The Original vs The Tube Gun

“Original or a tube gun?” This is a dilemma that many machine gun purchasers face at one time or another. Original guns are usually preferred, but there are many factors that make the choice to buy an original gun unpractical, or difficult.

An original gun, can first of all be difficult to locate. It can also be much more expensive than a non original gun, sometimes costing two to three times more. As you are probably well aware, no machine gun is cheap. Original guns, sometimes over fifty years old, can also be hard to find in decent original condition.

On the other hand, “tube” or remanufactured guns have usually been refinished and can be more appealing to the eye. Some will argue that wear and tear on an original weapon adds character and authenticity.

This of course raises the question, “Why are you considering the purchase of a machine gun?” People purchase them for shooting or for their collections. The most popular category would be “both”.

This brings another question to the table. How badly do you want to shoot an original gun? It is a fact that a lot of people purchase an original gun as a collector/shooter. Soon they begin to feel they are devaluing their original gun too much by firing it. They then purchase a tube gun of the same type for shooting and they then keep the original as a collector’s item only. Ideally that’s the way to go, but unfortunately few people are able to do that.

The purpose of this article is to compare an original, all-matching, German MP40 vs an MP4O with a receiver of a new manufacture, commonly known as a tube gun. We will compare features and performance of each of the guns.

The German MP40, like many German weapons of WWII vintage, have the weapons serial number (or a portion of the serial number) stamped on virtually every part of the gun: the bolt, barrel, stock etc. When a gun has all the matching original parts still intact, the gun is usually referred to as an “all matching gun”. An all-matching gun is considered far more valuable than one that is not.

The Original MP40 used in the test is a WWII gun of German manufacture. It is all-matching, and has 85 to 90% of the original finish remaining. It has the early flat side magazine housing and black plastic furniture. It is marked fxo 41, indicating that it was manufactured in 1941 by Haenel in Germany during WWII. For shooting purposes a barrel, bolt assembly and firing pin/recoil spring from a MP40 spare parts kit are installed. If a part (such as a barrel) is damaged on an all matching gun it will devalue it considerably. I might mention at this time that I rarely fire this gun, and its not because I don’t want to.

The MP40 came from a police department in Texas, where it was registered in 1967. No one currently at the department could remember where it came from, although before it gained a display spot on the wall, officers had taken it out on patrol. No one could remember ever having fired it in the line of duty.

The second gun used in the test was the MP40 tube gun. It belongs to gun collector/shooter Herb Plummer. He bought it a while ago for about half the going rate of an original one. Herb was looking for an original MP40, but he could not find one in suitable condition. The originals he did locate were very expensive, and not in the condition he wanted. Most were not all-matching weapons. Also, he says that he was looking for an MP40 to shoot, not to look at.

Herb purchased his MP40 directly from class II manufacturer Charlie Erb who also manufactured and registered the receiver tube. The trigger/lower housing assembly was marked bnz 42, indicating that it was manufactured in 1942. Most of the other parts were also marked bnz, the manufacturing code for Steyr.

The tube MP40 is also an all-matching gun. Charlie Erb makes them that way. He very carefully marks all his MP40s so that all the numbered parts match the serial number he assigned the tubes he manufactured (all prior to 1986). His serial numbers end in a small case letter like the originals.

At first glance Charlie’s guns look like all-matching originals. Even the Nazi eagles are stamped on the receiver tube. The tube MP40 had a blue finish that is very close to the gloss and color of an original gun. None of the original markings on the parts had been buffed away, which often gives away a poor reblue job.

Both guns fired and handled in much the same way. Both had the normal MP40 “wobbly stock”. The cyclic rate was, as expected, very similar. Both guns were 99.9% reliable. Malfunctions could usually be traced to the ammunition used. Reloads with cast lead round nose bullets were used, with no feeding or functioning problems. The only problem with lubricated cast lead bullets is that (during a long burst) the burning lube makes a lot of smoke, obscuring the target.

Accuracy of both MP40s was about the same. The cyclic rate is too fast to easily get off a single shot. We decided to see how many rounds we could get into a torso sized steel target at 50 yards. The best either of us could do was 18 out of 30, with a continuous 30 round burst.

The biggest problem with accuracy was the movement of the wobbly stock. Every time I would start a continuous burst, the stock would move, throwing me off target. About the time I corrected my aim, the magazine would be empty. I have fired other subguns at the same target, in the same manner, and had a lot more hits. I’m not saying the MP40 is an inaccurate weapon. Its weight and balance make it one of the better subguns of WWII. But the stock makes it difficult to shoot accurately. Unfortunately the MP40 stock is not easily repaired.

There was a problem with some parts not fitting the tube gun. One spare bolt would not interchange into the tube, while two others fit properly. There was a problem installing a spare trigger housing. All the parts fit onto the original tube with no problem. This isn’t cause for excessive concern, as it is common for original MP40 parts not to be 100% interchangeable. This is especially so between different manufacturers.

The tube MP40 is all-original WWII manufacture, except of course for the stripped tube. In this case the receiver is so marked that only upon close examination can you tell that it is not an original gun. The easiest way to identify a tube gun from an original is by examining the inside of the tube. An original gun will be fluted inside as it is on the outside. New-manufacture receiver tubes will usually be smooth inside. This applies only to the MP40. The earlier original MP38’s were manufactured with a smooth surface inside the receivers.

Under combat conditions the flutes or channels inside the MP40 tube made it more reliable, by giving any dirt or debris inside the tube a place to go. This helped prevent stoppages and jamming, a potentially deadly situation for the operator in a fire fight.

Machining flutes or channels in new manufacture, pre-1986 MP40 receivers was neither cost effective nor necessary for a recreational machine gun.

SUMMARY: Both guns were equally fun to shoot. Original MP40s have gone up in price considerably in the last few years. So much so that they are now in the collector only category. That means only shooting them occasionally, if at all. One big advantage is that original guns are considered C&R or Curio and Relics.

This is advantageous to those who reside in states that only allow C&R machine guns, or those who have a C&R license. Tube guns are not considered either curio or relics by the BATF.

Both guns functioned, and fired identically. Both MP40s are sure to continue to go up in value. Conclusion? The choice is basically up to you and your bank account.

MP40 Field Strip – Unload Firearm!!

Gun owners have rightly rejoiced that the Sheriffs’ case was affirmed by the Supreme Court, and that part of the Brady Law being contested was overturned.

Twice in as many years the Court has ruled that Congress does not have the authority to enact gun control. In particular, the Congressional claim of authority has been based on the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8. The Court has said that there was no commerce involved in gun control, thus the Tenth Amendment requires declaring Congress’ efforts at gun control unconstitutional.

The Sheriffs took that part of the Brady Law to court where they had standing — where the Court would have to agree that they were directly involved. Thus, the Sheriffs complained that the Constitution forbids Congress from making them involuntary agents of the government of the United States.

Many people, including many gun owners, are rushing to conclude from all this that states should authorize background checks so that all gun buyers will have their names checked against a computerized criminal data base in Washington (and eventually in each of the 50 states). Nothing could be more unproductive, unconstitutional or ill-advised.

The Brady Law resulted nationally in seven prosecutions and three incarcerations in its first year of operation. These cases could have been prosecuted without the Brady Law. Others who were stopped could easily have obtained a gun the same day from some place other than a store. According to Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery, the state spent nearly $1,000,000 stopping 327 would-be purchasers who could have gotten their gun elsewhere. Since the murder rate in the U.S. began its present decline starting in 1991, it can hardly be said that the Brady Law has contributed to the decline, even less by taking three criminals off the streets.

The instant check is nothing but a request for government permission to exercise a constitutionally protected liberty that, according to the Second Amendment, “shall not be infringed.” Thankfully we have not come to the point of asking permission to give a speech, write an editorial or deliver a sermon, but that is the equivalent of the Brady Law’s permitting system regarding the Second Amendment.

Some argue that, regarding the First Amendment, we cannot shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. True, but we don’t issue muzzles on entering the theater. We only punish those who abuse the liberty. So it should be in the case of the Second Amendment as well.

Legislators in Ohio have learned that the national Brady check is actually an Instant Registration Check. When names are checked against the federal data base, all names (with their social security numbers) are coded to indicate that they are gun owners. Quite simply, in spite of the toothless prohibition in Brady, a national gun owner registration list is being compiled. Virtually none of these folks are criminals. Why then are their names being stored as gun owners?

One answer is suggested by the experience of New York City. Some thirty years ago, all rifles and shotguns had to be registered. About five years ago, many semi-automatics were banned. The gun owners were trapped. The Constitution guarantees their right to have those firearms, but the city is in a position to jail anyone exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Arrests have been made of grandfathered people who owned guns that were legal (and registered) before the law was changed.
Gun owners are the last ones who should be urging the imposition of the Brady Law in all the states. The Brady Instant Registration Check is the Trojan Horse that the gun banners will use later on to grab the people’s firearms. Brady needs to be repealed at the state and national levels, not imposed in those states still lacking such a terrible law.

Protecting the Second Amendment will be much easier when advocates of constitutionally protected liberties consistently defend the right to keep and bear arms. The most consistent position for defending firearms for personal defense is right-to-carry legislation modeled after the Vermont law. In Vermont, there are no licenses, permits or other government intrusions infringing on the right to carry a concealed firearm. The law essentially says that it is illegal to carry a firearm, concealed or openly, for the purpose of criminally injuring another person.

Vermont’s law highlights the radical anti-gun nature of the Instant Registration Check in the Brady Law. Just to buy a gun, one must seek government permission. In Vermont, one can both buy and carry a gun with no state government involvement whatsoever. Of course, since the federal government decided to embark on a series of unconstitutional, and therefore, illegitimate adventures in civilian disarmament, Vermonters have been hampered to the extent that they could not escape the reach of Washington.

Vermont’s murder rate is, almost every year, the lowest in the country. Those pushing for civilian disarmament say that Vermont has such a low rate because it is a rural population. But since last year, the anti-gunners have been countered by the overwhelming weight of the evidence amassed by Dr. John Lott at the University of Chicago. Lott took the crime data of every city and county in the U.S. for the previous sixteen years and analyzed the data in terms of poverty, density of population, arrest rates, sentencing rates and lengths among other variables. The one factor that consistently correlated in a positive fashion with crime rates was whether a state recognized or not the right of a citizen to carry a concealed firearm.

Lott’s study showed that states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1570 murders, 4177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.

Before the imposition of the Brady Law on the whole country, about half of the states had a waiting period, the rest did not violate their citizens’ constitutional rights in that way. The violent crime rates were higher in the states with waiting periods. In fact, California, with its 15 day waiting period, had a murder rate 25% over that of the rest of the country.

Two states can illustrate this clearly. In 1976, both Georgia and Wisconsin tried two different approaches to fighting crime. Georgia enacted legislation making it easier for citizens to carry guns for self-defense, while Wisconsin passed a law requiring a 48 hour waiting period before the purchase of a handgun. What resulted during the ensuing years? Georgia’s law served as a deterrent to criminals and helped drop its homicide rate by 21 percent. Wisconsin’s murder rate, however, rose 33 percent during the same period.

There is no doubt that waiting periods kill. For example, Bonnie Elmasri inquired about getting a gun to protect herself from a husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She was told there was a 48 hour waiting period to buy a handgun. But unfortunately, Bonnie was never able to pick up a gun. She and her two sons were killed the next day by an abusive husband of whom the police were well aware.

Conversely, Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross bought a gun (in a non-waiting period state before the imposition of Brady) and used it to kill an attacker in self-defense two days later. Had a 5-day waiting period been in effect, Ms. Ross would have been defenseless against the man who was stalking and seeking to kill her.

Waiting periods are unconstitutional. They are a prior restraint on the exercise of a constitutionally protected (not granted) right. The Supreme Court has ruled (Near v. Minnesota) that government officials should punish the abuse of a right and not place prior restraints on the exercise of the right. That is why it is illegal to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, but we do not issue muzzles to theatergoers as they enter. Obviously, the same principle applies to firearms. It is illegal to criminally injure another person, but prior restraint should be as prohibited under the Second Amendment as it is under the First.

Having said that, the danger of the waiting period is far less than that of the Instant Registration Check. The Brady Instant Registration Check is building (right now) a national, centralized, computerized registration list of gun owners. As Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership have shown from their definitive study of genocide in this century (Lethal Laws: “Gun Control” Is the Key to Genocide), genocide invariably is preceded by gun control. Once the identification of gun owners is in place, the thugs in power (a.k.a. the government) confiscate firearms. (In Ruwanda, they also confiscated machetes.) Then the slaughter of the target population can begin — Jews in Nazi Germany, Ukrainians and others in Soviet Russia, Christians in Uganda, Indians in Guatemala, the educated in Cambodia and so forth.

The figures are in. Before this century has ended, governments have slaughtered their tens of millions, the Al Capones their scores and hundreds. Yet Sarah Brady, Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and the other advocates of civilian disarmament breeze right on past the killing fields of our recent past. They also overlook the massive threat to personal security posed by center-city street gangs. Instead, their desire is to convince us all that it is the guns of the erstwhile victims that are at fault — decent people wishing to protect themselves from the criminals set loose on our streets by our government. We are watching a monumental shifting of the blame from those who have brought us a failed system of criminal justice. They want us to look not at murderers put out on the street. Rather than blame murderers, blame guns we are told.

Our answer to the civilian disarmament crowd has to be that crime is their fault, not gun owners. Gun control laws kill. When stating our position we must not fall into the trap of agreeing to policies, such as the Instant Registration Check, that make disarmament possible. We should press on for what we want — the free exercise of a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. After all, we will never get more than we ask for.
Gun controllers are the friends of criminals and the enemies of freedom. They arrogantly assume that only they (and their buddies in the government) are responsible enough to be trusted with guns. The watchword should be that guns save lives, gun control kills. And the Instant Registration Check is gun control — a threat to every gun owner.

To get information on how to fight the Instant Registration Check, call Gun Owners of America’s toll free phone: 1-888-886-GUNS (4867).

Analyst: Military Ammo Ban Efforts Based On Economic, Not Humanitarian Concerns

Forthcoming proposals to ban fragmenting types of small arms munitions, particularly the 5.56 x 45mm and the 7.62 x 51mm cartridges with an open-tipped bullet design, are detailed in a paper prepared for presentation at the American Defense Preparedness Association’s (ADPA) Small Arms Conference held last June in Reno, NV. The paper, prepared by Hayes Parks special assistant to The Judge Advocate General of the Army, but who did not actually attend the ADPA event, warned that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), working in tandem with a Swiss ballistician, Beat P. Kneubuehl, are the instigators behind a call for an international conference of “experts”-drawn from an ICRC list-which could be convened before the end of the year, to examine the issue of banning small caliber fragmenting projectiles for military use. If such a ban were to be enacted, it could be used as the basis for a public relations drive to influence public opinion to favor banning such ammunition not only for use by the armed forces, but also for use by civilians or police with the rationale that such ammo is too terrible in its effects, even for use in war.

“Their objective is to arrive at a new prohibition on small caliber projectiles that may fragment or yaw prematurely in the body, based on the argument that the resulting wounds are worse than those caused by the nonfragmenting 5.56 x 45mm projectiles developed by Kneubuehl at Switzerland’s Federal Department of Defense Ballistics Test Centre at Thun, during the Cold War, apparently in part to defeat Soviet body armor. With the end of the Cold War, the market (and funding) for Kneubuehl’s projectile dwindled. The military purpose for the ammunition was quickly put aside to emphasize the ‘humanitarian’ value of nonfragmenting ammunition,” Parks wrote. “The Swiss proposal that followed,” Parks continued, “was, and remains, two-fold: (a) to create an international prohibition of small arms ammunition that may yaw prematurely and/or fragment on impact with soft tissue, and (b) establish an international wound ballistics testing center at Thun, to be run by Kneubuehl.” Parks felt that in this time of post-Cold War worldwide downsizing of defense industries, the proposal amounted to little more than “buy my patent, and save my job.”

“Response to this proposal was,” Parks says, “at best, underwhelming. It is technically flawed and offers a solution to something not viewed as a problem. There is no 5.56mm projectile that can begin to wound as severely as an artillery fragment, a landmine, or a .50 cal. Projectile, for example. Virtually every small-caliber projectile used by military forces in this century has had the potential to fragment on impact with soft tissue at initial velocities. The U.S., U.K. and countrys states opposed it, and the Government of Switzerland subsequently withdrew its support for it.”

In an aside, Parks wrote, “Initiatives to regulate or ban antipersonnel landmines have been based on the indiscriminate effect or irresponsible use of antipersonnel landmines in recent or on-going civil wars, and the concomitant deleterious effect this illegal use has had on innocent civilians. They never have contained any suggestion that the wounding of enemy military personnel by antipersonnel landmines constitutes unnecessary suffering in violation of international law.” UN Initiative On another front, Parks, a former member of the US Delegation to the United Nations Review Conference for the UN Conventional Weapons Convention (which concluded its meetings in 1996), warned that at this UN group’s next scheduled meeting in 2001, the conference will focus on banning certain types of small-caliber munitions, as well as unexploded ordnance, incendiary weapons, flechettes, depleted-uranium and cluster munitions, and naval mines. During the two years of negotiations which occurred at the first UN Review Conference, the parties (which included the US) adopted an amended protocol regulating landmines, booby-traps and a prohibition on blinding laser weapons.

Ammo Ban History

Some insight into the history of attempts to ban various types of military ammunition was also offered by Parks. “In 1899, at the first Hague Peace Conference, Germany attacked the new British caliber .303 Mark IV bullet, which was being produced at the Dum-Dum arsenal near Calcutta, India. The rationale for the Mark IV was clear. The British experience in the Chitral Campaign of 1895 revealed that the then new full-metal jacketed bullet used in its .303 Lee-Metford rifle was inadequate in its ability to incapacitate, whereas following the battle of Omdarman in 1898 the larger caliber .577-450 Martini-Henry rifles of the Egyptian army sufficed to disable. The British government then directed experiments to be undertaken toward obtaining a jacketed bullet possessing equal stopping power with that of its larger caliber, lead bullet predecessors. The committee investigating the question recommended two bullets, one of which proved to cause more severe wounds than the other. The British government elected to adopt the less destructive bullet, known as the Mark IV,” Parks explained.

“The attack on the Mark IV was politically motivated, as Germany opposed British actions in the Anglo-Boer War. The criticism depended heavily on experiments allegedly conducted on the British Mark IV at Tubingen by a professor Dr.von Bruns, who used a bullet substantially different from the British Mark IV to skew his tests to support the German political argument,” Parks wrote.

“The German deception worked, and the conference adopted the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets that prohibits, ‘…bullets that expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.’ The U.S. never became a party to this treaty, but generally has applied it through this century (as have other nations) for the practical reason that, until recently, most military small arms would reliably function only with full-metal jacketed ammunition,” Parks noted.

Swedish Effort

A similar occurrence took place in the 1960s and 1970s when the US developed and adopted the M-16 rifle with its 5.56 x 45mm projectile. “Sweden immediately condemned the M-16 for two reasons,” Parks noted. “First, Sweden disagreed with US military operations in Viet Nam; and second, the 5.56 x 45mm cartridge represented a revolution in military small arms in which Sweden found itself totally unprepared to compete. As such, it (the new cartridge) represented a serious economic threat to Sweden’s arms industry.
“The U.S. experience in defending the M-16 at the first UN Conference on Certain Conventional Weapons, conducted in Geneva from 1978 to 1980, paralleled the 1899 British experience. Swedish claims about the horrendous wounding effect of the M-16, erroneously claiming that the M-193 bullet was designed to ‘tumble’ and fragment, were vastly exaggerated,” Parks noted. This was especially so often the U.S. changed the rifling twist, which further stabilized the 5.56 mm round.

A small-caliber working group was convened of which Parks was a member. While initially attended by representatives of more than thirty nations, participation rapidly diminished to representatives from Sweden and the US. “Once the rhetoric died down, it was agreed the wounds inflicted by the M-16 and its 5.56mm projectile were no worse than wounds caused by other, contemporary military small arms, much less other, conventional weapons. Therefore,the warranted neither further regulation, nor a new prohibition,” Parks reports.

“It was also determined that a number of factors ultimately determine the serious nature of wounds by delivered military small-arms ammunition. They include: range, velocity at time of impact, bullet yaw at time of impact, point of impact, intervening impact (deflection), whether or not the injury involves multiple wounds, the preceding condition of the person wounded, and the length of delay to treatment. This last item is regarded as the most essential element. The working group arrived at no new criteria for determining the legality of small caliber weapons,” Parks wrote.

A fallacy common to arms prohibitionists efforts, Parks pointed out, is that their argument attempts to isolate and exaggerate the wounding effects of the targeted weapon to stigmatize the arm’s effect in the public’s eye to force a policy change, rather than evaluate the arm based on accepted international law criteria.

“The international law standard is that, in determining whether a weapon causes unnecessary suffering (and therefore violates international law prohibitions), its effects must be measured against comparable, lawful wounding mechanisms in use on the modern battlefield. As indicated, on those rare occasions when a small arms projectile fragments, its wounding effects still pale when compared to other lawful wounding mechanisms in use on the modern battlefield.” “We are at a point in time where new programs are being undertaken that may enhance the soldier’s ability to accomplish his or her assigned missions. Two examples are the Army’s Objective Family of Small Arms, which may include bursting munitions, and Fabrique Nationale’s 5.7 x 28mm P90 Personal Weapon and FiveseveN TM pistol. With the additional threats of state-sponsored terrorism and use of weapons of mass destruction by rogue states, our military forces require the best small arms and ammunition that can be provided them. The U.S. has opposed the Kneubuehl proposal in the past and I see no reason for a change in that position,” Parks concluded.

“In no place of modern war are machine guns so valuable as during a retreat. If properly handled, they make the pursuit so difficult and costly as to render the retreat a far less dangerous undertaking than it used to be. One successful ambush by machine-guns is worth more than the most stubborn stand, for it imposes caution on the enemy as nothing else can.” Major C. H. B. Pridham in “Superiority of Fire” 1945

The wisdom culled from the War to End All Wars, as filtered through the experiences of the machine gunners of the Second World War is evident all through Pridham’s book. Raffica likes to point these lessons out, because the growth and direction of much of today’s machine gun design is to convert the role of the machine gun from an area weapon to solely use as a point weapon. While we applaud the new designs, the desire of Raffica is to throw in the cautionary note that the machine gun has it’s roots in a cross between infantry and artillery, and in order to keep the best of it’s abilities, the machine gunner should have training in the old ways, not just the scoped three round burst that is in vogue at the moment. No offense to the modern, but three men on a Vickers with a good ammo supply have saved many a soldier’s life as he scrambled back from a soured engagement.

Does this translate into validating “keeping the hammer down” at civilian machine gun shoots? Not really. Military training and recreational shooting are two entirely different things. However, there is an overlap- the passing of knowledge. There is an anecdote that I would like to relate regarding a meeting of some young Marines and an old Mainer at the North Country Shoot. There was a contest for beltfed shooters, and the Marine Captain entered his troops with the M249 SAW. The contest was a “Bake-off”, two teams at a time trying to perform certain tasks with the machine gun, one trying to beat the other’s time, and the winner moving up to the next round. The young Marine who was firing the machine gun got into position, bipod supported prone, and lined up his weapon. His opponent was an old Maine machine gunner, who had a 1919A4 Browning .30 on a 1917 mount, with a chair behind it for him to sit in. When the firing started, the Mainer stood on his trigger, manipulated his T & E, and quickly completed his tasks, long before the Marine (Recently back from Desert Storm) could complete part one- he was firing three round bursts.
The Marines were embarrassed, which was exhibited in traditional military manner, a severe and colorful ass-chewing by the Captain. “How could you let that old but respectable fuddy duddy civilian beat a UNITED STATES MARINE?” I wandered over and had a talk with the Captain (Not revealing the fact that I was an Army veteran, of course). The course of fire had demanded that the machine gunner first pulverize a cinder block at 50 yards, then cut off a standing log that was 8” thick and had a black cutoff line on it, then hit a piece of ditch dynamite that was taped to a stick at 100 yards. The course was designed to show some operator skill in various machine gun tasks- engaging hard targets to remove them, and some point firing as well. (We didn’t have the adequate range to work out a beaten zone, enfilade, or defilade test).

My suggestion to the Captain was that he put the M249’s away. The 5.56mm round was not very good for the destruction work. Something in .30 caliber would be better suited for this work. He took out an M60E3, and I told him to use his oldest, most worn barrel. The trick the old Mainer knew, was that with a worn out barrel, the bullet tumble is almost immediate, and tearing up buildings or forests is much easier with that type of action. It’s old soldier’s lore, and it works. The next competition came up, and the Corps fared much better this time.

Are civilian shoots totally useless tactically? Not in my opinion, as long as the lore gets passed along to the ones who may need to know it. Besides, the camaraderie is great!

Q1- What is the story with the Benelli shotguns? I had heard that they were made with a collapsing stock, yet I have never been able to order one. Is this available? JR again

A1- At the Modern Day Marine Expo in Quantico, I was walking by HK’s tables, and noticed this odd looking stock- and remembered your letter. It’s a top folder on an M3 Super 90. The stock was sturdy, and I was quite impressed with it- although it was a little odd in the way that it extended the height of the shotgun when it was folded. HK said they were not bringing them in for civilian sales, because it became a dreaded Assault Shotgun with the folding stock, but they are offering it to the military.

Q2- RAFFICA ADDRESSES THE RUMOR MILL:

Here we go again…. The FFL Newsletter dated August 1997 Volume 1, has gotten everyone upset. The rumor of the week is that a dealer can no longer keep any machine guns when he gives up his Special Occupational Taxpayer Status, unless he had possession of them before May 19, 1986. Obviously, a whole lot of Class 3 dealers have got their panties in a bunch. (Myself included when I first read it!) It’s not true, friends, it’s simply a mistake. Here is the offending passage from the FFL Newsletter, page 4:

RETENTION OF REGISTERED MACHINEGUNS BY LICENSEES WHO DISCONTINUE BUSINESS

Licensees who are qualified to deal in NFA weapons and decide not to renew their payment of special (occupational) tax must transfer all registered machineguns to another properly qualified licensee who has a legitimate need for the weapons. The weapons may also be exported in accordance with the regulations in 27 C.F.R. 179.114-179.119. These transfers must occur before the expiration of the license and special tax status. Otherwise, the machineguns must be abandoned to ATF or are subject to seizure.

However, qualified dealers who are sole proprietors may retain machineguns they lawfully possessed prior to May 19, 1986, the effective date of 18 U.S.C. 922(o). Dealers who wish to retain such weapons should make an entry in the acquisition and disposition book indicating that the weapons are now in their possession as an individual. These machineguns are still subject to the restrictions of the NFA and may only be transferred to approved law enforcement agencies.

Licensees who are corporations or partnerships and intend to discontinue business in NFA weapons may not retain registered machineguns, irrespective of their date of manufacture or importation. These licensees must dispose of all NFA weapons, including machineguns, prior to discontinuing business.

Obviously, the problem is in the second paragraph. There is no change in the law. Apparently the person who wrote this article misunderstood the 1986 law. I called NFA Branch of the ATF in Washington DC, and they informed me that this has been the source of a LOT of phone calls, and there definitely has been no change. Unless you are discussing a Post 86 Dealer Sample machine gun, the sole proprietor can just sign out the firearms to his personal ownership. Partners and Corporations have to pay the transfer tax, but each case may be judged individually, so check with NFA Branch. The ATF newsletter is referring to the Post 86 Dealer Samples only regarding having to surrender them or transfer them out.

Questions to: Dan Shea c/o SAR

The Art of the Rifle, by Jeff Cooper, ISBN 0-87364-931-1, 97 pages, 82 photos, Published by Paladin Press, Box 1307, Boulder, Co 80306, Phone 303-443-7520.

For those who came in late, the venerable Jeff Cooper has been teaching personal self-defense and the arts of rifle, pistol and shotgun shooting for a great many years. He has run thousands of students through his courses at Gunsite Ranch, near Paulden, Arizona.

This philosopher warrior has developed a unique approach in his teaching. In his characteristically Spartan style, Jeff has systematically stripped all of the useless and superfluous away – leaving only the necessary and essential elements. These he lays down in a logical and sequential way. In his personal teaching he is hard, fast, rigorous, regimental and ruthless, but his students achieve very high levels of proficiency in a remarkably short interval of time. Taking a class from Jeff Cooper is very hard work. All who make it through the purgatory, however, are pleased with the level of skill and confidence they’ve achieved. Many of the faithful have been waiting for this book on rifle shooting from Jeff for many years.

If I could only possess one weapon (a distinct possibility, considering the way things are going in this country) that one weapon would be a .308 bolt-action rifle. This book is not about rifles; it is about shooting rifles. It starts by saying that the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. It allows man to be the monarch of all he surveys. In capable hands a good rifle can easily and instantly reach out to defend against a threat out to 300 yards away. In highly skilled hands, that distance may be extended to 600 yards.

In 20 short chapters, The Art of the Rifle logically and sequentially explores and illustrates that which one needs to know in order to shoot a high-powered rifle well. In a nutshell, shooting well means placing first-round hits on appropriate targets rapidly and efficiently. As the veteran hunter or soldier knows, speed is almost as essential as accuracy. To quote Cooper from another source: “The second principal of personal defense is decisiveness. The hunting shot is one seldom fired in a purely defensive mode, but nonetheless it remains difficult for the novice to make the life-and-death decision when necessary. Once you have acquired your target in your sights, do not dally, dither nor delay. Do it right, and do it now. This does not mean that you should rush your shot or mash your trigger, but that once you are on, you go for score. I have seen this practice neglected in the field often enough to feel strongly about it. I do not know exactly how to teach the matter of decisiveness to a student on the range, but the demand remains-If you are going to do it, do it now. Do it right, but do it NOW.”

The Art of the Rifle is now into its second printing after only a couple of months. It is interesting, informative and well written. It is a good read. It’s only 97 pages, but you won’t get through it in 4 hours, and you won’t get it all on the first, second or third reading.

French Mle MAS 1949/56

Interest in French military weapons in the U.S. has been limited to just a few collectors at best. The French guns just aren’t as popular as the military weapons of other foreign nations, such as Germany or Great Britain. This lack of interest is due, at least in part, to the lack of French surplus arms, ammunition and information about them. The French are somewhat like the Russians when it relates to military weapons and their development, very discreet. The French also retain many of their military weapons long after they are deemed obsolete. In addition these weapons are typically ill – conceived, poorly designed, and shabbily built.
Another reason for the limited popularity French weapons have, is the odd cartridges they fire. The French cartridges, like the guns, have never been available in ample amounts to interest American collector and shooters.

Recently there have been some very interesting French military arms imported into the U.S. One is the MAS 36 bolt action rifle. The other one is the semi-automatic MAS model 1949/56. Both of these weapons are chambered for the French 7.5 round. What make these rifles attractive is the extremely low price and their availability in like-new condition.

Granted, both rifles are chambered for the odd 7.5 French round. Ammunition is available but it is expensive. There is however, an alternative solution to the ammunition problem. The brass case used for the 6.5 Swiss round can be easily converted to the 7.5 French specs. Boxer primed 6.5 Swiss brass is readily available from several manufacturers. For projectiles, the 150 grain .308 FMJ bullets will work fine. A future article will cover the cartridge conversion in detail.

The French 7.5 cartridge is a rimless design. A 139 grain, full metal jacket .307” projectile is used. Velocity is 2,690 feet per second. The cartridge was originally designed in 1924 as the 7.5x58mm/model 1924, to replace the outdated 8×50 Lebel rimmed cartridge. There were problems with the original round. The most prominent was the fact that it was very similar in appearance and dimension to the German 7.92×57 (8mm) Mauser cartridge. Problems arose when French troops would accidentally try to fire a captured .323 caliber German cartridge in the .307 caliber French gun. One dimension that wasn’t immediately obvious to the shooter that was the projectile on the German round was .016” larger. The result was usually a severely damaged gun, and an injured shooter.

A new 7.5 French round was then designed with a 4mm shorter case so that the German and French rounds were easy to distinguish from one another. This new cartridge was the 7.5x54mm/model 1929, and this has been the standard French issue for many years.

When World War I broke out the French were equipped with an array of various small arms, all obsolete.

It was the French who first issued semiautomatic rifles for military use, during WWI. The French developed several semiautomatic rifles and cartridges in the early 1900’s. Some of these designs were very advanced for the time. Some were adopted for limited use, but the only semiautomatic rifle issued in any large number was the French model 1917.

It would be the last semiauto France adopted for many years to come. Although the French developed and tested a large amount of prototype semi-autos they never had one fully developed, and ready for large scale manufacture until the end of WWII.

By 1939 the French army was still mainly equipped with the MAS 36 bolt action rifle of WWI. The French Arsenal of St-Etienne (MAS), had developed a suitable semiauto rifle, the MAS 38-39. That rifle soon evolved into the MAS 40, which was close to production in 1940. It was too late. The German Army had already begun the invasion of France. France was soon conquered and occupied by the Germans, and would be under Nazi control for the next four years. France’s quest for a semiautomatic service rifle was on hold.
After France was liberated by the allies on August 25, 1944, limited work resumed immediately on the MAS 1940. One addition to the MAS 1940 design was a new, detachable, 10-round magazine. This new updated version was the MAS 1944. About the time the rifle was ready for mass production, the war in Europe had ended.

The French MAS 1944 finally under went its baptism of fire in the French’s fateful war with Indochina (Vietnam). Combat experience in that war exposed some shortcomings of the MAS 1944. Development continued resulting in the MAS 1944A model. In addition to the MAS 1944 and MAS 36, The French used many U.S. small arms in Indochina. Many of these weapons were captured and used against U.S. troops early in the United States’ involvement in Vietnam.

A small quantity of MAS 1944s were imported into the U.S. in the mid 1980’s. Only a small number of these rifles were manufactured. These are seldom offered on the collector market today.

The basic MAS 1944-1944A was further developed into yet another model, the MAS 49. The MAS 49 differed from previous models slightly with a modified ejector, firing pin, grenade launcher and rear sight. Virtually every new model of the basic MAS had a different rear sight. Approximately 20,000 model 49s were manufactured. Some of these rifles were still in service as late as 1993.

The last model to evolve from the basic design was the MAS 1949/56. This model featured a modified rear sight, a blade type detachable bayonet, muzzle brake and a gas cut off for the grenade launcher. Approximately 275,000 1949/56’s were produced from 1957 to 1978, making it the most prolific model of the series. The rifle was an evolved model of a basic design that dated from 1938. The 1949/56 saw some service with the French Army in their Algerian campaign. The beginning in 1979 the 1949/56 was slowly replaced by the bullpup design 5.56 NATO caliber FAMAS rifle.

All the rifles in the MAS 1938 to the MAS 1949/56 series were chambered for the French 7.5 cartridge. This seems odd, as the 7.62×51 round (.308 Winchester) was adopted as NATO standard in 1954. Only a very few 1949/56’s were ever produced in 7.62 NATO caliber, the bolt head and firing pin were slightly different, and of course the barrel was chambered in 7.62 NATO.

The rifle featured in this article, the model MAS 1949/56, is an extremely well made firearm. The particular rifle reviewed is in virtually new condition inside and out. Both the Fit and the Parkerized finish are very good for a military weapon. Construction is almost entirely of milled steel. While this adds quality and ruggedness, it also adds considerable weight. Oddly the cocking knob on the rifle is made from nylon, that is white in color.

The 1949/56 is gas operated and utilizes the gas impingement system. This eliminates the need for many parts such as the operating rod, and related components. The system is much like the system used on the current U.S. M16 service rifle.

The bolt, and related parts, again, are quality-manufactured from milled steel. The tilting bolt system operates like that in the Russian SKS, and the FN FAL rifles. The bolt has a safety feature that keeps the firing pin retracted until the bolt is locked in the receiver.

The removable magazine has a ten-round capacity, and is formed from sheet metal. The magazine latch is located on the magazine itself, rather than on the receiver.
The rear tangent peep sight on the 1949/56 is adequate, and is adjustable for windage. The front sight is a protected post adjustable for elevation.

The rifle has a grenade launcher/flash hider and sight attached to the barrel. When the grenade sight is lifted the gas cutoff is activated. There is a movable ring that fits into graduated grooves (90m to 190m) in the barrel, and this can be moved to adjust the range of the grenade being launched.

The overall length of the rifle is 40”. The barrel has 4, left-hand grooves, with a 1 in 10.6” twist. Weight with a loaded 10 round magazine, is 9.9 pounds. Muzzle energy is 2,336 foot pounds.

The rifle has very gentle recoil for a weapon firing a full power round. Accuracy is adequate for a military weapon using issue ammunition, and could most likely be enhanced by experimenting with hand loaded cartridges.

Most of the surplus MAS 1949/56 rifles currently available come equipped with quite an array of accessories. They include several spare magazines, a bayonet and scabbard, a cleaning kit, sling, recoil pad, luminescent night sight device and a broken shell extractor. The accessories (like the rifles) are in like-new condition. Original M-1953 sniper scopes for the rifle are also being offered by dealers. Surplus 7.5 ammunition, though expensive, is available.

The French 1949/56 rifle is available from several different surplus dealers. The rifles are offered in two grades, like new, and very good condition. The rifles are a fraction of the price they once commanded, prior to being imported in quantity. The guns are listed in the BATF Curio and Relics book, and can be shipped directly to collectors who have a C&R license.

The French model 1949/56 has a lot going for it. The rifles are in excellent condition. They are semi-automatic, have lots of accessories are well made, and best of all, they are inexpensive. It is sure to be one of those rifles, that a few years from now you will be telling a friend “I can remember when I could have bought one of those guns like new for only…”

There is an excellent book available for those who would like to read about the French development of semiautomatic small arms. The book “Proud Promise” by Jean Huon, is published by Collector Grade Publications. The book reveals some surprising facts about French progress in small arms development.

Basic Field Stripping of MAS 49/1956

Looking back at the history and evolution of small arms, it is sometimes amusing to see that man has continued to concoct ever more complicated machinery to propel a chunk of lead at his adversaries. Firearms have been with us for hundreds of years. The modern versions do little more than hurl the lead further, straighter, and at a higher repetitive rate. During the time in which we progressed from the railroad to space travel, we have been clever enough to hook an electric motor up to the back end of a Gatling gun. (which, incidentally, was first done nearly 100 years ago.) No one would sanely argue that the improvements in weaponry have not made the individual soldier more capable. An army equipped with matchlocks would not fare well against an equal sized army equipped with squad automatic weapons. However, the basic damage mechanism remains surprisingly unaltered. The individual infantryman carries a rifle that shoots a bullet.

The current M16A2 type rifles are virtually identical to the M16 rifles issued over thirty years ago. (Anyone prefer using a thirty-year old typewriter?) The “Black Rifle” has now been the standard service rifle within our armed forces for longer than any previous service rifle in the history of the United States and there does not seem to be any impetus to radically change. This lack of impetus is driven primarily by the current military and political philosophy which holds that the efforts of an individual infantry soldier do not significantly affect the outcome of a conflict. The military leadership and politicians of this country see the value and effect of precision guided munitions, heavy armored vehicles and aircraft as the determining factors to success on the modern battlefield.

This concept of reliance on the heavy hitters will probably serve us well, so long as we engage our enemy in a conventional battle, on their soil, and can afford the luxury of never having to physically occupy enemy territory. It is literally a philosophy of war by long distance. As long as this country’s strategic doctrine devalues the concept of occupation, there is little reason to improve small arms.

Changes in doctrine may occur. We have seen a growth in limited conflicts, such as in Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia, to name a few. We have yet to see an elevation of the importance of the military success of these limited conflicts. Some feel the level of actual military success in these “small wars” has steadily declined. One would hope that the attitude of our military leadership changes before international events require it.

If and when the R&D begins in earnest for a replacement for the M16A2 series of weapons, the state of the art will determine the direction the replacement will take. There is a lot of new hardware out there, and directed energy weapons lie just beyond the technological horizon. Electrical and mechanical engineers lie in wait for the high- density, electrical storage devices and the high-temperature, super-conductive materials that once available, will permit the assembly of the hand-held, death-ray. (Current studies of charged particle beams, matter waves, high energy lasers, electro-magnet “rail guns” and others, show weaponization would be feasible if the thermal effects could be reduced by the use of electrically super conductive materials. “Super batteries” would enable portability.)

The homework has already been done. There are only these two parts missing from a most formidable puzzle that will change forever the very concept of war. When a single soldier has the lethality and range of a main battle tank; the tactics of the past will be of little value. A child, on the balcony of an apartment, will be able to engage and destroy a cruise missile several miles away. The intelligence gathering capability of our satellites, U-2 aircraft and others, will be vulnerable to even the smallest of air defense weapons available to the individual soldier. Air war itself may be rendered obsolete.

For those who are foolish enough to believe that man has evolved beyond the use of such extreme violence to effect political or social change, one can read any ancient text of their choosing and find an example of the evolution of the way humans think. We are no less prone to violent thought than we have ever been. We are simply more clever and judicious in its application. We have not “evolved” beyond violent war. I doubt we ever will.

Making the bold assumption that some small arms improvements will occur before the advent of directed-energy weapons, there is a technically feasible weapon design that should be producable in the near term. This weapon may be developed because it would greatly improve the warfighting capability of the individual infantry soldier. The design may be a composite of several previous designs that were not commercially successful, but were mechanically sound. The key difference between this new weapon and every other small arm produced today is the reliance upon the enhanced capability of the cartridge, rather than the gun.

If real advances are to be made in small arms design, these advances must make the individual soldier more effective at his primary task, which is to kill, wound or destroy the enemy soldiers, material or equipment. Merely changing the cyclic rate of the weapon, changing the way it is taken apart to be cleaned, changing the diameter of the bore or the shape of the projectile, is not going to create enough of an improvement in the performance of the individual soldier to be worth the expense. A radical change in design will be required to produce a radical change in soldier capability. The change that some believe will succeed, will be to a “smart” munition.

The future small arm may be a semi-automatic rocket gun, firing rockets having smart-fuzed, high explosive, dual-purpose warheads. (I’m sure that at this point, many of you are now convinced that you are witnessing the ranting of a lunatic, but if you’ll bear with me, it may appear more feasible than you first thought.) These rockets could be approximately four inches in length and from 20-25mm in diameter. (The Gyro-Jet rocket “rifles” and pistols used 13mm self-contained rocket rounds and were produced in small commercial quantities over 30 years ago.) The “dual purpose” terminology refers to the ability of a single warhead to possess both armor penetration as well as anti-personnel capabilities. It could be designed to incorporate a shaped charge liner in the nose, with a pre-fragmented body surrounding the side and rear of a high explosive filler. (This is the standard warhead configuration of the US M430 HEDP (High Explosive Dual-Purpose) 40mm Grenade Machine Gun projectile, first fielded over 10 years ago.) This permits light armor, or barricade penetration upon impact, with anti-personnel shrapnel being discharged upon sensor directed warhead detonation.

The smart fusing would permit the following functions:

Set-back, or initial arming

Time delay arming for a minimum distance safe detonation

Inertial impact detonation

Maximum range detonation

Thermal signature “fly-by” detonation

The setback or inertial arming would insure that the ammunition would be reasonably safe in transit and storage. (Set back arming is common among modern fuze designs.) The time delay arming would insure that the warhead would not arm until it had traveled far enough away from the soldier to keep him safe from the shrapnel of his own projectile. (Most mechanical fuzes use spin arming to create the time delay.) The inertial impact detonation would permit the warhead to detonate upon hitting any target of sufficient density to warrant the need for shaped charge penetration. The maximum range detonation would insure that missed shots would not travel outside the combat area and present an unnecessary hazard to non-combatants, and would not leave “duds” for future generations to worry about. Maximum range would probably be on the order of 1000 meters. The thermal signature “fly-by” detonation mode would be the single feature that would make this weapon more effective than any other ever produced.

The “fly-by” fuze would free the soldier from having to accurately aim the weapon at his adversary. It would prevent the enemy from taking any advantage of cover or concealment. It’s concept is very simple. It is human nature to seek the protection of some physical object when participating in a violent exchange. Suppose the adversary has taken cover behind a stone wall and is only occasionally exposed. Engaging such an adversary with conventional small arms exposes the advancing party to extreme risk.

With a “fly-by” fuze and a dual-purpose warhead, the soldier need only fire a single shot above the stone wall. When the rocket passed over the wall, the thermal sensing fuze would detect the temperature differential between the thermal signature of the enemy soldier’s body, and the more neutral surrounding, and detonate in the air, immediately past the soldier. The pre-fragmented warhead body would throw a shrapnel pattern, backward, into any of the enemy soldiers hiding behind the wall. By striking them from the rear, they would receive the minimum protection from any protective clothing they might have and would be severely injured, if not killed. With a casualty radius of three meters; accuracy and precision could be safely traded for speed of engagement and a reduction in volume of fire. If a shot were fired at an enemy soldier running in the open, the projectile would not have to strike him to take him out. It would simply have to pass within 3 meters of him to cause warhead detonation behind him, and subsequent casualty. Enemy soldiers lying prone would be equally vulnerable. Soldiers seeking cover in lightly armored vehicles could be attacked by direct fire, with the shaped charge allowing penetration of light armor, and liquid metal spalling adding to the effect. A sniper firing through a window could be engaged by putting a shot through the window (fly-by fuzing) or through the wall (shaped charge fusing). Enemy soldiers unlucky enough to be hit at ranges too close to permit primary fuze arming (probably 20 meters) would get a 20-25mm hole in them. If the projectile lodged in them, the maximum range fuze would detonate the warhead within a few milliseconds. It would be difficult to argue that a degradation in lethality would occur if such a weapon were used to replace standard small arms and conventional ammunition.

The key to the success of this type of warhead is in the electronic fuze. Skeptics may argue that there is no way to get that kind of function in something as small as the nose cone of a 20-25mm projectile. This can be countered with the fact that we now have the ability to manufacture at the atomic level (although currently, only in a laboratory environment), and the industrial field of micro-miniaturization is one of the fastest growing, with no end in sight. (The Pentagon is seriously investigating the use of sensors, for surveillance, that are small and light enough to be carried in the wind as “dust”. [ Army Times, June 9, 1997, page 34] )

So what would the “rocket gun” look like? A bull-pup version of the old Gyro-Jet would be a reasonable guess. It might use a rotary three-chambered cylinder, a-la Dardick Tround, so no fore-aft reciprocating parts would be required. It might use disposable-preloaded plastic magazines (of 10 round capacity; we certainly wouldn’t want to create an “assault rifle” now would we.). The magazines might also use their springs to power the revolving cylinder, further simplifying the base gun. The bore could be internally fluted (like ultra-deep rifling) to guide and support the rocket during the motor burn, but permit the exhaust gasses to vent forward, but diffused, to lower the recoil. The rockets could be held within the plastic trounds during firing, and the motors could be designed to insure complete combustion within the bore. This would insure high velocity, while making it more difficult to trace the trajectory of the projectile back to the soldier. (Tracers work both ways.) The gun might work like the Striker shotgun, where the revolving “tround” cylinder would advance when the trigger was released, but would have a crisp “pull” for more practical accuracy (not precision). The entire weapon could be made from plastics and light metals because no great stresses would be placed upon it during firing. It could be made very light, simple and cheap. Because the weapon would be designed for rapid target acquisition and engagement, the sight system would have to be a both-eyes-open heads up display type. Snap shooting or instinctive shooting would be the norm, with little time spent on precision target engagement, unless the tactical situation required it. Accuracy would not necessarily be degraded to unacceptable levels, but this would not be a match rifle. Simple aerodynamics and inertia would most likely achieve projectile stabilization.

Since the motor would be designed to burn out within the launch tube; the rocket and warhead would emerge from the end of the “muzzle” at maximum velocity and continue in flight only by inertia. The use of a lightweight motor body would enable the expended rocket motor casing to be much lighter than the warhead tip of the cartridge. The simple principle of placing the center of gravity (due to the relatively heavier warhead) in front of the “center of pressure” (designed into the cartridge by fluting the exterior or casting in small fins), would enable the cartridge to have reasonable stability in flight over the ranges it would be expected to travel (under 1000 meters). Of course, experimentation might reveal even more simplistic or effective ways to achieve in-flight stabilization. The Gyro-Jet used angled rocket nozzle ports to impart rotation to the rocket, but had to give up linear thrust (range) in exchange for gyroscopic stability. The cartridges would be fairly expensive, but not nearly so many would be required. The Vietnam experience indicated that conventional rifles and machine guns expended tens of thousands of rounds per enemy soldier killed. Even if the cost per cartridge were 1000 times that of a conventional cartridge, it might still prove cost effective. (It might be cost effective at 10,000 times the cost of conventional ammunition.) The uniqueness of the cartridges would make replicating or capturing the launchers/weapons of no value to an adversary. The “gun control freaks” would love it because even if the weapons were stolen, they would be absolutely useless without the specially designed ammunition they would use. The simple nature of the weapon and the lack of a requirement for precision target engagement would reduce training time. Practice firing could be conducted with training ammunition that lacked the expensive electronic fuzing and high explosive warhead, but utilized electronically sensitive targets that offered immediate visual feedback, simulating warhead detonation. So this may be the next real evolution in military small arms design. Some real advancement in the design of the individual soldier’s primary armament is long overdue. If the military need arises and the two missing components to the directed energy weapons are not yet mature, this is the logical step to take. Unfortunately, the decisions about such things are made by politicians more often than tacticians.

Since none of our current crop of national leaders has had any foxhole experience, there is little basis for optimism.

JSSAP, the Joint Service Small Arms Program, has helped the process of innovation in small arms technology in the past- notably the M16A2 improvements. They work on many projects, and one project that is on the current menu is the OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon). Both contractor groups that are bidding on the project have been showing off mock-ups at military shows for the last couple of years. At the Modern Day Marine Expo (Quantico, VA) in September 1997, Alliant Tech and FN unveiled their real entrant for the first time. This generated quite a “Buzz” through the industry. SAR thought that the readers would like to see a comparison of the two contenders- most of the details are secret, but we did manage to get exterior photos of each unit.

The OICW concept is to expand the capability of the individual soldier- it is the logical outgrowth of the M-16 / M-203 system. Since the beginning of the use of grenadiers, the problem of what to do for a weapon after you have thrown your grenade has been evident. During the Vietnam war, numerous after action reports included stories of highly qualified and courageous M79 grenadiers finding themselves in relatively close quarter battles, having only a .45 pistol for fighting with. The advent of the M-16 / M-203 combination gave each grenadier the additional position of rifleman (This was a very comforting change in the eyes of most grenadiers).

With the advent of modern technology, and “Smart” munitions, changes are again inevitable. The new OICW concept is for a 20mm HE Bursting munition to be part of the rifleman’s inventory. The trajectory is much more direct than the 40mm low pressure system. The “Over-under” concept, pioneered with the M-203 system, has now advanced to the following scenario:

The Optical system includes a special laser range finder that is exceedingly accurate. Once the target has been lazed, the operator can add or subtract distance by single meters. If his target is a soldier hiding behind a rock wall at 850 meters, he lazes, adds 2 meters to the fuzing, and takes aim directly over the rock wall and fires on HE setting. The projectile will explode at 852 meters, directly over, or slightly to the rear of the targeted soldiers. He has a 5.56 mm weapon under the 20mm, which can be used as a regular rifle or a machine gun. The upper and lower sections are separable, but only the AAI / HK offering is planned to be used as modular. If the sophisticated sighting system is knocked out of service, it can be removed, and there are iron sights that can be utilized. The munition is now point detonating.

This writer had some concerns about the effectiveness of the bursting munition being a 20mm. Could the size be a negative? After numerous discussions with both design teams, any hesitation has been negated. The brissance of the explosive used, the quantity used, and the pre-fragmented material used, indicate that almost all soft targets will be vulnerable, and PASGT body armor will not protect against the shrapnel- in a similar radius to the presently used 40mm M203 system. This is very encouraging. Munitions are planned for utilizing a timer that keeps expended cartridges from being left around on the battlefield- reducing risk to civilians as well as friendly troops

Both offerings seem to be extremely well thought out, and ergonomically designed (comfortable to the user). Both teams are in relatively early phases of development, with targets for production around the year 2005- however; live test firing is scheduled to begin early next year.

The SABR team is led by the prime contractor; Alliant Tech Systems, and is composed of HK, Contraves, and Dynamite Nobel.

AAI is the prime contractor on the OICW team, composed of Dyna East, FN, Omega, Hughes, and Olin.

Several fellow shooters within my circle of friends are connoisseurs of the .22 caliber suppressor. They like quiet guns. And the ability to discretely target shoot between trips out with the machine guns helps quench that need to shoot on a daily or weekly basis. With fewer and fewer areas available for shooting these days, a quiet .22 allows one to shoot in areas that would otherwise be unavailable. Most folks I know shoot removable muzzle cans on their rifles, while others utilize a permanently attached suppressor to the barrel as offered by several suppressor manufacturers. One of the major benefits of the screw-on muzzle can over the integral type is that the barrel produces higher velocities than are produced by a ported barrel, utilizing the same type of ammo. Additionally, the muzzle can is adaptable to both a rifle and a pistol, which gives the shooter twice the capability for the $200 tax paid on the suppressor. A disadvantage of a muzzle can (if there is one) is that the user must select the optimal ammunition to be suited to the particular task at hand. If one utilizes an integral type of suppressor, higher velocity ammunition can be used, since its velocity will be bled-off to subsonic levels to achieve quiet operation. This project started out as our own “need to know” type of endeavor for the muzzle can user. It soon expanded into an exhaustive evaluation. With all the different ammunition out there, we wanted to optimize our firearm to one or two particular rounds. This article will give an account of what we discovered.

Learning to master the discipline of superior marksmanship, and determining what the maximum performance that your firearm is capable of, can be a very satisfying avocation, which may take a lifetime attempting to master. The use of a suppressor can help in allowing one to safely and economically fire thousands of rounds a year. You can target shoot and practice often, without traveling to distant ranges or hunting grounds. Whether used for target shooting, pest elimination, hunting (where allowed by law), or general skill improvement, the suppressor and an accurate .22 rifle is a versatile tool. The low discharge sound and negligible recoil makes shooting a flinch-free endeavor. All sports require frequent practice, and the suppressed gun can be used to teach the elements of marksmanship which carry over to almost all firearms shooting. The rigors of special licensing, fingerprinting, background checks, and a one time $200 tax payment is usually enough to keep many folks from obtaining a suppressor, but it is possible for those who qualify. The use of a suppressor for hunting is illegal in most states. However, it is legal for pest elimination and target shooting. With less area available for shooting these days, a “quieter” .22 allows one to shoot in areas which would otherwise be unavailable.

Once the muzzle-can suppressed rifle is obtained, those interested in both accuracy and silence will need to confine their ammunition selection to target or subsonic rounds. Most accurate .22LR subsonic ammunition is usually loaded to provide a bullet velocity of around 1040-1050 fps, when fired from a rifle. This particular loading allows accurate performance, and is usually subsonic unless one is shooting in extremely cold weather. Hypersonic, or high velocity rimfire rounds will have a velocity from 1200-1600 fps, which is faster than the speed of sound, hence producing a ballistic crack. The bullet’s ballistic crack is similar to the sonic boom produced by an airplane as it flies faster than the speed of sound. The measured speed of sound in air at 32(F is around 1087 fps. At 68(F, the speed of sound increases to around 1126 fps. Atmospheric pressure, altitude, and humidity play very minor parts in the equation. Temperature is the primary factor in determining the speed of sound. Mathematically speaking, the speed of sound in air (feet per second) at atmospheric temperature is defined in Table 1.

Since the speed of sound increases with higher temperatures, this phenomenon may allow the shooter to “get away with” shooting higher velocity rounds in warm weather without the bullet breaking the sound barrier. The speed of sound is slower in cold weather, however bullets usually exit faster, because warmer powder burns faster. My experience has shown that as long as the bullet’s muzzle velocity is less than 97% of the speed of sound at any given temperature, it’ll be completely subsonic, and the report will be quiet. Supersonic ammo fired from a suppressed rifle will literally “wake the dead” in comparison. Consequently, firing a supersonic projectile from a muzzle can suppressed rifle will negate most of the benefits of the suppressor, as the ballistic crack from the bullet flight will be heard.

The test platform for our evaluation was a Ruger 77/22 rifle which was modified with a sound suppressor manufactured by Mark White of Sound Technology (P.O. Box 391, Pelham, AL 35124 – phone 205-664-5860). With the exception of the suppressor and a Volquartzen target sear, the 77/22 was stock. Velocities were measured using a ProChrono chronograph with the start screen placed 6 feet in front of the muzzle. Each brand of ammunition was evaluated for accuracy, velocity, extreme spread, cost, and bullet weight. Accuracy results were based on five, five-shot groupings at 50 yards. The same type of target was utilized for all testing with accuracy data based on center-to-center measurements using a digital caliper.

Our search for accurate and quiet .22 LR ammo started with the economically priced Russian Jr-Brass and CCI Standard Velocity. It soon escalated up the price range to the Federal Ultra Match which run somewhere around 20 cents/round. I personally find it very difficult to pay a lot for 22 ammo. I’ve spent too many years shooting for around a penny or two a round, and it really gets to me to have to pay the high price for match-grade ammo. If it was not for my desire to “know how much you get for what you pay for”, and for the benefit of completing this article, I would not get caught dead paying 20 cents/round for 22 LR ammo. I know there are those who pay for this kind of performance, so some of these rounds are included in the evaluation. The extreme spread (lowest velocity subtracted from the highest) is also important and must be consistent for maximum accuracy at longer distances as it will affect bullet drop and trajectory.

On the subject of having fewer places to shoot these days, if one’s back yard is wooded and happens to be in a moderately unpopulated area, one can set up a “quiet” shooting range. Use earthen backstops behind targets to allow the bullets to be captured for obvious safety reasons. This cuts down on the bullets impact noise which can be very loud when compared to the report of the weapon. A small shooting bench can also be constructed for a few dollars, and in conjunction with either sandbags or a rifle holding device, will help you to extract decent accuracy out of your particular firearm. The target holders should be able to hold paper targets at the top and bottom to cut down on the bullets impact noise. We tried cardboard and plastic type materials to attach our targets to, and they always added to the noise levels due to the bullet’s impact on the surface of the target holder. Of course, the usual fun targets associated with plinking (rocks, tin cans, water, etc.) all negate the quietness of the suppressor as the bullets impact on these is far noisier than the report of the firearm itself. For the pest eliminator though, the quiet “thud” of the round hitting the varmint is all that is heard.

The goal was to decide which particular ammo brand would be best suited for the suppressed rifle. Of course, our data should be used only as a guide as other firearms may perform better or worse than ours did. Topped off with a Tasco 3-9x40TR scope, previous experience with the 77/22’s baseline accuracy proved that the gun was capable of averaging 3/4-inch groups at 50 yards. After being modified with the sound suppressor, the smallest 50 yard grouping came in at .28 inches with RWS subsonic. Other small groups were generated by Lapua Pistol King (.29 inches), Eley Bench Rest Gold (.32 inches) and Fiocchi 300 (.32 inches). The ultra match type ammo cost is a little high for most 22 shooters, but some of this ammo was very accurate. CCI Pistol Match was the overall winner in the more moderately priced category. At around 3 cents/round, Jr-Brass and CCI Standard are pretty tough to beat. Jr-Brass sometimes went supersonic during our colder weather testing. The ballistic crack of the projectile breaking the sound barrier really woke us up. The best overall average accuracy results went to Lapua Pistol King, with Eley Bench Rest Gold, Federal Ultra Match, and Eley Tenex close behind. Overall, there were no losers in this exercise, with the exception of Remington Subsonic. This particular round failed to achieve acceptable results in our testing. Lapua Scoremax delivered very good results with the 48 grain bullet weight. Apparently, the 77/22 testbed really liked this heavier bullet, as it delivered an accuracy average of .57 inches at 50 yards.CCI (Blount), Keng’s Firearms (Lapua), and Federal graciously provided us with some sample ammunition and technical support for this article. CCI provided us with a special Subsonic HP round which is not available here in the United States. Being designated only for export to European countries at this time (where the use of sound suppressors is more widespread), this was a good performer in our tests. Utilizing a 36 grain hollow point bullet, it was both accurate and quiet. I liked the hollow point design, and would recommend that all who are interested contact the folks at CCI and ask that their marketing people provide this round to American shooters.

I’m sure this round would be comparable in price to their other offerings. Federal UltraMatch (1000B) was also provided for our testing endeavors. The 1000B is loaded similarly to the Federal round which won the gold and silver medals in the 1992 Olympics, held in Barcelona, Spain. Utilizing a 40 grain solid bullet, the 1000B is loaded for a velocity of 1080 fps, but our measured velocities were a little higher than that. The largest .22LR weight bullet available is the 48 grain Lapua Scoremax. Most of the .22LR bullets weighed in at 40 grains.

In flight, the subsonic projectile has a tremendous arc in its trajectory. This arc makes it critical to correctly measure or estimate distance to the target. At the longer ranges, a small miscalculation of distance of only a few yards can result in a miss. Once you zero in on the particular round which best suits your requirements, a good way to compensate for bullet drop at different differences is to utilize a good scope with a bullet drop compensator elevation ring. The typical elevation ring will need to be dialed to the correct distance, especially with subsonic ammo. To accomplish this with the slower moving subsonic ammo, my procedure involves placing white tape around the elevation ring and marking the tape after zeroing the scope to each distance. This involves placing your zeroing targets at the various distances you want to shoot, and then dialing in your scope at those distances and marking the tape so you can return to the correct position depending upon what distance you’re shooting at. This procedure also helps one estimate target distances more accurately. I usually zero my scope at 25, 50, 75, 100, and 125 yards and place a mark on the elevation ring for each of these distances. It’s best to use the same type of ammo to alleviate the differences due to changes in velocity and brands, as it has a tremendous impact on bullet drop at the longer ranges. The results of our testing has proven my particular 77/22 to be most accurate with the Lapua Pistol King subsonic ammunition. My favorite pick for precision work on varmints with this gun is the RWS Subsonic for its quiet delivery and hollow point design. For economical plinking, the CCI Standard velocity is my favorite for its price, cleanliness, and performance. Hopefully the manufacturers will continue to produce good quality subsonic ammunition for a long time. The heavier Lapua Scoremax also rates up there with my favorites and should provide maximum terminal ballistics, due to its larger mass.

Every shooter should obtain a brick or two of ultra-accurate rounds to help determine just what their gun is capable of. Use the cheaper mid-grade rounds for practice. Always use the most accurate rounds you can afford for hunting or pest elimination. After running around the woods for 2 hours, and stalking for 30 minutes, you won’t believe it’s cost effective if your target is spooked by a single missed shot, caused by a cheaper bullet. I shoot into various targets at different ranges to learn how well different brands penetrate and expand. There is no substitute for this type of personal testing. It will quickly lead to the selection of the most effective round for your own particular use, and will allow you the opportunity to develop the shooting discipline discussed earlier. Hopefully the results of our testing will allow you to select the best combination of ammunition for your particular needs. While not as important for the casual plinker, the animal control officer, competition target shooter, and serious varmint hunter needs to select the best ammunition for the job at hand.

An acquaintance of mine has a vast collection of high quality and expensive rifles he never shoots. Many of them have never been fired at all. He researches and carefully selects his firearms for his perceived needs. However, I know he will probably never get out into the field and shoot these fine guns and determine which ammo works best, or even find out if the guns work at all. As Mr.Kokalis said in a previous interview: “Number one, because to be proficient in anything, including shooting, you have to practice.” Although for different subject matter, this point was also addressed by Carlos Hathcock: “Discipline and training are the keys, and you have to keep shooting and practicing all the time, or you will loose the skills that you need, the ones that will keep you alive.” In other words, keep practicing to stay proficient with your shooting skills. Mental discipline is also required to make that accurate shot. A good friend of mine is a sniper on my local Sheriff’s Office Tactical Team. He trains constantly developing his shooting skills and mental discipline. His departments budget does not allow him to shoot Federal Premium .308 ammo all day long, but he shoots weekly with a muzzle can attached to his favorite .22 rifle to help develop the mental discipline for accurate shooting. If called to carry out his duty as a sniper, its the first shot that must count. If that first shot fails to hit its mark, the results can cost the lives of others. That’s the bottom line.

I routinely shoot around 50 rounds per day off the back porch to stay proficient. As for my neighbors, they never hear a thing. I’ll set a few eggs off to the side of the barn on mornings after raiding the hen house. They make excellent targets at 100 yards with RWS Subsonic ammunition and the quiet .22 rifle. I’ll also set empty 12 gage shotgun shells on the sloped side behind the barn and pick them off at a distance of 100-125 yards. Since modifying the 77/22, I’ve never heard a word of complaint from my neighbors.

Sources:

Lapua
Imported by: Keng’s Fire-
arms Specialty
875 Wharton Drive
Atlanta, GA 30336

CCI
Blount, Inc.
2299 Snake River Avenue
PO Box 856
Lewiston, ID 83501

Federal Cartridge Company
900 Ehlen Drive
Anoka, Minnesota 55303

Fiocchi USA
5030 Fremont Road
Ozark, MO

Eley
Imported by: Tomart Inc.
122 Lafayette Avenue
Laurel, MD 20725

RWS
Dynamit Nobel-RWS, Inc.
81 Ruckman Road
Closter, New Jersey 07624

Remington Arms Company
Ilion, New York 13357

Commercialization of the Russian Ammunition Industry

The Tula Cartridge Works in Russia’s State Arsenal is the leading engineering enterprise in Russia’s defense complex. They have recently made some exclusive arrangements with the Prineas Group for exporting to the United States, among other end users. Tula considers that ordering through Prineas is ordering direct from the factory, and they want the customers to understand their commitment to quality and consistency in the ammunition products they offer.

The 7.62 x 39mm being offered is new manufacture, not surplus. Distributors can order bullet configurations in hollow point, FMJ, or soft point. Tula uses a special non-aging steel to increase strength with the use of a hot drying varnish (Lacquer) to seal the joints between the cartridge case, bullet and primer. This insures that the cartridge performance characteristics after prolonged storage, or during operation in adverse weather conditions, are optimum. This method is exclusive to Tula’s products, and is evident by the red-water mark seals. Tula also uses a non-corrosive, environmentally friendly primer that reduces any atmospheric contamination. (SAR’s editors applaud this effort, and sincerely hope that Greenpeace, etc, are paying attention to this effort). Tula’s manufacturing facility utilizes a state of the art high capacity transfer line system with built in checking devices to ensure the best quality control available today.

The packaging has been changed from the 1440 round wooden crate system to 1000 round cardboard (200#) cases. This reduces the case shipping by 26 pounds per case, and puts the ammunition in units that are easily shipped in the US, in a quantity that the end user prefers. Bar coding will soon be added to the shipping system as well, making an even more distributor friendly package.

The desirable “Western” cartridges; 9x19mm, 45 acp, .30 carbine, 5.56x 45mm, and 7.62 x 51mm (.308) will also be available in the user friendly packaging, with the same high quality manufacturing procedures being used.

The Prineas Group and Tula Arsenal have designed this program with the idea of forming a satisfying working relationship with the distribution system, and providing a top-level product for the consumer.

Further assistance or questions can be directed to the importer: Mr. Stacy Prineas, Tel: (206)-882-1161 Fax: (206)-882-0487

Introducing a briefcase that could save your life!

Now you can carry lifesaving protection with you everyday without a second thought. Introducing the “Executive Defense Briefcase” the only hard leather briefcase on the market that combines style and elegance with life saving capacity.

With the push of a button, a hidden compartment bursts open from the briefcase to reveal a strategically placed holstered firearm. The process to open the briefcase and draw your firearm takes less than 2 seconds. Each briefcase comes with a universal amb1rdexterous holster, magazine pouches, and the capacity to add a bulletproof panel, pepper spray, and a handcuff case.

As a traditional functioning briefcase, the suede and leather interior offers ample storage room for documents and valuables. The executive Defense Briefcase is ideal for wholesale jewelry reps and retail merchants as well as bodyguards, private investigators, law enforcement and security personnel. It makes a perfect accessory for nicely dressed executives who would like the security of carrying a full sized firearm without altering their wardrobe.

The Executive Defense Briefcase is built to last a lifetime, featuring solid bass wood and interlocking corners for added strength. It’s quality is that of briefcases sold in fine luggage shops, not in office supply stores. For the price of a an average full-sized firearm you can protect yourself every day for the rest of your life. This elegant and effective briefcase is only $495.00. How much is your life worth?

For more information contact Peter B. Gripon – Concealment Systems – 638 Lindero Canyon Road #323 – Agoura, CA 91301.  Tel:(818-889-3666.