Frequently, 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition is encountered on odd, non-disintegrating belts. Here is the answer to why.

Continuous 50-Round Belts.

At the very beginning of the 1950s, the first belts used for developing the prototypes of the future AA-52’s were closely derived from the German belts for the MG34 & 42. They had a capacity of 50-rounds and could be connected to each other by means of male & female connecting links installed at both ends of the belt. The pitch between the cartridges is 17mm as for the German belts.

At least four main French variants of the 50-round continuous belts are observed from surviving specimens. The same belts were used for both 7.5×54 and 7.62×51.

The French belts show very close similarities to the German wartime Gurt 34/41 (see author’s article on German MG34 & 42 belts in SAR Vol. 8, No. 6, March 2005) with 3 lengthwise stiffening grooves, but unlike their German counterparts, the French belts are devoid of friction dimples.

The first and earliest French belts were manufactured by the Manufacture Nationale d’Armes de Saint-Etienne (MAS), probably using modified German wartime tooling.

In early 1953, the design was improved by the Manufacture Nationale d’Armes de Châtellerault (MAC) with an important modification of the female connecting link. The latter incorporates a re-curved lip which partly surrounds the connecting spring of the starter tab and also offers a rest to it. This was done in order to stiffen the junction between the belt and the starter tab. This one-of-a-kind shape of the female connecting link is the foremost evidence to readily identify a French 50-round belt.

The corresponding French starter tab is composed of an unmarked ribbed steel plate re-curved at one end and assembled with only the male connecting finger.

Early in 1954, the individual links were further modified by the addition of a 2mm hole in their center. This hole was added only in order to help exactly positioning the link in the tool during the stamping process and during the assembly with the coiled connecting springs. Unlike what could be sometimes read, this hole is absolutely not a means of any identification. The female connecting link remained unchanged.

Finally from the end of 1956 on when the AA-52 entered full production and were delivered in quantity to the Armed Forces, the final design of the 50-round belt was stabilized and officially approved. It is the same as the previous variant with the 2mm hole on the links but with the female connecting link cadmium-coated in order to give it a white outlook aimed at helping to readily locate the end of each 50-round section should a longer belt be assembled. The starter tab remained unchanged.

On all these 4 variants, the male connecting finger is unmarked and the links are phosphated. The continuous 50-round belts remained used with combat ammunition only for a short period of time until the end of 1959-60 when they were mostly replaced with belts assembled with disintegrating links.

The 50-round continuous belts remained however in service as an accessory for training at a ratio of 3 belts issued per blank-firing accessory pack. Belts were repeatedly reloaded manually with the plastic blank ammunition both in caliber 7.5×54 and 7.62×51. In February 1973, the continuous belts were officially removed from the blank-firing accessory pack since from that time on all plastic blanks were issued pre-belted in disposable disintegrating 50-round belts.

For AA-52s used in the Light Machine Gun configuration, several experiments were conducted in 1953-55 to design a container that could accommodate a 50-round continuous belt and which could be fastened to the left side of the feed-block. Unlike the German WW2 type of belt drum used with MG34 & 42 where the belt is rolled around itself, the French have chosen the principle of a cubic box with the belt folded on several layers. Both cardboard and metallic cubic boxes are known from test reports, but the author has been unable so far to examine any surviving specimens.

Disintegrating links

In 1954, a disintegrating link was also designed for the AA-52 in caliber 7.5×54. This disintegrating link is of the hook-and-eye pattern and shows very close similarities with the latest variant of wartime German Gurt 17/81 for the MG17 & 81 (see author’s article on German MG17 & 81 belts in SAR Vol. 8, No. 2, November 2004). The pitch between the cartridges is 17mm like that of the continuous 50-round used with the infantry weapons. The key design difference between the last variant of the German wartime Gurt 17/81 and the French link is the shape of the end of the tongue which fits into the cartridge case extracting groove. For the German link, positioning in the extracting groove is achieved by a small dimple stamped into the link whereas for the French link, the end of the tongue is simply re-curved in V-shape. Obviously the other difference readily visible is the markings on the links. The prototype disintegrating links for AA-52 were produced by the Manufacture Nationale d’Armes de Châtellerault (MAC) and are devoid of any marking.

In 1959, the disintegrating links were officially adopted for combat use with 7.5×54 ammunition. Mass production links are marked with the weapon designation, i.e., “AA52” as well as with the manufacturer’s code. At least six different disintegrating link manufacturers codes are observed from specimens: PV (Peugeot in Valentigney), RD (Raymond in Grenoble), GG (Georges Groslambert in Besançon), PRI and ROS (Philippe Rossi Industries in Marseilles) and SAV (Savigny). Different surface coatings for protection against corrosion were used: green or black phosphate, gloss dark green or gloss black lacquer and more rarely zinc-chromate. From the mid 1980s on, the marking pattern on the links was changed to display only the manufacturer code and lot number+year of production. It must be emphasized that the same link was used both with 7.5×54 and 7.62×51 ammunition.

Three different types of starter tabs were used. The earliest one is composed of an unmarked ribbed steel band fitted at one end with a small loop that fits into the hook of the first link of the belt and on the other side a bigger loop which can be grabbed by the fingers of the gunner. This 1st model of starter was used with pre-packed combat ammunition 50-round belts loaded with 7.5×54 rounds. This design basically required that a cartridge is extracted from the first link in order to install or remove the starter tab from the belt.

In order to avoid that, a 2nd starter variant appeared around 1963-64 that is composed of a flat steel band with a re-curved end to help grabbing by hand and on the other end is fitted with a piece with a slot which can be slipped in or out from the hook of the first link of the belt without removing the cartridge. This second type of starter remained unchanged until the latest productions and was used both with 7.5×54 and 7.62×51 pre-packed combat ammunition 50-round belts. These starters usually bear no marking. However, some pre-packed belts issued to the French Navy sometimes bear markings in white paint either with a wing-and-anchor logo to show issue to the Navy or with lot identification data for belts loaded with blank cartridges.

Finally a third type of starter saw only very limited use. It was officially adopted in August 1970 to enable the loading of the AA 7.62 N F1 fitted coaxial to the 75mm gun of the tank AMX 13/FL10E. The mounting of the machine gun was so cramped that the standard rigid starter could not be used. Accordingly, a dedicated starter was designed, composed of only a 2cm portion of a standard starter and then fitted to a 20-cm long fabric strip therefore enabling to fold it out of the feed block. According to the requirement of this starter in only a very limited number of tanks, instructions were provided to the unit armorers for the hand production of the starter by shortening standard issued starters and the riveting of a fabric strip. From 1959 on, most combat ammunition for the infantry was issued in prepacked disposable 50-round belts with disintegrating links. The typical packing encountered in the 1960s and 1970s corresponds to a single 50-round disintegrating linked belt, fitted with a starter tab, packed in three folds into a triangular shaped cardboard box contained in a transparent sealed plastic bag. Five of these sealed triangular boxes are stored in a cardboard box (total content 250 rounds) fitted with fabric carrying handles. Two of these 250-round cardboard boxes are installed in a steel can (total capacity of 500 rounds) and finally two of these steel cans are transported in a wire-bound wood frame (total capacity of 1,000 rounds).

From the early 1980s on, the length of the triangular cardboard box was slightly increased and the belt could accordingly be packed in 2 1/2 folds only in the box also contained inside a transparent sealed plastic bag. Six of these sealed triangular boxes are stored in a cardboard box (total content 300 rounds) fitted with fabric carrying handles. Finally two of these 300-round cardboard boxes are installed in a steel can with a removable lid (total capacity 600 rounds).

Both 7.5×54 and 7.62×51 ammunition were delivered in these pre-packed 50-round disposable belts. Standard belting sequence for both calibers was 1 tracer + 4 ordinary balls. More rarely pre-packed belts loaded with only ordinary balls are also observed.

The feeding of AA-52 in the Light Machine Gun configuration was achieved from one 50-round disposable belt carried in a rectangular green fabric pouch attached to the left side of the feed block. This configuration of feeding is the most commonly encountered on pictures taken during combat in Algeria around 1960.

The feeding of the AA-52 in vehicle mounts was usually achieved from 250-round capacity steel cans. These re-usable cans were filled prior to use with the pre-packed 50-round belts assembled together to the required length.

Although no official information could be found about that issue, the high-capacity belts with disintegrating links used by the Air Force onboard airborne platforms (aircraft or helicopter) were probably belted from loose ammunition within the flying unit armories.

Prior to the official adoption by France of the AA-52 chambered in 7.62×51 NATO, extensive experiments on interchangeable feed systems within the various NATO machine guns were undertaken between 1959-1962. Accordingly, different prototype links were specifically developed by the Manufacture Nationale d’Armes de Châtellerault for the 7.62×51 NATO cartridges and tested for interchangeability with the German MG3, U.S. M60 and Belgian MAG. Among the numerous prototypes, it is worth mentioning a close variant of the standard AA-52 links but bearing a reduced pitch of 14.7mm instead of the standard 17mm. This reduced pitch was meant to correspond to the pitch of the U.S. M13 links for the M60. Other variants have also been developed in cooperation with the Belgians with a pitch of 15.5 and 16mm; those links were commonly referred to as “Franco-Belgian links”.

.50 Caliber Belts and Links

The .50 caliber weapons designed by the Manufacture d’Armes de Châtellerault is a scaled-up version of the AA-52. Accordingly, it is not a big surprise that the feed systems used are also scaled-up versions of the 7.5/7.62 belts and links. The first type of belts are continuous 50-round belts that could be connected to each other by means of male finger and female link. The female link corresponds to a scaled-up version of that used for the Model of 1954 with the re-curved side. The starter tab is also of the same pattern with only the male connecting finger. Two types of stamping patterns are observed on the .50 links, both also bearing the small hole to help positioning during the manufacturing process. The male connecting finger is also unmarked. From 1957 on, disintegrating links were also investigated. The first model is exactly a scaled-up version of the 7.5/7.62 link, however also fitted with the small hole. In 1959, an enhanced prototype of disintegrating link was designed in order to increase the grip of the link on the .50 caliber cartridge. The hook-end-eye pattern was kept but the link encloses the cartridge case more tightly at two clamping positions. A .50 caliber starter tab for the disintegrating link has also been designed but no surviving specimen was observed so far by the author.

Belt Loading Machines

At the first stages of development of the AA-52 in the early 1950s, German wartime Gurtfüller 34 were used during the trial period. It is only around 1957-58 that a small batch of belt loading machines designed by the company Peugeot was put in production. The official designation of that machine was “Assembleuse de Bandes Peugeot Type 10” (Peugeot belt assembling machine type 10) and was dedicated to the 7.5×54 caliber. It remains still unclear for which precise application this machine was designed. It can be noted that, so far, reference to this belt loading machine has only been observed in French Air Force armament inventory files. It is possible that this machine was in use in Air Force base armories to assemble the long belts for use with aircraft guns. However, it must be emphasized that the cartridges are fed in bulk in a kind of hopper, which does not enable the organization of any belting sequence mixing different types of ammunition (tracer, incendiary, etc.). Both continuous belts and pre-assembled belts with disintegrating links could be loaded with that machine. A distinctive feature is that two links are filled simultaneously during one rotation of the handle. The latter could be assembled either on the side of the machine or on the front in order to cope with any configuration of the workbench on which the machine was affixed. This machine has an extremely smooth and reliable operation. The three different specimens of such loaders ever examined by the author are painted light grey and were manufactured at the end of 1957 through early 1958. This type of belt loading machine is now an extremely scarce collectors’ item in France.

by Jeff W. Zimba

On March 10-11, 2008, the James D. Julia, Inc. auction house held their Spring Firearms Auction at their facility in Fairfield, Maine. With this auction grossing $12.7 million in sales, it beat their previous world record of $11.235 million established just this past October 2007. Well known in the high-end firearms auction business, this was Julia’s first offering of Class III firearms. The 2-day event consisted of 1,270 lots and included 100 Class III pieces from the amazing military firearms collection of Bruce E. Stern. In all, 350 lots were offered from the Stern estate at this event with an additional 1,600 lots offered at the adjoining Poulin Auction Company in the two days prior to the James D. Julia, Inc auction. Several more pieces from the Stern estate will also be offered in the Poulin and Julia Fall 2008 Firearms Auctions.

We don’t have room to list every firearm offered considered incredibly rare or interesting, but the following are some of the favorites that generated a lot of attention. The firearm that raised the most interest was an excellent specimen of a Second Model German FG42, complete with an original pedigree. The bidding was fast and furious with the final sell price of $149,500. An extremely rare Johnson Arms M1944 LMG brought $74,750. There were actually several Johnson examples in the Stern collection, including a Pre-86 Dealer Sample Israeli “DROR” chambered in 7.92. Some of the rarer pieces in this collection included a German MK36-III, and an original German MP3008 SMG. The MK36-III is a 9mm Parabellum Machine Carbine that was developed in the mid 1930s. According to records and historical notes, it is said to have never been a production piece, quickly stopping at the prototype phase due to a patent infringement of the Vollmer designed operating spring. It is very possible that this gun is the only known example in the United States, and since no other examples could be readily located, possibly the world. The MP3008 is another extremely rare and seldom seen example of a German SMG. These were said to have been produced by Mauser as well as six other firms with production not beginning until very close to the end of WWII. Looking like a very crude Sten with a magazine-well placement at the 6 o’clock position instead of the standard 9 o’clock position, it could easily be overlooked. Another terrific find in the Stern collection was an original Chi-Com RPD. According to the records of the owner, it was said to have been damaged by US supplied fragmentation, to the peril of the Chi-Com soldier unfortunate enough to be carrying it at the time. There were quite a number of special and extremely interesting firearms in this collection and they can all be viewed at the James D. Julia website cited at the end of this article.

Such extraordinary and rare firearms brought out the “Who’s Who” in the Class III community – either in person, on phone or in absentee bidding. To anyone who attends the larger C3 events such as Knob Creek, SAR Show, or any of the many other machine gun shoots, it looked like a family gathering – in a little colder climate.

Some of the firearms sold for much higher prices than expected. This seems to be due to several factors including the Stern provenance and the teamwork of the James D. Julia Auction Company and Poulin Auction Company. The advertising and promotion was enormous and the people drawn to this event had specific firearms in mind to fill voids in their collection. This allowed some lesser-known gems to slip through almost unnoticed. A few pieces sold well under value; proving that if you pay attention, there is still a bargain to be found.

A Friend of the Firearms Community

During the opening of the auction, CEO and Auctioneer James D. Julia gave a passionate speech about the necessity of fighting for our gun rights and the importance of everyone doing their part at every opportunity. In honor of Bruce Sterns’ lifetime dedication to the preservation firearms ownership, Julia offered to personally match every donation, up to $5 each that those in attendance wished to make to the NRA Foundation. Through his generosity and the generosity of those in attendance, $2,100 was raised for the NRA Foundation during the auction.

Financial support for the preservation of the Second Amendment is nothing new to James Julia. In the Fall of 2004, Julia pledged $100,000 to the NRA Foundation with the funds earmarked for the sole purpose of educating youth in firearms skills and safety.

We have already been assured that there will be more Class III offerings in future auctions as they become available. Anyone wishing to inquire about selling their collection by auction or wishes to be included in future mailings pertaining to upcoming auctions can contact them directly at:

Who was Bruce E. Stern?

With such an amazing collection of modern military firearms, the most frequent question asked during the event by those who did not know Mr. Stern was, “Who was Bruce Stern?” It isn’t a question that can be answered, and do justice to, in such a small space; but here is short synopsis.

Bruce E. Stern of Trumbull Connecticut passed away on July 18, 2007 at the age of 64 years old. A devoted husband of 36 years, he is survived by his wife Judi and children Marin and Gregory. Although Bruce was a practicing attorney for almost 40 years he made time for his passion of collecting modern military firearms and serving as a Director of the National Rifle Association for 11 years. He was a Benefactor Life Member of the NRA and a life member of several other 2nd Amendment organizations.

I had the pleasure to meet Bruce, and work for him in a small capacity, several years ago at one of the NRA Annual Conventions. A mutual friend, NRA Director Michael Lee, handed me a stack of flyers and said, “Here, go hand these out.” When I asked what I was handing out he replied that a “friend of ours” was running for a position on the NRA Board called the 76th Director and he was someone I would want representing my interests within the organization. I handed out the flyers and spent a little time talking with Mr. Stern later that day where we chatted about our C3 interests. He said he had a little Class III collection and had been interested in them for several years. We never got into specifics and parted ways as Bruce went on to win that position on the Board of Directors.

Bruce and I never spoke about the details of our respective collections and when I saw the contents of his collection after his passing, I was absolutely in awe. I have had the opportunity to view some of the most extensive collections in the United States, and very few can match either the volume or rarity of the contents in Mr. Stern’s collection. It is an absolute blessing for our community that his wife Judi brought this amazing collection to auction so that it will stay in private hands instead of simply making a high-level museum donation. Through her thoughtful actions, the entire Stern collection will now stay in private hands, thousands of them, to be passed down for our future generations to enjoy, utilize and learn about. We should all be very thankful for her decision.

James D. Julia, Inc.
Dept. SAR
P.O. Box 830
Fairfield, Maine 04937
Phone: (207) 453-7125
Fax: (207) 453-2502
www.juliaauctions.net

The US Navy and Marine Corps placed their first order for .45 caliber Reising submachine guns in January 1942, just one month after America’s entry into World War II. Produced throughout the war, Reisings saw service in both the Pacific and European theaters, with security personnel domestically, and with law enforcement and correctional agencies after the war.

The Reising was a most innovative weapon featuring accuracy, firepower, lightweight and ease of manufacturing. But poor combat performance and favorable law enforcement use forever mired the weapon in controversy. To properly assess the Model 50 and 55 Reising submachine guns, and the Model 60 semiautomatic rifle, we must begin with their inventor, Eugene G. Reising, and the circumstances of his time.

History

Eugene Reising was an excellent marksman and ordnance engineer who believed engineering principals must match actual field needs. Reising practiced his creed by being an avid shooter and by serving in the early 1900s as an assistant to the distinguished firearm inventor, John M. Browning. In doing so, Reising contributed to the final design of the US .45 Model 1911 Colt Automatic Pistol, one of the most reliable pistols in history. Reising then designed a number of commercial rifles and pistols on his own, when in 1938, he turned his attention to designing a submachine gun as threats of war rapidly grew in Europe.

Two years later he submitted his completed design to the Harrington and Richardson Arms Company (H&R) in Worcester, Massachusetts. It was accepted, and in March 1941, H&R started manufacturing the Model 50 full stocked submachine gun. Months later, production began on the Model 55 (identical to the Model 50 other than having a folding wire buttstock and no compensator); and the Model 60 full stocked semiautomatic rifle that also resembled a Model 50, but had a 7.75 inch longer barrel without cooling fins or compensator.

H&R promoted the submachine guns for police and military use, and the Model 60 for use by security guards. But events half a world away changed everything. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and the US was suddenly in desperate need of thousands of modern automatic weapons. Since the Reising’s only competitor was the venerable .45 Thompson Model 1928A1 submachine gun, a weapon that epitomized reliability and exquisite machining, the more easily manufactured Reising was quickly adopted by the navy and marines as a limited-standard weapon.

The US Army first tested the Reising in November, 1941 at Fort Benning, Georgia, and found several parts failed due to poor construction. Once corrected, a second test was made in 1942 at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland. In that test 3,500 rounds were fired resulting in two malfunctions: one from the ammunition, the other from an incomplete bolt locking. Still, the army didn’t adopt the Reising, but the navy and marines did, faced with insufficient supply of Thompsons.

The navy and marines also viewed the Reising as having several advantages over the Thompson. It was less costly (approximately $62 versus $200), it was much lighter (about 7 versus 11 pounds), it was better balanced, more streamlined, and more accurate in semiautomatic fire. And, the Model 55 was more compact (about 22 versus 33 inches in length – the shortest, lightest and most powerful submachine gun in the world at the time).

The Reising cost and weighed less because it was made mostly of stampings and had a closed-bolt design that was much lighter than blowbacks of its kind that fired from an open-bolt position and relied on weight, rather than locking, to secure the cartridge at time of firing. It was more balanced because the barrel and receiver-group rested concentrically within the stock. It had smoother lines because the stock was of conventional shape and the cocking handle (action bar) was placed inside the forearm. And it was more accurate because the closed-bolt only shifted the hammer and firing pin on firing, whereas the Thompson slammed home a heavy bolt and actuator.

The Reising submachine gun first saw action on August 7, 1942, exactly eight months to the day after Pearl Harbor, when 11,000 men from the First Marine Division stormed the beaches of Guadalcanal, just south of the equator in the Solomon Islands. This sweltering ninety-mile long mountainous island was covered with dense jungle and swamps, and was defended by Japanese. Since Guadalcanal had an airfield, the island had to be taken as aircraft from there could isolate Australia and New Zealand from America.

To the marines’ surprise, as they stepped off their landing craft and their naval fire crept forward, they were met not by Japanese, but by silence and shattered coconut groves that fringed the beach. Advancing cautiously into the dark, musky jungle, they pushed on and took the airfield the following day. But Japanese warships and reinforcements were en route. That night, powerful shell fire swept the marines as they were suddenly cut off from sea; to be locked in mortal ground combat with the Japanese Thirty-fifth Infantry Brigade, and Second and Twenty-eighth Divisions.

On the same date of Guadalcanal’s invasion, the Model 50 and 55 saw action by fast striking, camouflage dressed, First Marine Raiders on the small outlying islands of Tulagi and Tanambogo to the north. Two companies of marine paratroopers “The Devil Dogs” dressed in olive drab jump smocks also used Model 55s to attack the island of Gavutu, between Tulagi and Tanambogo.

Although Tulagi and Tanambogo were each secured in a day, the fighting was fierce. Japanese firing from caves and beach dugouts destroyed many of the raider’s assault craft before touching shore. At day’s end, the raiders suffered 234 casualties from a 750 man force. The paratroopers fared worse. Of the 377 men who assaulted Gavutu, 212, or roughly two-thirds, were killed or seriously wounded, many because escorting warships couldn’t provide close fire in the uncharted waters, and bombers sent to assist the paratroopers, dropped their ordnance short killing their own men.

Following six months of intense fighting, Guadalcanal fell to the marines on February 7, 1943, at a cost of 6,000 wounded and killed Americans as well as 20,000 dead Japanese. Guadalcanal’s capture marked the beginning of the end of the Japanese Empire. For other than minor moves in Burma and China, the Japanese were continuously pushed back toward their homeland.

Moving ever northward, the Third Marine Division landed on Bougainville, November 1, 1943. Pitted against members of the Japanese Sixth Division, marine raiders made flanking attacks. In the book Flags of Our Fathers by James Bradley, a camouflage dressed, Sergeant Mike Strank, Third Marine Raiders, is shown holding a Model 55 on Bougainville. Sergeant Strank survived that battle to be known as a marine who gave his all to protect his men from the enemy. But in 1945, after helping to raise the American flag on Iwo Jima, he died on a rocky, windswept plain there; a victim not of the Japanese, but of American naval fire.

On the other side of the world, in Europe, Reising submachine guns saw service in early 1942 when a large contingent of US Marines relieved British troops on Iceland to prevent a German takeover. Two years later, June 4, 1944, the US Navy captured the U-505, a German sub with all hands on the North Atlantic, and wartime films show American sailors armed with Model 50s leading the captives down a gangway into Great Britain.

Issues of reliability

H&R was justifiably proud of the Reising. But the weapon’s close tolerance and delicate magazine proved unreliable in the mud and sand of the Solomons unless kept scrupulously clean. Quickly despised by front-line marines, Lieutenant Colonel Merritt A. Edson, Commander, First Marine Raiders, ordered that Reisings be flung into Guadalcanal’s crocodile infested Lunga River, as his troops resorted to reliable bolt-action Springfield rifles.

This failure made a mockery of H&R’s company slogan, “Six-and-one-half pounds of controlled dynamite. The H&R Reising will get a bullet there when you need it!”

There are other reasons for its failure. Foremost was the Reising’s complex design of many small pins, plungers, springs and levers. Disassembly and assembly was difficult even under normal conditions. Simple maintenance was problematic as there was no bolt hold-open device. Chambering a cartridge was awkward as the action bar was hard to grasp in the forearm and could be obstructed by the sling. Worse, the safety/selector switch couldn’t be sensed by feel at night if it was in the safe, semi, or automatic position.

“Filing-to-fit” of certain parts during production limited interchangeability. The exposed rear sight had no protective ears and was vulnerable to breakage. The adjustable front sight could be lost if the retaining screw wasn’t tightly secured. The weapon was susceptible to jamming if grime clogged the bolt’s locking recess in the receiver. The magazine guide retaining pins and receiver stud holes were tapered allowing disassembly and assembly only from one direction; right to left for disassembly, and left to right for assembly: a tough thing to remember in combat. And, if the retaining pins were inserted too much or too little, the receiver might not fit back into the tight confines of the stock.

In spite of these shortcomings, the serviceability of the Reising must be questioned if elite marine raiders, as witnessed by Sergeant Strank, were still using the weapon in November 1943; fully one year after the invasion of Guadalcanal when M1 Rifles, Carbines, and M1 Thompsons were by then available. Indeed, Reisings were issued to sailors and rear echelon marines throughout the war, and to Navaho code talkers who assisted front-line marines by giving instant radio communications in native tongue.

Thousands more Reisings were purchased by the US Coast Guard or sent to our British, Canadian, and Soviet allies under our Lend-Lease plan. And hundreds (mostly Model 60s) were allotted to security details at manufacturing plants, power stations, supply depots and bridges throughout the US.

Model Confusion

What constitutes a “commercial” and “military” Model 50? It should be noted that H&R never made a distinction; the distinction is made by collectors. This confusion stems from a period in production where early Model 50s were manufactured with commercial characteristics and H&R’s wartime practice of randomly installing old parts in stock throughout production.

While there’s not one factor that distinguishes the so-called commercial from the military model, the commercial model is usually blued. It commonly has a fixed front sight and a rear sight with no retaining screw. It often has 28 fins on the barrel, a one piece magazine release, no outward flanges on the safety/selector switch, and no sling swivels. Lastly, the commercial model commonly has a smooth take-down screw, a two-hole trigger guard, and serial numbers ranging from one to 20,000.

Military Reisings are usually parkerized. They often have an adjustable front sight with an Allen screw and a rear sight with a retaining screw. They routinely have 14 fins on the barrel, a two piece magazine release, outward flanges on the safety/selector switch, sling swivels, stock ties (crossbolts through the forearm), and a knurled take-down screw. Finally, the military model commonly has a three-hole trigger guard, proof-marks like “PH” or “Pm2” above the chamber, and serial numbers ranging from 20,000 to 120,000.

There are three types of H&R magazines. The first and second models both have a smooth body, are blued, and are twenty-shot double column. The first model is distinguished by five cartridge peep holes on the left side, a feature eliminated on the second model to prevent mud and sand from entering. In contrast, the third model is parkerized, has two long indentations on the sides, and because of feeding problems experienced with former models, is a twelve-shot single column magazine.

Production

Production of the Model 50 and 55 submachine guns ceased in 1945 at the end of World War II. Nearly 120,000 submachine guns were made of which two thirds went to the marines. H&R continued production of the Model 60 semiautomatic rifle in hopes of domestic sales, but with little demand, production stopped in 1949 with over 3,000 manufactured.

H&R sold their remaining inventory of submachine guns after the war to police and correctional agencies across America who were interested in the Reising’s selective-fire capability, great accuracy and low cost relative to a Thompson. Faced with continued demand, however, production resumed in 1950 and then sputtered to a halt in 1957 with nearly 5,500 additional Model 50s manufactured. But just when the Reising story seemed to end, a foreign order was received in the 1960s for nearly 2,000 more Model 60s, but that order was finally the end.

Decades later, in 1986, H&R closed their doors and the Numrich Arms Corporation (The Gun Parts) purchased their entire stock. Acquiring a number of Model 50 receivers, Numrich assembled them with parts. These weapons all have an “S” preceding the serial number and were sold domestically in the early 1990s after reparkerization and mounting on newly manufactured walnut stocks. These stocks are distinguished by their wider than normal sling swivels and buttstocks, by the fact they have no stock ties, and have H&R marked plastic buttplates (originals were unmarked metal).

Current Value

As with all machine guns, Reisings have skyrocketed in value; especially weapons designated as Curio and Relics (C&R) as Reisings are by ATF. This designation makes Reisings marketable not just to licensed machine gun dealers, but to C&R licensees and to private citizens in many states.

A little more than a decade ago a Model 50 in very good condition could be had for a few hundred dollars. Today, the same weapon would fetch $4,000, a Model 55 in similar condition $5,000, and a Model 60, $1,500. Consistent to the spiraling cost, an original H&R twenty-shot magazine costs over a hundred dollars and a twelve-shot magazine about eighty.

Summary

Reisings are mired in controversy. Their shortcomings are many but so are their positive features. Acclaimed as one of the most accurate and lightest submachine guns in their day, they faithfully served thousands of law enforcement officers for over a half century. A weapon with rich walnut stocks, a number of machined parts, and a unique history, they’ll provide fun for any shooter and prove a superb investment for any collector.

(Editor’s note: An “Expo” by definition puts products on display. This one – billed as the world’s largest trade show for expeditionary warriors – featured nearly four hundred display booths offering everything a Marine could want from waterproof socks to robotic amphibious scout platforms. SAR dispatched Military Affairs Editor Robert Bruce to find and photograph what’s new and interesting. He came back with more than enough photos to fill a whole issue. We’ve carefully selected a number to bring our readers some highlights of this unique annual event.)

“The history of this exposition reflects one in which displayed items, themes, concepts, and ideas have been developed into fielded systems that ultimately enhanced the performance and warfighting effectiveness of our Corps. As Commandant, I am charged with the training and fielding of Marines, but we rely on industry to provide the technical muscle that makes Marines an effective fighting force. While our immediate focus is on combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan we must also look to our force for the future, keep our roots tied to the Navy and over-the-horizon warfare in ‘every clime and time zone.’” General James T. Conway

Strategically located less than an hour’s drive from the Nation’s Capitol, Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, is an ideal venue for the world’s largest showcase of products and concepts for expeditionary warfare. This enormous, historic base is known as the “Crossroads of the Marine Corps,” home to many of the Corps’ most important components.

Notable among these is the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, which develops Marine warfighting concepts and determines the Corps’ capability requirements for doctrine, equipment, organization, training, education and support.

Additionally, the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory, a part of the Development Command responsible for improving current and future naval expeditionary warfare capabilities, is also located aboard the base.

The Marine Corps Systems Command, the Corps’ principal agency for acquisition and sustainment of systems and equipment for the Marines’ warfighting mission, and a co-sponsor of the 2007 exposition, is located at Quantico.

Many of the personnel assigned to those organizations, along with Congressional leaders, personnel from all the US Armed Forces, high ranking foreign military officers from Washington’s many embassies, and of course rank-and-file Marines, visited the exhibit halls during the three day event in October. All of these present exhibitors the widest spectrum of opportunity for effective promotion of their products and services.

Co-sponsored by Marine Corps Systems Command and the Marine Corps League, the exposition occupied a cluster of enormous tents set up on the front lawn of the Marine Corps Base’s headquarters building, Lejeune Hall. Additionally, larger pieces of equipment – heavy artillery, hulking mine-resistant armored vehicles, high-technology exhibit trailers, and such – were parked outside in every available bit of lawn.

Evolving Threats

A special pavilion dedicated to equipment for countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs), inaugurated at the 2006 exposition, was once again a featured part of the exposition. With urgency and attention obviously driven by the increased sophistication of “roadside bombs” and escalation in frequency of use, the IED pavilion was a focal point for many attendees. Security for this was particularly tight with every individual subject to metal detector sweep.

Much of the equipment now being used by U.S. Marines and other U.S. and allied forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world in the war on terrorism, was first displayed before military leaders, operations planners and acquisition managers at the exposition in past years.

Visitors saw the latest in equipment and technology now in service as well as video presentations, models or prototypes of items soon to become available for use in combat and combat support operations. Defense contractors from around the world presented their companies’ products and services.

The exposition provides first-hand exposure of the latest in defense manufacturing, science and technology to the users – the men and women who employ, or will soon be employing, many of the products on display in training and combat operations. Just stand to one side at exhibit after exhibit and listen as obviously combat-experienced Marines talk with their buddies about the guns and gear they “wish they’d get” for the next deployment.

Gripes and Grins

The event also gives the users opportunities to convey personal input, including examples of their own combat experiences, and to extend both feedback and suggestions directly to the people who design and produce the world’s leading defense-related equipment, systems and services. This was particularly evident at Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory’s interactive exhibit where the actual program managers were on hand to talk with Marines about the new flashlights, body armor, hydration systems and more that are soon to be fielded.

While guns, sighting systems and ammunition were our first choice for examination, SAR also takes interest in other aspects of expeditionary warfare. As such, we have included in this photo report a few things that might seem a bit unusual. Keep in mind Napoleon’s sage observation that “An army travels on its stomach.” And it also needs to be warm in the winter, dry in the rain, alert after many hours, see in the dark, etc. Marines who aren’t terminally miserable will move, shoot and communicate far more effectively.

Inside Track

Several special activities are held in conjunction with the Modern Day Marine Exposition. One of the most important is a special by-invitation-only Report to Industry presented by senior Marine officers closely associated with all aspects of the Corps’ equipment and systems research, development, testing and acquisition programs and policies.

This was followed by Marine Corps Systems Command Program Group Director Briefings in which members of the defense industry were able to learn, directly, from the men and women who manage the programs through which Marines acquire and field weapons and equipment for the Corps’ expeditionary missions on the ground, in the air and at sea.

Marines on Parade

Another of the exposition’s special activities is the Enlisted Awards Parade, showcasing the incomparable Marine Corps Silent Drill Platoon against the dramatic background of historic Lejeune Hall. In that colorful event, the Commandant of the Marine Corps presented awards for superior service to Marines and Sailors serving with Marine Corps units from around the world.

Find Out More

Modern Day Marine Expo 2008 is scheduled for Sept. 30th – Oct. 2nd, 2008. Information available on the web at www.marinemilitaryexpos.com In addition to its largest annual event in October at Quantico, impressive Modern Day Marine Military Expositions are also held at Camp Pendleton, California, and Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. For more information, contact Modern Day Marine Expositions, 14685 Avion Parkway, Suite 400, Chantilly, VA 20151. Phone: (703) 488-2785; Fax: (703) 488-2725; e-mail: militaryexpo@nielsen.com.

For many years the industry and user communities have been asking questions about what they can and can not do with suppressors that are registered to them, that have either damage or defects that need repair. ATF has released the following Question and Answer series regarding these issues, and these will be posted on their websites. The answers are consistent with standard Class 2 community procedures as have been described in the past by ATF, with one or two small exceptions- in this case, the answer has been clarified about whether an original manufacturer can replace the registered tube for a customer… the answer has always been “No” if it was not that specific manufacturers product, but now the answer is narrowed so that only suppressors that have never left the manufacturers facility may be replaced with the same serial numbered unit. We’ll bring the readers a further analysis in an upcoming issue.

U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
Washington, DC 20226
April 17, 2008
Frequently Asked Questions – Silencers

Q1:What part of a silencer must be marked?

A: The silencer must be marked in accordance with 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.92 and 479.102. The regulations require that the markings be conspicuous and legible, meaning that the markings may be placed on any external part, such as the outer tube or end cap.

ATF strongly recommends that manufacturers place all required markings on the outer tube of the silencer, as this is the accepted industry standard. Moreover, this practice eliminates the need to remark in the event an end cap bearing the markings is damaged and requires replacement.

Q2:May a Federal firearms licensee repair a silencer by replacing worn or damaged components?

A: A person who is licensed under the Gun Control Act (GCA) to manufacture firearms and who has paid the special (occupational) tax to manufacture National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms may replace a component part or parts of a silencer. Repairs may not be done if they result in removal, obliteration, or alteration of the serial number, as this would violate 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). If a silencer part bearing the serial number, other than the outer tube, must be replaced, the new part must be marked with the same serial number as the replacement part.

The term “repair” does not include replacement of the outer tube of the silencer. The outer tube is the largest single part of the silencer, the main structural component of the silencer, and is the part to which all other component parts are attached. The replacement of the outer tube is so significant an event that it amounts to the “making” of a new silencer. As such, the new silencer must be marked, registered and transferred in accordance with the NFA and GCA.

In the event that identical replacement parts for a silencer are not available, new and different component parts may be used as long as the silencer retains the same dimensions and caliber. In addition, the repair may result in a minimal reduction in the length of the outer tube due to rethreading, but repair may not increase the length of the outer tube. Increasing the length of the outer tube significantly affects the performance of the silencer and results in the “making” of a new silencer. As stated above, a new silencer must be marked, registered and transferred in accordance with the NFA and GCA. Reducing the length of the tube by a minimal amount in order to repair a silencer is often necessary to replace damaged end caps, as the tube must be rethreaded. Such minimal reduction of the length of the tube uses all of the original parts, does not significantly affect performance of the silencer, and may be done as part of a repair process without making a new silencer.

Persons other than qualified manufacturers may repair silencers, but replacement parts are “silencers” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24) that must be registered and transferred in accordance with the NFA and GCA.

Q3:May the outer tube of a registered silencer be repaired due to damage? If so, may the repair be done by someone other than the original manufacturer?

A: damaged outer tube may be repaired by any Federal firearms licensee qualified to perform gunsmithing or by the registered owner. The repair may not alter the dimensions or caliber of the silencer, except that the length of the outer tube may be reduced, as set forth above. The repair may not be performed if it results in the removal, obliteration, or alteration of the serial number, as this would violate 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). In that case, the silencer may be returned to the registered owner in its original, damaged condition or destroyed. A replacement silencer must be registered and transferred to the registrant of the damaged silencer in the same manner as a new silencer, subject to the registration and transfer procedures of the NFA and GCA.

Q4:If the outer tube is destroyed or damaged beyond repair, may it be replaced?

A: Unless the outer tube is replaced by the manufacturer prior to its removal from the manufacturing premises for purposes of sale or distribution (see Q6), the replacement of the outer tube amounts to the making of a new silencer. For the registered owner to fabricate a new outer tube, he or she must submit an ATF Form 1, Application to Make and Register a Firearm, pay the making tax of $200, and receive ATF approval. The application to make should indicate that the new tube is being fabricated for use in replacing a damaged outer tube on a registered silencer, and the application should indicate the make, model and serial number of the registered silencer. It would be helpful for the applicant to include a copy of the approved registration for the silencer. Assembly of the newly fabricated tube with the other parts of the registered silencer does not require an additional application to make nor payment of another making tax, as the one Form 1 will provide permission to fabricate the new tube and to assemble it with the old silencer parts. The replacement tube must be marked in accordance with 27 C.F.R. § 479.102. The registrant may use the same serial number that appeared on the damaged tube.

If the registered owner wishes to acquire a replacement tube from a person other than a qualified manufacturer, the replacement tube must be registered as a new silencer by the other person and transferred to the registered owner in accordance with the NFA and GCA. The other person must submit an ATF Form 1, pay the $200 making tax, and receive ATF approval to make the replacement tube. The replacement tube must be marked in accordance with 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.92 and 479.102. The other person would then transfer the replacement tube to the owner of the damaged silencer, subject to the transfer tax, in accordance with the NFA and GCA. The new tube may be then be assembled with the other parts. The original damaged silencer should be reported to the NFA Branch as destroyed.

Alternatively, a qualified manufacturer may replace the tube, report the manufacture on ATF Form 2, Notice of Firearms Manufactured or Imported, and transfer the replacement tube to the owner in accordance with the NFA and GCA. The transfer must comply with the $200 transfer tax and all other provisions of the NFA, as it would be a new silencer. The replacement tube must also be marked in accordance with 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.92 and 479.102. The required markings include an individual serial number and the name, city, and State of the manufacturer who replaced the tube. The replacement tube may not be marked with the name, city, and State of the original manufacturer of the silencer, as this would be a false marking. Although the new tube is a new silencer for purposes of the NFA, it would be a replacement firearm of the same type as the original silencer, and it may be returned directly to the registrant in interstate commerce in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(2). The original damaged silencer should be reported to the NFA Branch as destroyed.

Q5:May a repair change the dimensions or caliber of a silencer?

A: If alterations to a silencer would increase the overall length or change the diameter or caliber of a silencer, this is the making of a new silencer, as opposed to a repair. The new silencer must be registered and transferred in accordance with the NFA and the GCA. Alterations to a registered silencer that result in a minimal reduction in the overall length for purposes of rethreading are permissible as repairs. However, the reduction in length may not result in the removal, obliteration, or alteration of the existing serial number, as this would violate 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). If such a repair is necessary, the damaged silencer should be destroyed or returned to the registrant. If it is destroyed, destruction should be reported to the NFA Branch. Any replacement silencer must be registered and transferred in accordance with the NFA and the GCA. See Q2 and Q3 for further information on repairs.

Q6:If a silencer is found to be defective due to the manufacturing process, may it be replaced?

A: A silencer may be replaced only under the following circumstances:

1. A manufacturer of silencers licensed as a manufacturer under the GCA who has paid special (occupational) tax under the NFA;
2. prior to the time the silencer has left the manufacturer’s premises;
3. determines that a silencer of its own manufacture is defective.

If all the above criteria are satisfied, the manufacturer may destroy the defective silencer and replace it with another silencer. If the silencer has already been registered, the replacement silencer may be marked with the same serial number and markings as the original silencer. If the destruction is prior to registration on Form 2, the replacement silencer may be marked with the same serial number or another serial number. See also Q2, Q3, and Q4.

By Jean Huon

After 1945, the French army was equipped with a wide variety of materials (armament, uniforms, helmets, equipment, radios, vehicles, airplanes, boats, etc.). In the field of armament, various makes and models could be found that included French, American, English and German weapons. Several programs of harmonization were undertaken and, for machine guns, several models were developed between 1948 and 1952 that included:

• the Ateliers de Mulhouse that developed a weapon derived from the MG 42,
• the Manufacture Nationale d’Armes de Saint-Etienne that developed a gas action machine gun, and
• the Manufacture Nationale d’Armes de Châtellerault that built a weapon with a semi-rigid locking mechanism.

Each one of these weapons was envisioned to be fed by link, box magazines, or both. Additionally, each gun was developed in a light and heavy model for the French 7.5mm cartridge or American .30-06.

Ultimately, the weapon produced by MAC was retained and adopted on August 22, 1952 under the name of Arme Automatique (Automatic Weapon) Model 1952; or A.A. 52. Only the model in 7.5mm supplied with links was retained though variations of this model were also developed. The first guns were delivered in February 1956. In 1962, a version being able to fire the 7.62mm NATO cartridge was developed and adopted under the name of A.A. 7.62 N-F 1. Following the closing of Châtellerault, manufacture was transferred to the Manufacture Nationale d’Armes de Tulle in 1967-68. MAC produced approximately 35,000 A.A. 52s in 7.5mm and 17,000 A.A. 7.62 N-F 1 before closing. An enlarged version of A.A. 52 in .50 caliber was studied between 1956 and 1959, but was not adopted.

Description

The receiver and the majority of parts of the A.A. 52 are made of stamped sheet metal. Only the barrel and the bolt are of machined steel. The weapon works with a semi-rigid locking mechanism and the opening is delayed by an inertia amplifying lever.

The receiver is of a rectangular pattern with a cover that includes the feed mechanism at the top. The cocking lever with slide is placed on the right. The trigger mechanism and pistol grip are under the frame. The ejection port is under the frame and has a folding cover. The bolt consists of the bolt carrier with a movable head and an inertia amplifying lever. The weapon utilizes a telescopic stock with an articulated butt plate.

The removable and interchangeable barrel is fitted with a handle that is also used for transport of the weapon. The barrel has a fluted chamber and the 7.5mm barrel has four right groves with a pitch of 240 mm. The 7.62mm barrel has the same groves but with a 300 mm pitch.

A safety push button is installed on the trigger mechanism. There is no selector and fires in full auto only.

The sights consist of a folding front sight and a U-notch rear sight adjustable from 200 to 2,000 meters. After 1962, they received phosphorescent pellets for night shooting.

Feeding can be made with the continuous German Gurt 34 link or French designed disintegrating links. Both the feeding mechanism, trigger device and pistol grip are copies of the MG 42.

Preparing to Shoot

With the bolt forward in the closed position, introduce the flat end of the link from left to right in the feed-way until a catch occurs. Pull back the cocking lever. The bolt is retained by the sear and the recoil spring is compressed. Push the cocking lever to the front. If the link has no flat end, remove the first two cartridges (in the case of a non-disintegrated link), open the feeding cover, cock the gun, place the first link on the right side of the feed plate and close the cover.

Operation

The shooter presses the trigger, which lowers the hook of the sear and allows retraction of this part. Under the action of the compressed recoil spring, the bolt group is projected forward. As the first cartridge is pushed from the link (direct introduction), it meets the depressor and is introduced into the chamber. At the same time, at the end of the forward movement, guided by the higher slope of the bolt carrier, the supply lever oscillates and permits the feed driving pawl to go from the right to the left. With the bolt head in place, the inertia amplifying lever is in its housing. The bolt carrier finishes going forward and the firing pin then strikes the cartridge primer. If the bolt is not completely closed, the firing pin cannot strike the cartridge.

Upon firing, the gas pressure being exerted both on the bullet and the case makes the head of the bolt undergo a thrust backwards. The small branch of the lever is in contact with the bolt and the large branch takes support against the frame. The lever transmits to the bolt an impulse much faster than that which it received from the bolt head. It works like an amplifier of inertia and causes a delay with the opening. The bolt carrier then involves in its movement the bolt head and the lever. As the bolt starts its rear movement, the empty case is extracted from the chamber and when it meets the two lugs of the feed cover, it is ejected downwards. The feed lever oscillates and the driving pawl pushes the link that moves and advances to the resting pawl (from left to right). This causes the ejection of the link. With the bolt to the rear and the recoil spring compressed, the bolt will then move back forward and the cycle is renewed until the gunner ceases its action on the trigger. At that time, the bolt will be retained in the rear position by the sear.

To operate the safety, it is necessary to push its transverse push-button towards the left. This locks the trigger.

To unload and release the link, it is necessary to cock the weapon, then apply the safety, open the top feed cover and remove the link. (Look to visually confirm that no cartridge is in the chamber. Push the safety to the right and let the bolt come gently forward while assisting it with the cocking lever.

Changing Barrels

There are two types of barrel retainers. In the retainer of the first type, use the disassembly extractor tool or the point of a cartridge to push the retainer backwards. Using the carrying handle, turn the barrel 1/6th of a turn to the right and extract it toward the front. To install a new barrel, insert it with a 1/6th turn to the left of the axis, push it and turn to the right until the retainer ensures its locking.

Retainers of the second type are installed on weapons carrying a serial number higher than A 34166. Push the retainer with the hand while pressing on the lever. Then use the carrying handle, turn the barrel 1/6th of a turn to the right and extract it toward the front. The movements to be carried out for its reinstallation are the same as above though it is necessary to maintain the retainer retracted as long as the barrel is not in place. It is possible to see if the barrel is correctly engaged if the white feature painted behind the retainer is visible.

Accessories

Sighting:

• day scope APX L 806,
• day/night scope with infra-red equipment DIPT 8A,
• Sopelem night scope, with light amplifying,
• rubber cap for scope,
• scope mount.

Shooting:

• light or heavy replacement barrel
• replacement barrel for blank shooting,
• bags for ammunition links,
• device to adjust tank machine gun No. 1, exactly parallel to the tank gun.

Replacement box placed in the fabric maintenance bag:

• one fixing key,
• one trigger guard axis,
• two extractor springs,
• two extractor push rods,
• two extractors,
• one amplifying lever.
• four strikers.

Maintenance bag M 1950 or 1954:

• a cartridge extractor,
• a pistol grip pin,
• a tool to dismount the extractor;
• a hook-ejector;
• a cleaning-rod in three elements;
• a silk brush to clean the barrel,
• a brush to clean the chamber,
• a flat brush;
• a metallic oil can M 1949 or plastic M 1962.

Transport:

• a leather strap for the light machine gun;
• a fabric protective cover for the weapon (light or heavy),
• a fabric case for replacement barrel;
• haversacks for the transport of maintenance material, replacements parts or ammunition.

Supports:

• bipod for light version. Two variations exist: first model with tubular legs, second model with U-shaped sheet metal legs,
• removable monopod rear support for light version, similar to the model used with the Châtellerault M 24-29 LMG,
• U.S. M2 tripod with special mounting MF 52 (Modified French 1952) for the heavy version. It is fitted with an elastic recoil device.

Variations

• light machine gun A.A. 52 or A.A. 7.62 N-F 1, model with short barrel, fitted with a stock, folding bipod and a rear monopod and hook for link bag
• infantry heavy machine-gun A.A. 52 or A.A. 7.62 N-F 1, model with long barrel, fitted with a stock and mounted on tripod U.S. M2 MF 52 and hook for link bag,
• Tank C 1. Long barrel without carrying handle, no sights, no stock, no hook for link bag, manual or electric firing device (version A is not waterproof, version B is waterproof).
• Tank C 2. Long barrel without carrying handle, front and rear sights, can receive a stock but no rear monopod, special cocking lever to be used in reduced space like tank turret, no ejection port cover, manual firing device.
• Aircraft No. 2. Long barrel without carrying handle, no sights, can receive a stock but no rear monopod, manual firing device.
• Aircraft No. 3. Same as Tank No. 2, but with standard cocking lever, manual or electric firing device (version A is not waterproof, version B is waterproof).
• Aircraft No. 4. Similar to the preceding one but with front and rear sights and hook for link bag

The A.A. 52 or A.A. 7.62 N-F 1 can be installed in a turret or individual support for armored vehicles or by twin in a pod for aircraft or helicopter.

Disassembly/Reassembly

Open the feed cover and remove the link. Cock the gun and visually check that the chamber does not contain a cartridge. Let the bolt return forward slowly by using the cocking lever to retard movement. Press on the stock retainer and remove the stock. Unscrew the fixing key and leave the rear block. Pull the cocking lever backwards. Leave the recoil spring and its rod. Remove the bolt by slipping it backwards. Remove the axis pin of the pistol grip block to release it from the frame. Open the feed cover and the feed plate at 90° to the top and remove the axis pin which connects them with the frame. Remove the bolt head, the firing pin and the inertia lever from the bolt carrier. The reassembly is carried out in the inverse order. Be careful of the exact position of parts of the bolt and the feeding device.

12.7mm Machine Gun Type M.A.C. Using the same mechanism as the A.A. 52, several prototypes of a heavy machine gun using the same ammunition as the U.S. .50 caliber M2HB were conducted between 1956 and 1959. This model is like an enlarged version of the smaller caliber machine gun and is designed in the same manner. The frame has no rear block and the dismounting of the gun is slightly different. The rear sight is graduated in hectometers from 0 to 30 and the front sight can be folded.

Feeding is carried out with metallic links:

• American disintegrating links,
• French designed disintegrating links similar to, but larger than, those used with the A.A. 52,
• French designed non-disintegrating link; an enlarged copy of the Gurt 34.

The barrel is removable and interchangeable and has no carrying handle. The 12.7mm automatic weapon has a particular trigger mechanism and several variations of it exist. On the MAC 56, two rear handles are fixed to the frame and an axial trigger pushed by the thumb allows the firing as on the Browning U.S. M2HB machine gun. The barrel has a fork truncated flash hider. For the MAC 58, the trigger mechanism is prolonged by a conventional pistol grip. The safety is operated by a lever on the left side. The barrel has a cylindrical flash hider with lateral holes. Both weapons are fitted with a recoil absorber. A French designed mount, with an elastic recoil device, allows the use of the U.S. M3 tripod or any vehicle mount initially intended to receive the American weapon. The 12.7mm guns were put to test a few times, but the model was not adopted because it did not make any particular improvements compared to the same guns in this caliber already in service.

Conclusion

The French automatic weapons A.A. 52 and A.A. 7.62 N-F 1 are reliable and robust weapons. The light version can be used up to 800 meters and the heavy version has a range of 1,200 meters. The receiver has an estimated life of 60,000 rounds. It started to be used in Algeria at the end of the 1950s and continued to be equipped with the French infantry until the beginning of the 21st century. They have now been replaced by the F.N. MINIMI. They continue to be used on armored vehicles and ships. The new Caracal helicopters, which are in service in the Air Force, are equipped with MAG machine guns.

By Warren Ferguson

Overlooking the bay that glistened with vivid blue Mediterranean water, the Canadian soldier knew that the beauty of the Cypriot island was tempered by the rage of Turkish and Greek soldiers, both of whom were known as fierce and determined warriors. Looking down to examine the small collection of confiscated firearms, the soldier noticed a 9mm submachine gun very similar to his issued Sterling. Oddly, it also had many features of the WWII British Sten. What exactly was this hybrid?

Cyprus, a visually idyllic island, has had a long history of trouble between the Greeks and Turks who both stake bold claims on the territory. The fighting hit a flashpoint in 1974 when Greek army officers of the Greek Cypriot National Guard staged a coup d’état against the president of Cyprus. They wished to unite Cyprus with Greece and Turkey’s response was to launch an amphibious invasion of Cyprus with 40,000 troops.

Canadian soldiers had been stationed in Cyprus from the early 1960s. Thus, they were well positioned to respond to the eruption of violence. Members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, Canada’s UNFICYP (United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus) and others were at hand when the Turks pressed forth their stated objectives of protection of the Turkish minority to greater territorial acquisition by the taking of the Nicosia airport. Canadians physically kept the two sides apart, sometimes taking casualties.

The Greek and Turkish soldiers were one matter, but aggressive civilians were another. Added to the volatile mix was a divided population that owed its allegiance to one side or the other. Both were determined to maintain their stake on their particular corner of the island and their cultural pride. When the Canadians were not separating professional armies, they dealt with these armed civilian irregulars.

The Canadians were armed with FN-FALs and Sterling type 9mm submachine guns. The profile of the Sterling was well-known in these parts. United Nations peacekeepers had been carrying them since they arrived to buffer the two opposing sides. Also not unknown to the locals was the old WWII era Sten submachine gun as there were those who recalled their use by British troops and more than a few found their way into cellars.

What you had in the Sten was a simple blowback system in its rawest form. A tube contained a heavy fixed firing pin bolt that was locked by a sear to the rear until firing. Then, a strong spring propelled the bolt forward to strip a cartridge from the magazine, chamber it, and fire it in one motion.

The Sten was rather simple to field strip as well. It was designed that way, particularly the MKII, as a means of breaking it down as small as possible for concealment. The removable barrel came out from the front and the butt stock slid down and off the receiver tube when the user depressed a spring button. The Sterling was developed later and was a dramatic improvement. It was lighter, more compact, and imminently more reliable.

At a time of war, when tensions are high, how can irregulars obtain automatic weapons when the United Nations is doing its best to keep the warring sides apart and prevent a build up of arms? As evidenced by this odd 9mm creation, you simply take the best aspects of two well-known submachine guns, look for ways to make it as easy to manufacture as possible, and get the firearm in the hands of combatants. For a lack of a better name, this writer is going to call the submachine gun in this article a ‘Stenling.’

What is known is that sometime during his tour of duty, a Canadian soldier, likely from the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, came across the strangest looking Sterling he had ever seen. It has long been practice for the Canadian Forces to take samples of foreign weapons for regimental museums and training purposes, and then cut up and melt down the rest.

The prevailing wind out of National Defense HQ dictates that if there is no firearm present, hostility will cease. Naturally, history has proven this incorrect, but institutionally, the Canadian Forces is on board with United Nation mandated weapons decommissioning activities.

Subsequently, out of Cyprus came the Stenling via army sources and found its way into the Okanagan Military Museum in Kelowna, British Columbia. Not to be outdone by the Army, the Canadian Firearms Centre (think BATF bureaucracy) issued directives for the further DEWATing procedures for museum firearms. Thus, a full stripping and analysis of what could be a very rare Cypriot submachine gun was made impossible.

Looking closely at the Stenling it was easy to see that the Sterling played an important role in the submachine gun’s size, weight, overall layout and feel. The general outline of the trigger group was copied but the parts simplified. However, the two-piece pistol grip is made out of cast metal. The safety/selector was missing and so it is difficult to determine if it was a Sten or Sterling pattern, but an educated guess would be the latter.

The trigger guard is fixed and the distance from the trigger to pistol grip is noticeably increased, and does not add to the ergonomics of the firearm. Quite the opposite in fact and this detracts from an otherwise sensible package.

The cocking handle was near identical to a Sterling as is the perforated barrel shroud. Despite this, the muzzle area is welded and departs from the Sterling design because the barrel of the British firearm is fitted to the muzzle via two retaining screws. It does feature a hand protector forward of the ejection port.

From the Sten come the rudimentary sights and aspects of the magazine well assembly. The magazine is similar to the Sterling in construction, but straight and not curved. The magazine release button is like that of a Sten.

Gone is the familiar Sterling rear tube cap, as the design called for a Sten-like sliding spring retainer/butt stock. However, the simply constructed buttstock was made to look somewhat like that of the Sterling, but does not fold. It is made of bar steel and not stampings.

The Cypriot firearm is painted black and at twenty paces, the SMG appears to be a Sterling using a Sten magazine. So, how many were made? The bolt is numbered 281 but in times of trouble, serial numbers seldom start at zero often in order to exaggerate figures. So who exactly made it? This is a mystery.

In all, you have the most curious Sten/Sterling hybrid ever made. It is not uncommon for blowback submachine guns to be made in troubled spots. Nevertheless the Stenling shows both simplification and care and thought in its manufacture. This SMG could have been made cruder but was not. Yet all frills were cast aside. Perhaps the readership can shine some light on this curiosity. The chances are that this submachine gun – made quickly during a time of war – is one of very few constructed, if not one of a kind.

The author would like to thank OMM curator Keith Boehmer for providing the sample firearm.

By Dolf Goldsmith

In March, 2004 a few dedicated rifle shooters from Ramseur, North Carolina assessed the ability of our nation’s people to be able to shoot military style rifles fast and accurately. They found that the United States, which was at one time hailed as a “nation of rifleman” was sadly wanting in this respect. Many of our military units are well trained in shooting but they are the exception rather than the rule.

How different this is from the days of the Boxer rebellion in the summer of 1900, when the Chinese were fighting against troops from many foreign powers. Then when they suddenly started taking a lot of casualties, they would say, “We must now be up against Americans.”

Today, only Switzerland and Norway can still be said to be “Nations of Riflemen”. In those countries, everyone is trained to shoot fast and accurately, the part time soldiers all have to qualify every year, and everyone is in the part time Army, Navy, or Air Force. In addition, everyone keeps their weapon and ammunition at home.

After assessing this situation, this small group of North Carolinians decided to do something about it. Three of them founded the RWVA which stands for Revolutionary War Veterans Association.

Why reference to the Revolutionary War? That is when America’s tradition as a nation of rifleman began. As one of the RWVA slogans says, “August 19, 1775 – when marksmanship met history and liberty began.”

Then, why the name “The Appleseed” shoot? John Chapman, who was born in 1774 in Massachusetts, became an accomplished nurseryman, moved west in 1792, and started planting apple seeds all over Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. The popular image of John Chapman had him planting seeds randomly everywhere he went. Actually, he planted nurseries rather than orchards, built fences around them to protect them from livestock and then left the nurseries in care of neighbors who sold the young trees to growers. John would return every year or two to see that all was in order and obtain the money for the trees that had been sold. He was able to obtain the apple seeds free from the cider mills who wanted more apple trees planted as this eventually would bring them more business. In time he became popularly known as Johnny Appleseed. Johnny Appleseed died in 1845 having devoted his entire life to proliferating apple trees. He never made much money, and what he did make, he gave away. His whole mission in life was to promote the growing of apple trees.

From Johnny Appleseeds’ story the idea of how to promote rifle shooting and have it proliferate was born. Similarly the concept of the RWVA is to train not only riflemen but to train instructors who can teach others to be riflemen, with the goal of making America once again a “Nation of Riflemen.” Thus their shooting program is set up with this in mind.

What is a rifleman? Is he just some guy in the infantry who is issued a rifle, has some rudimentary training and goes out into battle so often woefully unable to hit the enemy? His army MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) calls him a rifleman but he is far from it. It’s not his fault because the hurried nature of our participation in war often does not allow sufficient training time for him to become proficient. Nor, is a rifleman an individual who goes into the woods or out on the desert and plinks away at tin cans with a .22. He also generally does not have the shooting skills that make a rifleman. How much better would it have been if our young men had already been properly trained in military style rifle shooting before they went into the armed forces?

So what is a rifleman? The dictionary gives two definitions: 1) a soldier armed with a rifle, and 2) a man skilled in the use of a rifle. We all now know it’s not No.1, but No. 2. The RWVA has stated that the true measure of a rifleman is not how fast he can shoot, but how many hits he can make in any given period of time, the faster the better.

A true rifleman takes up any sighted rifle and hits a man sized target at 500 yards. In the old days this was called the “Rifleman’s Quarter Mile” and the true rifleman was expected to control any visible target within that 500 yard radius.

A man sized target is about 20 inches wide and just over 20 inches high, so to be effective one must keep his shots within a 20 inch circle. This is in effect a 4 minute of angle group. One minute of angle equals one inch at 100 yards. Theoretically, not allowing for the wind factor, he has to be able to shoot 4 minute groups at 100 yards in order to remain within a 20 inch circle at 500 yards, and if we bring that figure down to 400 yards, he has to be able to shoot five inch groups at 100 yards. At 500 or even 400 yards the wind factor is much more than at 100 yards, so if the shooter can shoot 3 inch, or even 2 inch groups at 100 yards, so much the better.

The Army has developed a series of targets to be fired at 25 meters. These are reduced size targets that correspond with distances as they appear at 100, 200, 300 and 400 meters, the ranges at which soldiers must be able to shoot and hit.

The Appleseed shoots start out on these 25 meter qualification targets, which are abbreviated as the AQT. After the shooter has shown proficiency on these targets he can go on to firing at actual 100, 200, 300 and 400 meters, or yards targets, as the range distances may be laid out.

The 25 meter (82 feet) course consists of 4 stages:

• Stage one is fired standing, 10 rounds in 2 minutes on a target that represents the standard Army “D” target at 100 meters.
• Stage two is fired sitting (starting from standing) 10 rounds with one magazine change in 50 seconds on a target that represents the standard Army “D” target at 200 meters.
• Stage three is fired prone (from standing) 10 rounds with one magazine change in 60 seconds on a target that represents the standard “D” target at 300 meters.
• Stage four is fired prone 10 rounds in 5 minutes on a target that represents the Army “D” target at 400 meters.

This is the most difficult stage as the aiming mark, and also, the scoring rings on the target are so small.

After the shooter becomes proficient, the course turns to the “Rapid Fire AQT”. This comprises the above four stages fired one after the other straight through in a total time limit of five minutes.

In both the slow and rapid fire AQT exercises the score of the 10 shots on the difficult stage 4 is doubled to represent 20 rounds. The entire course then allows a total possible score of 250 points, 210 rounds are required to qualify as a rifleman.

This course of fire is somewhat similar to that fired at the National Rifle Association high power rifle matches.

Based on the shooters record on the AQT, he can be awarded the coveted rifleman’s badge to be worn on the shooters jacket. This is equivalent to the Army Expert Rifleman’s qualification badge.

The RWVA has developed a “classification” AQT where in 8 rounds you can get a quick measure of your skills as they are now in comparison to the army standard, as well as a new “Hits Count” redcoat target where in 12 rounds you can answer the question “How far away, with my current rifle skills, can I be effective on a target.”

Needless to say, all applicable firearms safety procedures are heavily stressed and strictly enforced during the RWVA events.

In just over one year, the RWVA has safely held and successfully conducted 18 Appleseed Tour Engagements in 14 states, and heaven only knows how many Mini-Appleseeds – thanks to all of the “mini” instructors.

Additionally, many one-day marksmanship events were held at the home range in Ramseur, and the first six-day rifleman’s Bootcamp. Through those events they have delivered more than 1,000 person/days in basic safety and marksmanship training, producing more than 900 students and numerous qualified instructors. No fewer than 26 Appleseed events were scheduled for 2007 in 19 states and at least three bootcamps were planned.

The RWVA website is in the process of being updated, and the RWVA forum itself is tracking at more than 15,000 posts and over 1.2 million page views total. The RWVA weblog is averaging 77 unique hits per day, with average visit length of over 5 minutes and total unique visitors at nearly 56,000.

For those not familiar with RWVA’s on-line world, the RWVA website (www.rwva.org) serves as a hub for the other parts of the virtual organization. The forum at http://www.rwva.org/yabbse is a place where the members and guests can share what they have learned about marksmanship and history. The weblog, or “blog”, at http://rwva.blogspot.com, contains online basic riflery instruction, plus a wide variety of resources to be used in educating and communicating to others about the Second Amendment and Revolutionary War history.

The following 2007 listing is shown to give an idea of the diversity of locations where Appleseed shoots were held: Bloomington, IL; Bozeman, MT; Evansville, IN; Langhorne, PA; Kooskia, ID; Medford, OR; Coeur d’Alene, ID: Osage Beach, MO; Phoenix, AZ; Ramseur, NC; Mingus, TX; Stuart, VA; Taccoa, GA; and Yakima, WA.

Current information is available on their website. Whereas Johnny Appleseed covered only Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, the Appleseed shoot covers the whole country.

The author participated in the Appleseed shoot in Mingus, Texas and found it extremely worthwhile and liked the program so much he signed up for it himself. Even though he has been a rifle shooter all his life he learned a number of useful pointers he was not aware of. The instructors at the RWVA are extremely knowledgeable and capable. The 54 page booklet entitled Fred’s Guide to Becoming a Rifleman available from Fred’s Military M14 Rifle Stocks, P.O. Box 629, Ramseur, N.C. 27316 is well put together with a lot of useful information.

The RWVA’s mission concerns itself with, and this is what they will tell you, (stated in their own words:)

• To Shoot
• To Recruit
• To Educate
• To Communicate

That’s all. Four simple steps towards a more informed America, each performed publicly in the full light of day.

“We use a relentless application of the basics marksmanship and safety education, letters to the editor, encouragement to and from like-minded Second Amendment allies, and voting.

In-short, free speech and informed voting – the most all-American acts of all. By fighting and winning the political soft war being waged against the Second Amendment, via the soap box and the ballot box, law-abiding American men and women will someday soon be able to gather at a local range to shoot and discuss the world. We’re proud to be part of the struggle to make that “someday” be tomorrow. We’re the RWVA – farmers, teachers, lawyers, mothers, truck drivers, accountants, artists, doctors, businessmen, students, engineers – everyday American men and women dedicated to a renaissance of traditional marksmanship and the study of American history.

RWVA members make a concrete contribution to saving riflery and freedom in this country. Your modest $20 annual dues will help keep the Appleseed Program on the road for the duration, as well as contribute to the upkeep at the Ramseur home range – one of the finest civilian rifle ranges in the country.

In the last issue of Small Arms Review, “Doc” Dater gave us a running history on his life, designs and a view into the modern history of firearm suppressors. In this, Part II of The Interview, “Doc” Dater Dishes on past designs and what it takes to really design a suppressor for real-world use. – Dan

SAR: In the ’50s, when you had to transport firearms, how did you do it?

Dater: First off, unless you had a Federal Firearms License, and I did eventually get one of these “dollar licenses” so I could send stuff through the US mail, if you were shipping things, you had to ship it Railway Express. That was the only common carrier at the time. This was long before FedEx and UPS and outfits like that. You had either the Post Office or Railway Express, and Railway Express was expensive. When you were traveling by air, the people at the ticket counter would say, “Do not check your firearms. They’ll probably be stolen by the baggage handlers. Carry them on board.” For a long time, they never bothered to check the chambers to make sure they were empty or unloaded or anything like that. There really were not any hijackings of airplanes going on. In many respects, it was a kinder, gentler time. I’d be going hunting with my stepfather. We carried our shotguns, put them in the cases and put them in the overhead rack, sometimes under the seat if there wasn’t room in the overhead racks for them. These, of course, were not big airplanes. The DC-4 was the big airplane in those days. Eventually, towards the later ’50s, they started to check to make sure that the chamber was empty. Didn’t matter if there was ammunition in the case with it, but they wanted an empty chamber. One time, I was driving back from southern Louisiana, I got about as far as Dallas, and the vehicle clutch was slipping too much because of oil on it from a blown piston (which I had replaced). I had to leave the car there. I had my Thompson submachine gun with me. I got a ticket on Braniff Airways to fly back from Dallas to Wichita, and carried my Thompson on-board. The clerk asked to see the chamber, to make sure it was empty. So I pulled the receiver out and showed him the chamber. He said, “What kind of gun is that?” “Well, that’s a hunting rifle,” I say. He says, “Oh, it’s kind of short, isn’t it?” I said, “Yeah, it is, it’s good for brush country.” He said, “Oh, okay,” and I carried the Thompson on-board. On the DC-3, nobody cared.

SAR: Gene Stoner talked about carrying an AR-10 on a plane in that same time period, and he sat next to Vice President Richard Nixon. [laughter] But carrying a firearm on a plane was not a threat.

Dater: No, it wasn’t considered that at all. Many people carried concealed firearms onto planes as well.

SAR: In 1961 or ’62, you were working on an FAL conversion.

Dater: Actually it was either late ’62 or the beginning of ’63. I know I was living in New Orleans, at med school at the time, and a friend of mine told me of the new FAL rifle, semi-auto in .308 caliber, and he said it was a great thing. The word was out that it was real easy to convert to full auto, which everyone of course, found to be a delightful quality. I went down to the local sporting goods store and looked at the thing. It cost $175, and I went home and thought about it real long and hard, and decided, “You know, .308 is a new caliber for me, I don’t load it, I don’t have any ammunition for it, and I’m not sure where I can shoot it around here.”

Down at the hobby store, there was a little lathe, it was a model maker or jeweler’s lathe, actually, and it had about six inches between centers, and I think a total of a three-inch swing with about one and a half inch swing over the cross-feed. I got to thinking how much I like to make things, and probably I’d get more enjoyment out of the lathe. I’d learned to basically run a lathe and weld and this sort of thing in summers, working at the Coleman Lamp and Stove Company in Wichita, Kansas, in the model shop. There we hand-built the prototypes for new products. I had become a halfway decent machinist at that point. With this little tiny model maker’s lathe, I found it’s truly amazing what you can make on it. I made my first pistol suppressor for the Ruger pistol on it. I made a suppressor for my AR-7 with a mount system that had a little screw and clamp that went over the front sight, and locked the suppressor on. I also made a suppressor for a Sten MKII. That was relatively crude technology. Everything was made out of brass, because it was fairly easy to machine. It wasn’t until many years later that I learned how to thread on that particular lathe, because it was not designed for threading. They had a thread-chasing attachment that I subsequently got. Everything had to be held on with set screws. The suppressor for the Sten went on the barrel, and there was no modification to the gun itself. It was kind of a two-point mount on the barrel, and snugged up a little bit under the normal handguard. It was kind of long and made out of brass tubing. Brass was not only easy to work with, it’s also easy to solder with a little propane torch, and the tubing was available in hardware stores.

SAR: Very different from the SG-9 that you eventually evolved into your submachine gun design for the Sten.

Dater: That’s correct. But I chose that lathe over the FAL, even though I had designed a conversion for it. I also knew about the NFRTR now and the registration requirements by then, so, it would have been a making tax of another $200 on top of the FAL price. The lathe turned out to be a good choice and I had many years and many prototypes done on it.

SAR: Phil, after fifty years of being involved in suppressor design, could you share what it really takes to design and manufacture a suppressor today?

Dater: It takes a lot more than you might think. The first problem is simply controlling and making the parts. There are onerous regulations involved that make little sense unless you know the background. In the late 1970s or early ’80s, there was the appearance on the scene of packages of suppressor parts being sold without restriction. There would be sellers at gun shows with one table having a suppressor tube that was threaded and not marked, and another table on the other side of the room would have a baggy of all the parts to put inside it, and each person would give you a Form 1 to register it when they sold it to you. They also sold these via mail order. There’d be adjoining ads in Shotgun News, and if you looked at the address, they were adjoining post office boxes in the same little town in, I think, South Carolina, or thereabouts. Basically, one person sold replacement internal parts, and the other person sold “random pieces” of tubing. One of the things about the MAC suppressor and the SWD after it, was that the part that carried the serial number was a plain piece of aluminum tubing, I believe it’s around two and a quarter inches in diameter. It was held in compression by the core that carried the muzzle threads, and a junction piece that then had the front section of the suppressor attached to it. In that parts kit was also the one baffle that was in there, plus the spirals, plus the encapsulator and the wipe. The little pieces of pipe that were sold, most of those were about a sixteenth of an inch too long, so you had to do some machine work to it, which you could do on a belt sander quite easily. It didn’t take a degree in rocket science to assemble those things, in probably about ten minutes. It’s because of those parts, and some of the criminal uses that were made of the unregistered suppressors that our legitimate community ended up with the silencer parts restriction being thrown into the Hughes Amendment in the ’86 ban on the new manufactured machine guns.

SAR: Giving us the incredibly complex, arcane and hard to figure out regulations about suppressor parts manufacture today.

Dater: Absolutely. It has become really kind of… an issue is, “Is this part a suppressor part or is this an adapter?” I talked to Jonathan Arthur Ciener at the SHOT show several years ago, and said, “You know, with your .22 kits, why don’t you just sell some of the barrels that are about a half-inch too long? Either thread them, or let us thread them.” Jonathan said, “Well, then it’s a suppressor part.” I said, “No, John, it’s not a suppressor part. Put a muzzle break on there or a flash hider.” That was a suppressor part in his opinion, so he wouldn’t do that. That’s his interpretation, and at Gemtech we’ve spent a lot of money with attorneys who theoretically understand all of this, and no two of them truly agree on it. Which makes one wonder…

SAR: In ’86, when the ban was coming on, did you manufacture any machine guns?

Dater: I did two conversions during that immediate period building up to the law. They were relatively simplistic, one was converting my AR-15 SP1 into a machine gun and another was an M-2 carbine. Prior to that, I did some HK conversions for a friend of mine who was a Class III dealer. Those, of course, were all fully transferable weapons. They’d be marked as Automatic Weapons Company in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I gave some thought to converting my M1A rifle into an M-14, and I thought, “You know, I’ve shot an M-14, and to be honest, I don’t like it.” I like the M1A, but the M-14, it was uncontrollable in my personal opinion, so I didn’t convert or register it. That was a foolish mistake on my part. It would’ve been worth a small fortune if I’d done it. Right around that time, there was a real scare that while Congress had honed in on machine guns, they’d kind of forgotten about suppressors and other NFA items. A lot of companies thought that Congress was going to come back and “correct” that issue. Many of them registered a whole pile of suppressor tubes, just took proper pieces of aluminum or steel tubing and filed a Form 2 and put markings on them. I did a number in .22 caliber, most of which I still have today, and I periodically just drag one out when I have a project for my own personal stuff, and use that tube and that number.

SAR: There were thousands of suppressors registered in that period.

Dater: Empty Suppressor tubes – perfectly legal and proper, many manufacturers did it. But the other shoe never dropped. Some companies just sold the registered tubes out as serialized empty tubes for a small amount of money, just to convert junk into money. Some have actually just piecemealed them, taken them and built them up themselves. Mine, the ones for a .22 long rifle, were originally designed for the Mark II pistol. I made some muzzle cans out of them and made a couple of .22 rifle cans out of them. These are just for my own personal usage. I haven’t exploited it or tried to dump things. When you dump things on the market that are incomplete, you’re accepting an awful lot of liability. Somebody else completes it, and they screw up and someone gets hurt, they go to whoever’s name is on the outside of the product.

That’s something people found out about on the machine gun receivers that they sold with their name on it. Other people were taking them and putting them together improperly. Just think of all the 1919A4 sideplates, Sten tubes, or M-60 receivers that somebody sold, and they hadn’t built them up themselves, and next thing you know, Uncle Joe’s Bicycle, Muffler and Sten Shop had done the finish work on it, and you had guns that were unreliable and unsafe, but they had the original Class 2’s name on them. They’re potentially unreliable and/or dangerous. All you need is for someone to have their ten-year-old kid out there shooting, have something come unglued, and their eye gets put out. Let alone the tragedy, you’re going to get sued, there’s no question about it, your name’s on it. A good general rule of thumb is that YOU know what you’re doing, and you’re not going to put out an unsafe product with your name on it.

SAR: There are many examples of this in the market today. You can see ads that read something like “Original Maremont M60” and when you check it out it is a rewelded gun, but because it says “Maremont” on one of the parts they put it on the paper. In that same period, you were working on some American 180s…

Dater: That was the S&S guns (Sid McQueen). He decided to make an American version of the AM180, and I think he made 24 receivers total. They were anodized and the first ten had various colors. The anodize was generally decorative, it was not hard, with one exception. There were black guns and blue guns. He had one that was red, one green, one gold, and maybe one that was pink. One, grey, was hard anodized, and that was serial number 010, and I ended up buying it, and I still have it. It was kind of a dark gray because it was hard anodized. The subsequent ones were all decorative black anodize, and I engraved almost all of those. Those AM-180s are marked “S&S Arms, Albuquerque, New Mexico.” I also engraved almost all of Sid’s Sidewinder submachine guns, which were sandblasted and black oxide.

There was also somebody in Utah who was making AM-180s. I never saw any of them, but what I heard is that he wasn’t actually making them, but imported a whole bunch of them. The Europeans do not mark the receiver. They’re probably a little more technically accurate. They mark the part that receives the cartridge, which is the barrel, and they stamp the serial number on the barrel. When a barrel wears out, they just bring in a new barrel and transfer the number to the new barrel. So, a number of the American 180s did come in that just had numbers on the barrel. Some of those, not all, but some of them ended up getting American people’s marks on them as being made in America, because the marks were put on the receiver.

SAR: So they were transferable instead of “Dealer Samples.” Most people today don’t realize it, but ATF’s policy pre-1986 on “Dealer Samples” was that we generally could not keep them on ending our four digit SOT status. I think the readers of SAR would be interested in the birth of a suppressor, and what you have to do, to go through to make something that actually could be used by the US military or could be used by a military operations group reliably. Pick one of your Gemtech line and let’s get back to that process.

Dater: In my opinion one of the most brilliant suppressor designers of the century was Doug Olson. I would put him even above Maxim. Doug was unique. When I met him, he was working for Lynn McWilliams at AWC Systems Technology in Arizona. AWC was the leader in the civilian market at that time and subsequently transferred most of its energy into the government market, where it successfully remains today. Doug told me once, “I don’t want to look at other people’s designs, I don’t want to look at other people’s product, because it’s going to bias me.” He also once wrote about the birth of a suppressor that it cost over $250,000 to do it right. I would agree that it is extremely expensive and time consuming to design a new one.

The one that sticks in my mind the most is our (Gemtech’s) M-4 96D, which we developed in 1996. It was to compete on a request from Crane. We got the request, I believe it was on March 30th of ’96, and they wanted an M16 suppressor, and they gave maximum sizes, maximum weights, minimum reduction. They wanted a quick detach system. Then they had idealized dimensions and performance, what the actual goal was. We didn’t have anything anywhere near that in our offerings. We had played a little bit with some quick detach mounting systems. We received the proposal request on March 30th, and we had to deliver 10 working units for testing by May 10th, and we had to have done some of the testing ourselves, to make sure that it would stand up to what they were going to do. Basically, we dropped everything and did it. Greg Latka improved the mounting system to what we named the Bi-lock mount. We decided on three specific baffles of relatively conventional design, that in our experience would yield the right performance, and Greg sent over some baffles and some tubes. My job was to try and make them work. That was not an easy project. We evaluated and tried various spacings; we tried putting the baffles closer together and actually using more baffles. We found that the three with the spacing that we ended up using worked the best, but it wasn’t giving us the kind of performance that we wanted. The actual sound reduction level was about 24 decibels.

Then, I started in calculating and saying, “Well, we’ll put some jetting here, we’ll put some jetting there.” It turned out, when we were all through, we measured about 32 decibels reduction on it. Although two of the baffles looked like conventional M-style baffles, and one of them – the blast baffle – was a relatively flat baffle, we ended up with three baffles that were very different. The two M-baffles had different jetting. There were requirements that it had to drain water in a certain length of time and still be functional. We did our testing, and in our initial testing, we had some weaknesses that we found. We bulged the tube when shooting it with water in it. We strengthened a few items in there, strengthened some wall thickness, and changed a few materials. By the time we submitted, we had all of our ten units complete and ready to go by, I think it was the fifth of May, and we sent them off on the Brown Truck, and they arrived along with our proposal, all the paperwork, on the ninth of May, and the bid was all opened on the tenth. We competed very well. On the M4 96D suppressor, the Navy measured it at 32.7 decibels reduction. We were a little upstart company. There were only three companies who responded. One of them was Knights Armament, who was the one who ended up getting the contract, and there was us, and then Ops Incorporated, who had a good suppressor but did not have a quick detach mounting system at that time. That meant there were actually only two that ended up in the competition. Knight got the contract, and that was okay, we got one hell of a good “can” out of it. I have seen our baffle stack used by our competition, one of our competitors is using it with no changes that we can tell. Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery. We’re still using that form of stack with engineering upgrades in some of our products today.

SAR: It’s a very effective piece and it set a bar for others to aspire to. Like many of the designs in the Nineties, this was a keystone achievement.

Dater: An extremely effective suppressor. Well, that was almost 24 hours a day, constantly pushing to try and develop the technology, lots of testing, lots of trial and error. Not counting our time, we had approximately $25,000 in machining costs associated with it that Greg provided. Then there was, of course, my time, and then Jim Ryan’s time. Jim Ryan and Mark Weiss, who were still in Washington State at that time, did all the paperwork, put together the bid package and the proposal, the pricing schedule, and this whole thing. It was a true education. If we had counted all of our time, paid ourselves reasonable salaries, and had a little more machinery on the floor, to maybe fine tune a little further, I would guess that it would’ve run at least $100,000. When you look at being awarded a true military contract, the inspection expenses and setting up the inspection systems and certifications is an extremely tedious, time-consuming and expensive process as well.

For people to look at the cost of what the military pays in the end for a suppressor is deceptive if you simply look at the cost of just making the can, because the military contract demands a tremendous amount of backup work, and checking and waiting to get paid, and acceptance trials. You have to supply a bunch of cans to them for them to use and destroy. And for a small company, that is not inexpensive, to send them product that, although, for testing, although you may get it back, you usually can’t do anything with it except send it to the landfill. This is true for any product submission to the military.

SAR: The M496D didn’t go into the government contract, but it’s been a very successful offering for Gem Tech.

Dater: Not only in the civilian market and the law enforcement market, but it has also been successful in the military market. The product has been seen basically all over the world in the hands of military users. There have been numerous military purchase orders on it, and it’s been used in a lot of different combat situations. There are foreign military purchase orders also. It’s been a very successful unit. Now, with Gemtech’s newer G5 system addressing the issues of servicing the mounting system, we are evolving again. With all of this talk about the cost and effort that goes into designing and presenting a new suppressor to the market, I feel the need to comment here about suppressors used in real-world situations. The Internet Walter Mitty self-styled experts bicker about how one suppressor is so far superior to another because of a 1 dB difference in performance. Suppressors used by real “operatives” are rarely as quiet and/or compact as some of the modern US designs, but they are more than adequate to do the intended job: covert assassinations in crowded environments, confusing the enemy, allow the operative to do what he was sent to do, and then let him successfully get back to safety. The vast majority of government purchased suppressors are certainly not for that type of thing – they are to protect the hearing of the users, facilitate communication on the battlefield or mission, and to mask location of the operator. One dB does not really make a difference in that environment; there are so many other factors than strict sound reduction that frequently a slightly less effective suppressor can be a better choice due to size, robustness, ease of mounting, longevity or a variety of other factors. It’s a mistake to think that one dB lower in an Internet claim matters on whether a suppressor is superior or not.

SAR: Gemtech has now been around for over 15 years and has a significant portion of the US market. The company is well known internationally, but is there some reason why the company has not captured the non-US market?

Dater: You touched on a really sore spot here. In order to export, we need the consent of not only BATF, but also of the Department of State. BATF will grant the export permit only after receipt of the State Department export license, which is where the problem lies. The issue is that there are no legislative provisions for approving the DSP-5 application for an export license. Rather, the decision process by the approving officials is arbitrary, capricious, and political in nature. The general policy is to deny a license to export a silencer. It is easier to get a license to export a fully armed F-16 with Sidewinder missiles or a ton of machine guns than it is to export a silencer. I have been told that the Department of State considers the only use for silencers is for assassination, which is contrary to US policy. While there may be some small end user community that operates like this, as I have stated, the tens of thousands of suppressors in military and LE use perform a much different service.

SAR: You have been seen around the world frequently in the last several decades, exploring the designs out there.

Dater: Yes, and that is something I really enjoy a lot. I like the people and the places and the history especially. In my travels, I’ve been extremely privileged to have had the opportunity for numerous extensive visits in England at the Ministry of Defense Pattern Room with the late Herbie Woodend. Richard Jones, now of the National Firearms Centre in Leeds has been a tremendous help, and when he was at the MOD Pattern room he was as well. One of the old MOD Pattern Room crew we referred to as “Q” just because he seemed to have all the interesting toys, sort of similar to what James Bond would’ve been given. People have talked about the machine gun collections and the cannon collections there, and they were just truly mind-boggling, but to me, the suppressor collections were incredible as well, and the opportunity to be able to disassemble, photograph in detail, and measure and study the designs from various parts of the world was fantastic. The collections there include items from the Communist bloc regions, items that were not available in the United States because of import restrictions on Communist-made products. The technology, some of which was old, some of which was crude, but as we found, some of which was quite effective, in spite of being old, crude, and fairly large. I would like to comment here that these have been fabulous opportunities. I think, had it not been for the generosity of Herb Woodend and Richard Jones at the MOD Pattern Room with their time and knowledge, I would not have learned nearly as much about non-US silencer design as I have. I’m very indebted to those men.

The chances we’ve had to do sound measurements on some of these historical items have been wonderful. I remember at Zastava in Serbia, being able to do a lot of sound measurements on the Soviet AK suppressors as well as many designs from the Balkans. I hope to continue this study and travel for many more years.

OSS Weapons II, second edition
Dr. John Brunner, Ph.D.
Phillips Publications, Williamstown, N.J.
Copyright 2005
$59.95
ISBN 0-932572-43-X
Reviewed by Jon Miller MD

“During WW II, America formed its first formal intelligence agency which came to be known as the Office of Strategic Services or OSS… Part of the OSS was dedicated to the development and use of a wide range of clandestine and exotic weapons. Borrowing, improving and inventing new devices, the finest minds from the field(s) of science and technology worked around the clock to produce this vast array of devices… (many) would remain in use for decades to follow. This is the definitive historical study of those weapons developed and used by the OSS”

That dust jacket entry modestly introduces an epicurean feast of information surrounding the covert OSS weapons used in World War II.

Author, Dr. John Brunner, was a member of the OSS. He became familiar with many of the weapons during his OSS service behind Japanese lines in China. Following the war he accumulated a definitive collection of these clandestine weapons. Most of his collection now resides in the Special Forces Museum at Fort Bragg.

Through decades of research, Dr. Brunner became an internationally recognized authority and reliable consultant on weapons developed for or modified by the OSS. This manuscript is the culmination of his lifetime of research.

The scholarly second edition is composed of almost three hundred thoroughly illustrated pages of annotated research including detailed citations of the original information sources. Historians, researchers, authors and weapons aficionados will appreciate the copious detailed references to original sources regarding each device. Many of the references are newly declassified material from the OSS’s successor, the Central Intelligence Agency.

The body of the book is divided into four areas:

• I) Personal Weapons and Equipment (Firearms, Edged Weapons, Other personal Weapons, and Special Equipment),
• II)Sabotage Devices (Incendiary Devices, Demolition Devices, Contact Firing Devices and Delayed Action Firing Devices),
• III) Communications Equipment (Radios, Press X and Gilhooley)
• IV) Other Special Equipment which includes the marine equipment.

Of special interest to SAR readers are the sections dedicated to the quieter weapons including crossbows, compressed air devices, silenced pistols, rifles and submachine guns. The Liberator pistol, Marlin UD-42, M-3 grease gun and Sten also receive attention.

This volume is profusely illustrated with thirty-five pages of modern color photographs along with contemporary black and white and photos of weapons and personnel.

A six page appended bibliography suggests a reading list with critiques of information included in the suggested material.

OSS Weapons II is the most extensive and reliable reference book of weapons created for or adapted by the OSS in World War II available.

Phillips Publications
P.O. Box 168
Williamstown, N.J. 08094-0168
(609) 567-0695