Military Issue, and so Marked and Packaged, “Conversion Kit, T17”, which were acquired by various channels and then marked and registered too (It would be interesting if someone who owned one these original marked and packaged Military issue, but NFA registered, kits could persuade ATF Technology Branch to have them declared to be Curios & Relics eligible, in and of themselves.). The generic conversion kits are perhaps the most in need of a careful understanding when you go to purchase a gun that has been converted using a kit, or a bare kit itself. They were not always manufactured with the most complete understanding of the gun’s operating principal and as such, some bear watching out for!

The first time I encountered the LDE-9 (Short for “Last Ditch Effort” 9mm) was at the 1996 Soldieer of Fortune Convention in Las Vegas. As we rounded the corner of the aisle where Gemini Technologies was set up, you could feel something special in the air. The smile on the face of Gemtech machinist Jim Ryan told most of the story by itself.

“What do you think?”, was accompanied by an out-stretched arm, with a hand containing what seemed to resemble a Mini-Mag flashlight on a key ring. “We call it the LDE-9.” With folks in the gun business, this type of greeting is much more common than the old “Hello, how are you”. That comes next.

Our response was pretty universal. “9 millimeter, huh?” When you use the word pengun and 9 millimeter in the same sentence, you tend to get a reaction, even from the most seasoned enthusiast. The correct guy thing to do in a case like this is to nod your head and show your approval. You might ask why they did not make it in a 10mm, or even .50AE, but what you are actually thinking is “Wow. That has got to sting.”

Jim showed us a few of the prototype attachments that were still in research and development, and we were on our way. The idea of the 9mm pengun with the pull ring firing mechanism however, stayed etched in my memory.

I have been a fan of penguns for many years now. The idea of buying a pengun was originally attractive because of their relatively low price when compared to other Title II firearms. The idea of purchasing an NFA firearm on a $5.00 tax stamp is always attractive as well. The reaction by individuals the first time they see a pen gun is always worth it’s weight in gold too. If I had a dollar for each time someone said “Wow, real James Bond stuff”! I could have retired years ago.

The first pen gun to grace my gun cabinet was manufactured from an old pen flare kit, and was barreled in .25ACP. Yup, that’s the viscious round we keep hearing Charles Schumer talking about that is always used in the inner cities. Actually, the deciding factor in the caliber was the location of the firing pin. The pen flares were allready set up in a centerfire configuration, so it would have been much harder to chamber it for a rimfire cartridge. The firing mechanism was a very simple “pull back and let fly” system. In order to have this particular gun in the ready/fire position, the firing pin had to be pulled about half way back, and pushed over in a groove milled into the main body. While this was an interesting addition to the collection, as far as I was concerned, it was only a novelty, and not anything I would ever consider carrying for self defense.

There are a few immediate problems with carrying a pengun of that design as a defensive unit. The obvious are: capacity, caliber, and most of all, safety. Gemtech has managed to address almost all these concerns with the LDE-9. The hurdle of caliber has been easily jumped with this pen gun. I come from the old school of bigger is better, but we have to keep it sensible. With an increase in caliber, comes an almost equal increase in size, therefore losing the concealability that is so important in this design.

Even if we could get past the size, there is still the amount of felt recoil to be considered, and just plain being able to keep one of these things in your hand. The 9mm Parabellum seems to be an excellent choice. It allows the diameter of the LDE-9 to stay at 9/16” (14mm) remaining very concealable, the ammunition is available worldwide, and hey, 9mm kicks the pants off the vast majority of the pen guns on the market.

The safety mechanism of the LDE-9 is far superior to many others on the market. Rather than a straight “pull and slam-fire” mechanism with a safety notch parallel to the firing slot, it uses an in-line pull ring firing mechanism/incorporated with a threaded safety ring. This safety system makes it virtually impossible to fire the LDE-9 without being ready to do so. In order to fire this unit, you must first unscrew the safety ring to the tune of 3+ turns, or you’re not able to pull the key ring trigger mechanism.

There are a few accessories available for the LDE-9, and a few more on the drawing board. For those currently available, the barrel being threaded at 1/2×28 allows the use of many common 9mm pistol suppressors, or Gemtech’s model SOS. There will soon be a bell style thread protector on the market to allow for a more comfortable hold during firing, and give it the look of a mini flashlight. As for the ideas on the drawing board, all you have to do is use your imagination, and remember that the guys at Gemtech are behind this design.

The LDE-9 pengun consists of four major components. The body, the safety/firing device, the barrel, and the thread protector. The Body (or receiver), carries all the markings from the manufacturer. The Safety/Firing Device consists of the rear knurled, and inner threaded sleeve, which is the safety, and the trigger pin with an attached pull ring. This assembly is not removable from the body of the firearm. The Barrel unscrews from the receiver to allow the loading of a new round, or the removal of a fired cartridge. Where it is supplied normally in 9mm Parabellum, it may be special ordered in .380ACP, or .32ACP. The end of the barrel is threaded 1/2×28. The Thread Protector is a knurled piece with a 3/8” aperture. It comes from the factory with a 3/8” diameter piece of black nylon as a plug. This plug is held in place by friction only, and helps to disguise the muzzle. It should be pushed out with a pencil before shooting, but in case of an emergency it is acceptable to shoot through the plug.

The loading and firing sequence is as follows; Making sure the safety ring is screwed tightly on to the receiver, unscrew the barrel and insert the cartridge into the chamber. Point it in the direction you wish to shoot. Screw the barrel back into the receiver. Hold the body of the LDE-9 securely in your left hand. Unscrew the knurled safety ring at the rear of the receiver approximately 3 turns, until it is free. The safety is now disengaged. Pull the ring back as far as it will go. Near the end of it’s rearward travel, the striker will automatically be released and will disengage from the pull ring assembly firing the LDE-9.

The LDE-9 is designed to use any standard, American manufactured ammunition except Plus-P (+P) or Plus-P-Plus (+P+) rated ammunition. It is also recommended that no foreign ammunition be used because of possible (and likely) overpressurization. For comfortable use, Gemtech recommends a nice light load when not using this with a sound suppressor.

I tested it with and without a sound suppressor. The ammunition used for testing was 147 Grain FMJ by D&S Manufacturing, (Now Maine Cartridge Company). The suppressor I used was manufactured by North American Sales International of Midland, Texas. The length of the can is a little over 2 1/2 times the length of the LDE-9, but the thing I was looking for was an increased gripping surface. With the can, the LDE-9 was not at all unpleasant to fire. I popped a few rounds at a distance of 30’ or better, and surprisingly enough I was hitting in the general area I was “Aiming” at. Obviously, as far as accuracy, it is only as effective as your ability to point. On the date of the testing our shooting range was still knee deep in snow, so I only concerned myself with a safe backstop and fired for comfort only.

The comfort ended as soon as I fired the unit with no suppressor! I held the LDE-9 in a “death grip” with my left hand, and as soon as the trigger mechanism was engaged, the rear of the unit introduced itself to the knuckle on my trigger finger rather abruptly. Nothing a Band-Aid wouldn’t take care of, but enough to get your attention. In speaking to Jim Ryan about this we both agreed that it could be avoided by gripping the outside of the key ring and the knurled safety portion when firing. Another good point Jim had was to pull the unit away from your body with the left hand at the same time you are applying rearward tension to the trigger assembly. The newly designed thread protector would compensate for this as well, by giving a sturdy point of hold in the left hand.

My overall assessment is that the LDE-9 stands atop of the heap of “Big Boy’s” pen guns. Many typical pen gun problems were solved in the design, and it has more accessories both on the drawing table, and on the market, than any other pen gun I am immediately familiar with. For it’s actual purpose, which is designated by it’s name, the Last Ditch Effort, it is a step above many competitors and sure to meet it’s intended requirements. It should be required as an addition to any pen gun collection. The craftsmanship and the quality are second to none, and the design is sure to be unique when placed by it’s relatives. As for the recreational shooting value….let’s just say that it is not for those with a light grip. For anyone in the Tough Guy category who was wondering why it is not offered in .50AE, your question will be answered as soon as you pull the firing ring.

On a serious note, when you shoot this thing you had better remember that it is in no way a toy, and adhere carefully to all the safety rules. A pen gun is still a gun, and all rules apply. Be safe, and have fun.

LDE-9 Physical Specifications

Caliber: 9mm Parabellum (9×19 NATO)
Overall Length: 4” (102mm)
Barrel Length: 1 3/4”
Diameter: 9/16” (14mm)
Weight: 2oz (55gm)
Sights: None
Firing Mechanism: In-Line Pull Ring
Material Used: 4130 Steel
Finish: Black Oxide
Muzzle Thread: 1/2×28

For more information on the LDE-9:

GEMTECH
Division of Gemini Technologies, Inc.
P.O. Box 3538
Boise, Idaho 83703
(208) 939-7222