The OIG found, for example, that NFA Branch staff do not process applications or enter data into the NFRTR in a consistent manner, which leads to errors in records and inconsistent decisions on NFA weapons applications. In addition, the NFA Branch has a backlog of record discrepancies between the NFRTR and inventories of federal firearms licensees that were identified during ATF compliance inspections. Further, the NFRTR’s software programming is flawed (by ATF’s own admission) and causes technical problems for those working in the database.

“The lack of consistency in procedures and the backlog in reconciling discrepancies, combined with the technical issues, result in errors in the records, reports and queries produced from the NFRTR,” the OIG wrote. “These errors affect the NFRTR’s reliability as a regulatory tool when it is used during compliance inspections of federal firearms licensees.” However, the OIG said it did not find evidence that individual weapons owners or federal firearms licensees had been sanctioned or criminally prosecuted because of errors in the database.

The NFA Branch Chief (Ken Houchens) told the OIG that he has recently initiated several actions to reduce errors in the NFRTR, such as hiring additional staff, improving communications and training of staff members, and revising a procedures manual. Additionally, both the NFA Branch Chief and the Assistant Director of the Office of Enforcement Programs and Services both stated that lack of funding precluded other significant actions such as correcting and upgrading the programming for the NFRTR and implementing online submissions of applications.

Timeliness Improvements

The OIG found that the NFA Branch has decreased the amount of time it takes to process NFA weapons applications and improved responsiveness to customer inquiries. Between 2004 and 2006, the average processing time for all eight types of NFA weapons applications decreased collectively from 30 days to 8 days. (The eight types of NFA weapons applications are: Form 5320.20, Application to Transport Interstate or to Temporarily Export Certain NFA Firearms; Form 1, Application to Make and Register a Firearm; Form 2, Notice of Firearms Manufactured or Imported; Form 3, Application for Tax-Exempt Transfer of Firearm and Registration to Special Occupational Taxpayer; Form 4, Application for Tax-Paid Transfer and Registration of a Firearm; Form 5, Application for Tax-Exempt Transfer and Registration of a Firearm; Form 9, Application and Permit for Permanent Exportation of a Firearm; and Form 10, Application for Registration of Firearms Acquired by Certain Government entities.)

In the same time period, the average processing time for the four types of applications used by individual weapons owners (Forms 1 and 4) and NFA weapons dealers (Forms 3 and 5) for registering and transferring NFA weapons decreased collectively from 39 days to 10 days. Specifically, processing time for Form 1 decreased from 99 days to 28 days; for Form 4, from 81 days to 9 days; for Form 3, from 30 days to 4 days; and for Form 5, 30 days to 9 days. The NFA Branch Chief attributed the improved processing times to the hiring of more contractor Data Entry Clerks, who enter data from the paper forms into the NFRTR, thereby freeing other staff to focus on reviewing the content of the applications.

To further improve customer service, the NFA Branch established a working relationship with the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association (NFATCA), which represents NFA weapons dealers, manufacturers, importers, and owners. To build that relationship, the NFA Branch hosted a meeting with members of the NFATCA executive board in 2006 to demonstrate Branch operations and discuss NFA and NFRTR issues. The NFA Branch and the NFATCA also collaborated to write a handbook on the NFA and the weapons registration process, which ATF has made available on its website. However, the OIG found that the ATF website’s generally poor structure makes it difficult to navigate or locate relevant information and is a potential barrier to the electronic handbook’s use. The NFATCA has since announced it will offer printed copies of the handbook for sale at cost. Contact them at their website address: www.NFATCA.org for details.

Background

On June 26, 1934, the U.S. Congress passed the National Firearms Act (NFA) to limit the availability of machine guns, short barreled shotguns and rifles, firearm sound suppressors and other similar arms often used by criminals during the Prohibition Era. The NFA imposed a tax on the manufacture, import, and distribution of NFA arms not under the control of the U.S. government. The Bureau of ATF collects the taxes and maintains NFA arm possession records in a central registry – an electronic database called the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR), which contains records on almost 2 million arms. ATF’s NFA Branch (under the Firearms and Explosives Services Division, Office of Enforcement Programs and Services) maintains the NFRTR and processes all applications to make, manufacture, import, register, and transfer NFA arms.

Congress expanded the scope of the NFA through the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 to include destructive devices (bombs, incendiary devices such as flash bang grenades, and arms with a bore of greater than one-half inch), frames and receivers that can convert a semiautomatic arm into an automatic arm, and other concealable arms. The GCA restricts registrations of NFA arms only to makers (unlicensed individuals who usually make one arm at a time for individual use), manufacturers and importers. Further, the GCA called for a 30-day amnesty period ending December 1, 1968, where anyone possessing an NFA arm could register it without consequence. Any NFA arm not registered during the amnesty is considered contraband and cannot be registered.

On May 19, 1986, Congress passed the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act to prohibit possession of machine guns that were not legally possessed prior to its enactment. Thus, newly made machine guns were to be available only to the U.S. government and law enforcement entities.

NFA arms and their possessors must be registered with the NFRTR, and whenever possession is transferred (through sale, rental, gift, or bequest) the registration must be updated. A possessor is required to retain the approved NFA weapons application form as proof of a weapon’s registration and make it available to ATF upon request (26 U.S.C. § 5841 [e]). Manufacturers, importers, and makers of NFA weapons also are required to register each newly made, manufactured or imported arm.

The (OIG) examined ATF’s effectiveness in maintaining the records of registrations and transfers of NFA arms in the NFRTR. The OIG conducted the review in response to requests from members of Congress who had received letters from citizens expressing concern about the accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR. These citizens asserted that errors in the NFRTR and errors in decisions by NFA Branch employees left NFA weapons possessors vulnerable to unjust convictions for violating the NFA.

Inconsistent Data Entry

Due to inadequate standard operating procedures, training and communications, NFA Branch staff members do not process applications or enter data uniformly into the NFRTR. The staff’s variations in completing these tasks results in errors in NFRTR records, reports and queries as well as inconsistent decisions on NFA weapons registration and transfer applications, the OIG found.

The NFA Branch does not provide staff with a comprehensive standard operating procedures manual. The NFA Branch Chief inherited an undated manual of standard operating procedures when he assumed his position in 2005. The manual was under revision at the time of the OIG’s review, but the NFA Branch Chief said he has not had enough staff to complete the revision.

Specifically, none of the staff members the OIG investigators interviewed had ever received a copy of this manual as a resource to help them perform their duties. Instead, the procedural memorandums and directives provided to NFA Branch staff as guidance were usually specific to one issue and did not cover the basic information needed to process applications and enter data into the NFRTR.

NFA Branch staff also stated that they did not have adequate written direction on how to enter data such as abbreviations in the NFRTR, how to maintain application files, how often to contact applicants with pending applications, the proper method for fixing or working around NFRTR technical flaws, and who has the responsibility for correcting errors in NFRTR records. Therefore, staff members relied on each other or on managers to verbally explain what they believed the procedures were for processing applications and navigating the NFRTR database.

Additionally, the OIG said training for new NFA Branch staff members is ad hoc and not uniform. Staff members said that due to inadequate training, it was difficult to become familiar with the NFRTR and navigate easily through the database, a vital skill needed to process applications and conduct record checks. Staff also said inadequate training hampered their ability to learn about the NFA and the process for registering and transferring NFA weapons. Supervisors’ inadequate training led to variations in their direction and inconsistent decisions about approving or disapproving NFA weapons registration and transfer applications.

The OIG also found that the NFA Branch did not hold regular staff meetings so that the staff would stay current on changes in NFA weapons regulations. However, in March 2007, after the fieldwork for the OIG review was completed, the NFA Branch Section Chiefs began conducting monthly staff meetings to improve the flow of information within the Branch.

Backlog of NFRTR Errors

The NFA Branch is not promptly correcting discrepancies between the NFRTR records and licensee inventories, the OIG says. The NFA Branch is responsible for addressing the errors and discrepancies, identified by Industry Operators Investigators (IOIs) during compliance inspections of licensees. However, there are no established guidelines for the Branch on reconciling the errors within a certain amount of time, and as of March 2007 the Branch had a backlog of 61 discrepancy reports to reconcile. This means that some corrections to records do not get made before a licensee receives their next inspection, which could be 3 years later. At the time of the OIG’s review, one staff member was working part-time on the backlog. About one of four discrepancies could not be resolved without research by NFA Branch staff.

In a survey taken of IOIs by the OIG, 46.5% (139 of 299) reported that they found a discrepancy between the NFRTR inventory report and a licensee’s inventory “always” or “most of the time.” Further, 44.4% (133 of 299) said that the discrepancy was due to an error in the NFRTR “always” or “most of the time.” In comparison, none said that the error was “always” on the part of the licensee, and only 2% (6 of 299) said that the error was on the part of the licensee “most of the time.”

While licensees worry that discrepancies could result in their investigation by ATF Special Agents for violations of the NFA and GCA, IOIs told the OIG they only refer cases involving discrepancies to Special Agents when the discrepancy cannot be resolved or when there is a suspicion ofa deliberate violation of law. Between the years 2000 and 2006, only 15 federal firearms licensees were charged criminally for violating the NFA. In 2006, ATF conducted 7,292 compliance inspections and issued 12,176 violations. Of that total, less than 1% (53) was for NFA violations. In 2006, ATF issued an average of 1.7 violations per inspection, but only 0.007 NFA violations per inspection.

The OIG review could not identify any instances in which an NFRTR error resulted in inappropriate seizure of an NFA weapon or in appropriate criminal consequences to an individual weapons owner or FFL-holder. The OIG further asked the NFATCA for examples of its members’ weapons being inappropriately seized due to inaccuracies in the NFRTR, and none were received in response.

While the OIG could not find instances of wrongful seizure or prosecution of individuals or licensees based on ATF errors, it did note two examples (one provided the NFATCA and the other by ATF):

• 1. The NFA Branch incorrectly approved the sale (transfer) of a machine gun from a law enforcement agency to a federal firearms licensee. The licensee subsequently tried to sell (transfer) the weapon to another licensee. However, the NFA Branch discovered its original error and subsequently disapproved both the first and second transactions. The licensee was not allowed to retain possession of the machine gun, and the law enforcement agency did not have the funds to return the $10,000 paid by the licensee for the arm.
• 2. An NFA Branch Examiner processed an application to transfer an NFA weapon from a licensee to another licensee. The seller had purchased the arm from a police department that had, in turn, purchased the weapon ten years before from an importer. The Examiner who handled the original transaction should have stamped the approved application form “restricted” as only holders of certain licenses could possess and transfer the arm. Because the first application form was never stamped, the licensee did not know that he could only resell the weapon to certain license holders. The NFA Branch had to disapprove the licensee’s application to sell the weapon.

ATF Enforcement Actions

In 2006, ATF seized 3,030 NFA weapons, including 1,280 machine guns, 550 sawed-off shotguns and rifles, 571 silencers, 415 destructive devices, and 214 devices categorized as any other weapons. These totals included unregistered NFA weapons seized during criminal investigations as well as registered and unregistered NFA weapons seized as a result of compliance inspections of licensees.

In the OIG-conducted survey, IOIs were asked how many times in the past year they had referred a licensee to an ATF Special Agent based on a discrepancy between the NFRTR inventory report and the licensee’s inventory. Of the 298 IOIs who responded, 91% said they had made no referrals, 7% had made one referral, 1.6% had made 2 and less than 1% had made 3. IOIs interviewed emphasized they only refer cases when an NFA weapons registration in the NFRTR cannot be established after discussion with the licensee, the NFA Branch, and extensive searches of the NFRTR, or when they suspect deliberate criminal activity involving NFA weapons.

In fact, the OIG found that few licensees were criminally charged with NFA violations. Between 2000 and 2006, only 15 licensees were charged with violating 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, the chapter of the Internal Revenue Code that includes the NFA. This represents only 6.5% of the total number of licensees (230) criminally charged with any violation.

NFRTR Database

As of November 2006, the NFRTR contained registrations for 1,906,786 weapons. The total number of weapons included 1,186,138 destructive devices (including 918,517 flash bang grenades), 391,532 machine guns, 150,364 silencers, 95,699 short barreled shotguns, 33,518 short barreled rifles, 48,443 weapons categorized as any other weapons, and 1,082 “unknown” devices or weapons not classified in the other categories (this includes older weapons or devices registered with ATF before the NFRTR was automated that are not clearly identified or do not fit in any other category of weapon).

On a percentage basis, the weapons in the NFRTR as of November 2006 break down into: 62.2% destructive devices, 20.5% machine guns, 7.9% silencers, 5% short barreled shotguns, 1.8% short barreled shotguns, 2.5% any other weapon and 0.1% unknown.

Each record in the NFRTR contains the make, model, and serial number of the weapon, the date of its registration, and the name and address of the person entitled to possess the weapon. For weapons registered prior to 1983, the NFRTR contains record entries of the three most recent transactions. After 1983, the records contain all transactions. Another database linked to the NFRTR database contains electronic images of the related applications forms for both pre- and post- 1983 registered weapons.

The reason for this is that when the NFRTR was automated in 1983, the NFA Branch chose to focus on entering all transaction information for newly registered weapons, so NFA Branch staff entered only the three most recent records for each NFA weapon registered prior to 1983. A full transaction history of the pre-1983 weapon is available in the imaging database, which contains scanned copies of original application forms. All transactions of an NFA weapon registered after 1983 are entered into the NFRTR.

ATF Database Flawed

The NFRTR’s programming has not been modified since 1997 when ATF converted the original 1983 electronic database to an Oracle platform. Several NFA Branch personnel described the NFRTR programming as obsolete and identified flaws: (1) older NFRTR records with empty data fields can improperly exclude the records from search results, (2) the NFRTR can erroneously generate two separate records for one weapon, (3) the system lacks controls to prevent inconsistent data entry, (4) the system lists incorrect owners of NFA weapons on queries and reports, and (5) when multiple weapons are registered on a single form, a change entered in the NFRTR for one weapon incorrectly applies thechange to all the weapons listed on that form.

One IOI, in making a comment about the need to update the NFRTR computer system, said, (ATF should) “…stop operating like a third world Department of Motor Vehicles office.” For the last five years, ATF would not make system enhancements to the NFRTR as ATF planned to integrate many of the databases of its National Tracing Center, Firearms and Explosives Imports Branch, and NFA Branch through the Firearms Integrated Technology (FIT) project. ATF received budget allocations for FIT in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. However it reallocated the funds to another mission which exhausted the funding by 2004. ATF’s subsequent funding requests for FIT have not been successful. During 2006, the NFA Branch processed and entered 402,151 NFA weapons applications forms into the NFRTR.

As of March 2007, the NFA Branch had a staff of 20 ATF personnel and 12 contractors. The NFA Branch is authorized to have a complement of sixteen Examiners, eight Specialists, one Special Occupational Tax (SOT) Specialist, and one Information Technology Specialist. As of March 2007, it had only ten Examiners, four Specialists, one SOT Specialist, and one Information Technology Specialist.

Not All NFA Staff on “Same Page”

One Examiner interviewed by the OIG stated that, due to poor training, not all staff members are “on the same page” on how they approach their work and applications may be processed incorrectly. He cited an instance in which an Examiner needed to know whether a state allowed a certain type of NFA weapon, and rather than researching the current state law or regulation, the Examiner simply queried the NFRTR to view a similar transaction in that state that had been approved in the past. State laws and regulations may change since a previous transaction the OIG pointed out in its report, but that Examiners are not kept current on these changes and are not trained to research the laws and regulations appropriately, instead of following old transactions.

Members of industry have long complained that the same question on the regulations posed to NFA staff will bring different responses, depending on who is asked. The OIG research bore this out as it noted that “inadequate training could affect the direction given to NFA Branch staff as well as information provided to the ATF field offices.”

For example, the lack of training on NFA-related state laws and regulations affected the guidance from Section Chiefs to Examiners. Further, an IOI survey respondent commented, “We can call (the) NFA (Branch) and speak to different people (on the same issue) and get different answers. This has happened more than a few times in the past.”

The Section Chiefs are usually selected from the Examiner pool and do not receive additional training, either supervisory or NFA-related. “They receive the same ad hoc training as other NFA Branch staff, and the quality of the information received during the training is not standard,” the OIG noted.

“Because new staff members receive different training from different people who also were not formally trained, the quality of the training in terms of topics covered and accuracy of information is insufficient,” the OIG reasoned. “Incomplete and inaccurate training leads to errors in the NFRTR and in decisions based on the NFRTR. Moreover, variations in direction based on inadequate training could produce inconsistent approvals or disapprovals of NFA weapons applications.”

One of the NFATCA representatives who maintains a federal license for NFA weapons estimated for the OIG that during his compliance inspections the NFRTR inventory reports were 25 to 30% inaccurate. He added that NFA licensees fear compliance inspections because the NFRTR is inaccurate, not because their inventory records are inaccurate. Another NFATCA representative said that NFA licensees “should not be afraid of compliance inspections because their records are probably better than ATF’s.”

Multiple Registrations Linked

NFA Branch staff noted that the NFRTR does not always indicate the correct owner of weapons on queries and reports. The NFA Branch Program Manager stated to the OIG that this problem was identified almost immediately after the new NFRTR system was deployed in 1997, but the information technology staff was unable to correct the problem and ATF did not pursue resolution.

When multiple NFA weapons are registered or transferred on the same form they are initially linked by their NFRTR-generated control number. This control number is based on the form and not the weapon and applies to the records of all weapons registered on that form. The link between weapons registered on the same NFA weapon application is broken only after weapons have been transferred to new owners two subsequent times. The weapons would then have their own NFRTR-generated control numbers. This programming flaw is most evident when a transfer of a weapon is canceled by the applicant and that weapon’s preceding transaction involved multiple weapons registered or transferred on the same form. If no action is taken to correct the record to show the true current owner, all NFRTR queries and reports will incorrectly list the transferee from the canceled transaction as the current owner. However, when an NFA Branch staff member manually fixes the record that show the correct owner of the weapon, the NFRTR will apply that change to all the weapons on the form, which are still linked by the same control number. Since it takes a significant amount of time and effort to ensure that only the relevant weapon on that record is changed, Examiners often do not fixvsuch records, the OIG said.

Non-Completion of Vital Projects

ATF has initiated, but not completed due to budget constraints, two projects that the OIG said would improve the accuracy of the NFRTR and increase the efficiency of the NFA Branch. The first involves scanning all NFA weapons transfer and registration applications since 1934 into digital files in a database and establishing an indexing system to search this new database. The second project, titled e-Forms, is creating an electronic filing system for individual weapons owners and federal firearms licensees to submit NFA weapons applications online.

The OIG found that ATF has a oneyear backlog worth of NFA weapons applications to image and index. In 2005, the NFA Branch had four contractors working on imaging and indexing, and the backlog was only 6months. In June 2006, budget cuts forced ATF to reduce the number of contractors to two, which has increased the backlog significantly.

ATF has not completed the e-Forms project it initiated in 2004. The capability for individuals and industry to submit applications online would reduce data entry errors by NFA Branch personnel, detect errors on applicant’s registration and transfer forms before entry into the NFRTR, and allow importers and manufacturers to check the status of forms they submit electronically for processing.

In fiscal year 2002, ATF received funding for the e-Forms project and developed the requirements document for an electronic filing system and a prototype of the system. By 2006, a prototype of the system was demonstrated to the industry. However, due to budget constraints, ATF suspended the project before the system was finalized and implemented. ATF estimated that it needed just under $14 million to complete the e-Forms system and to operate it for the first two years and that $200,000 would be needed to operate it each year thereafter.

Recommendations

To help improve the processing of NFA applications and reduce errors in the NFRTR, the OIG recommended that ATF:

• Improve the ATF website by making it easier to find NFA information, such as frequently asked questions, applications forms and instructions, NFA Branch contact information, and the NFA Handbook.
• Develop and disseminate to all NFA Branch staff a comprehensive standard operating procedures manual that includes all NFA weapons application processes, NFRTR processes and data entry codes and abbreviations.
• Develop uniform and structured training for staff members that includes standard operating procedures and hands-on experience with the NFRTR. Ensure that all NFA Branch staff members attend the training and that the staff trainers are themselves properly trained. Provide training for the Section Chiefs on supervisory techniques.
• Establish regular and recurring methods of communication to NFA Branch staff.
• Resolve discrepancies between the NFRTR and inventories of federal firearms licensees in a timely manner.
• Develop and implement an action plan to fix technical programming flaws and errors in the NFRTR.
• Develop and implement an action plan for eliminating the backlog of imaging and indexing forms for the imaging database.
• Develop and implement an action plan for completing the e-Forms project.

The OIG concluded that since 2004, the NFA Branch has reduced the overall average processing time by more than two-thirds for the most used forms and has improved its responsiveness to customer service inquiries and requests for information; however it has much more work to do to improve its operations.

The author publishes two of the small arms industry’s most widely read trade newsletters. The International Firearms Trade covers the world firearms scene, and The New Firearms Business covers the domestic market. He also offers FFL-mailing lists to firms interested in direct marketing efforts to the industry. He may be reached at: FirearmsB@aol.com.

Two New Products from TSSI

Tactical & Survival Specialties, Inc. (TSSI) focuses on providing logistical support for conventional military, law enforcement and disaster response professionals in the US and in over 25 allied nations. The Range First Aid Kit can treat minimal to worst-case injuries occurring on firearms and training ranges. Contents of the kit include a variety of supplies from wound and burn dressings to cravats and splints. All items are contained in a highly visible, waterproof, bright orange case which is easily portable or mountable. Tactical & Survival Specialties, Inc. is one of the oldest and most experienced providers of tactical and specialized operational equipment. They now present their new Tactical Vehicle Kit. This kit provides access to critical equipment while in a mobile combat environment. Designed as customizable seat cover available for the HUMVEE and popular law enforcement SUV’s, pouches and panels are easily portable and interchangeable. Panels are available for assault as well as medical needs. Modular pouches sold separately for mission specific needs. For more information contact TSSI, Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 1890, Harrisonburg, VA 22801. Phone: (540) 434-8974. Website: www.TacSurv.com.

New APV Scope from Meuller Optics

Mueller Optics, the provider of a “simply better” line of optics for shooting enthusiasts, is proud to announce the widespread acceptance and praise for their newly introduced Mueller All Purpose Variable (APV) scope. With and extremely wide field of view and edge-to-edge clarity, the new APV is said by its fans to outperform anything in its class. The new APV has been specifically designed for smaller to medium caliber firearms. The new scope is in the sub $100 range.

Over the past several years, shooters all across North America have been noticing Mueller’s products and their overall price to performance ratio, and with the introduction of Mueller’s newest high-end scope, (the TAC II – retail $299) the glowing reviews and accolades have continued. In one third-party review the TAC II was judged to have outperformed both the 3200 and 4200 from Bushnell and the Vx3 offering from Leupold. For more information please contact them at Mueller Optics LLC, Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 457, Johannesburg, MI 49751. Phone: (989) 705-8885. You can visit their website: www.muelleroptics.com.

New Mil-Spec Beretta and S&W M&P LaserGrips from Crimson Trace

Crimson Trace has introduced another product in their continuing line of handgun LaserGrips. Their newest Model is the LG-402M (Mil-spec) for the Beretta Model 92/96/M9 pistol. The LG-402M LaserGrips for the Beretta are a first for Crimson Trace as they meet the military’s strict Mil-Std-810F specification for waterproofness, salt spray and immersion in water to 1 meter for 30 minutes, and other torture type testing. The LG-402M rubberized front strap has two plastic wearpoints on both sides of the activation strap for added durability under the harshest conditions. The rugged and uniquely textured polymer side panels are effective with both a gloved hand and bare hands even when wet. A magnetized slot inside the grip itself is used to house a .050 hex wrench for sighting of the LaserGrips if needed. Two 2032 batteries located in each side of the grips provide over 4 hours of a constant-on beam. A master switch is located in the bottom of the grip to disable activation on the laser. These grips are the highest example of Crimson Trace design and quality and are based upon extensive field data from American fighting men and women. Crimson Trace has also just introduced the Model LG-660 LaserGrip that fits the Smith & Wesson line of M&P full size semi-auto pistols. The innovative design is one of the most integrated and easy to install laser products as it simply replaces the stock backstrap of the M&P. A rear activation switch makes it truly instinctive to activate. A master switch is located on the backstrap and uses a new touch sensor-switch verses a mechanical switch as found on other LaserGrips. This allows the user to turn the unit on or off even while using gloves by simply pressing and holding the recess pressure. Because they are made with the same polymer material as the frame of the M&P, the Model LG-660 LaserGrips flow seamlessly into the design of the gun. For more information on either of these, or any of their extensive line of laser products, please contact Crimson Trace Corporation, Dept. SAR, 9780 SW Freeman Drive, Wilsonville, OR 97070. Phone: (800) 442- 2406. Fax: (503) 783-5334. Website: www.crimsontrace.com.

With several hundred copies of the NFA Handbook in gun owner’s hands, the success of this project speaks volumes. For only $20 you can purchase a three ring binder that allows you quick reference to over 200 pages of NFA law and information. Such a comprehensive collection of information has never before been available in one place. Purchasers of the handbook will be kept on a list so that they can subscribe, for a nominal fee, to get the updates to the handbook as they are issued. Members of the NFATCA board are already working on revisions for the first update that will be delivered in the spring of 2008. Included will be many changes and updates as well as a comprehensive index to assist owners in quickly finding information they need on NFA procedures.

With the release of the NFA handbook, the NFATCA and the Firearms Technology Branch are off and running on the development of the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) Procedures Manual. Many of the issues addressed in the NFA Handbook have raised questions and have made it critical that we begin the process of developing this newest manual.

Let’s be clear that the Firearms Technology Branch of ATF has been working for many years to address standard procedures and issue policy on the many issues facing dealers, manufacturers, collectors, and gun owners. For a number of years now the best firearms attorneys in the country have worked with many of the larger and smaller manufacturers in addressing issues critical to the industry. There is no question that FTB has done their homework and a lot of information is already available when you ask for it. But FTB is so busy with a host of other issues that affect all gun owners that taking on the task to develop and publish an FTB procedures manual is not on the menu anytime in the near future. So the story went for the NFA Handbook. Being short on staff and overburdened with hundreds of daily requests would make it impossible for FTB to place the required resources on a project of such magnitude. The NFATCA has teamed up with FTB to develop the plan, assimilate the resources and to publish the natural follow-on to the NFA Handbook.

The process began by developing a joint Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between FTB and the NFATCA before we could begin the process. This documentserves as the formal agreement between the two teams on who is doing what and where the responsibilities fall. At the time of the initiation of the MOU we must give a lot of credit to Acting FTB Branch Chief Richard Vasquez for helping to push the process along and get this off the ground. With his already busy schedule, Rick lent an enormous amount of time to the effort and we owe him a huge round of applause for his efforts. Once the MOU was completed the NFATCA met with FTB to quickly organize appropriate resources and to develop a preliminary outline on what we expect to address with this undertaking.

Like the NFA handbook, our primary objective with the FTB Procedures Manual will focus on addressing what many of you in the industry refer to as standard operating procedures. We want to make certain that the things we need the most for reference are provided to the community to clear up any misunderstandings that we may have in the industry. We want to document the things we think we already understand and know. The problem most of us experience is that this information is not always readily available so we will solve that problem first.

Our next steps will focus on developing information from many members of our own community concerning interests or concerns that you may have about the right way to do things in the firearms business. Manufacturing, repair, replacement, and many other issues will be addressed to hopefully clear up a lot of information and understanding on proper procedures. To address this portion of the FTB Procedures Manual, many of you will be asked to help us determine what the critical issues are and those that need the most attention. Likewise, we will work closely with all members of FTB to determine where they think we need the most information, or where they experience the biggest problems. Like working with the examiners at the NFA Branch, we will take this opportunity to get the resources at FTB to tell us their side of the story and help bring forth information that will be a huge help for all concerned.

As we gather all of the information, NFATCA board members will actually write the text and begin the collaborative review process with FTB. As we develop the information watch for future articles describing the specifics on our progress.

Still wondering if you should join the NFATCA? We are working hard for you and your support is critical. Log on to www.nfatca.org to see how you can help.

MG 34 The Movie
Volume 1
by Folke Myrvang &
Ed Schroeder
Approx. 55 Minutes
Retail – $25
Review by Chuck Madurski

The MG 34 machine gun was the first General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG) fielded by any major power. While technically and tactically advanced, it was still manufactured the old fashioned way using machined billet parts and forgings and a myriad of other expensive production methods requiring time and expertise that produced high quality, finely finished parts. For the rapidly expanding German military, it required newer, more efficient teaching methods for the men expected to carry this into battle and maintain it in the field. The first two thirds of this video seem to be just that. It shows technicians disassembling portions of the MG 34 and inspecting the gun and components. It also uses excellent (for the time) animation to compare the operation of the gun with that of the Mauser K 98k, the general issue bolt action rifle of the German Army. During this part of the video, many of the differing parts of both guns have their nomenclature nomenclature printed on the screen in German. It is assumed this film was shown with an instructor narrating as it is totally silent.

The last part of the video is high speed video (slow motion to the viewer) of an MG-34 firing. What is remarkable about this is that it was filmed using fluoroscopy, an x-ray video technique, so you can see the internal mechanism operating while going through the firing cycle. This part was produced by the Norwegian Army in the 1970s to look into stoppages and their causes in the MG 34.

The first portion was best viewed at two to four times normal speed due to the slowness of the original production. The fascinating see-through gun was more enjoyable at the normal speed so as to watch the interaction of the parts. Also, it should be noted that due to the differences in screen sizes between the film and the DVD video, sometimes the German nomenclature runs off screen and partially out of view. This is no concern since in most every case enough of the word can be seen to know what it says – if you read German that is!

Though a soundtrack or English translation for the German labels would have been nice with this DVD, it is forgivable when the story behind this disk is known. These German training films were but a myth to Folke Myrvang until not too long ago. Getting the film onto DVD was an expensive process, so the frills were disregarded. He stumbled across them on an auction site out of Germany and they were expensive. While there may be more “out there,” what is on this DVD is all that is known right now. Some of the film was obviously damaged, perhaps by water, which makes it at times difficult to watch. But remember, this material is basically unobtainable anywhere else and, as such, your only choice.

Lastly, a nice companion for the serious student might be an English translation of the MG 34 manuals. These are available from John Baum on line at http:// www.germanmanuals.com/ and includes several titles that range from the operator’s manual to one for use of the Lafette tripod and even a 1943 dated picture book.

Available from Allegheny Arsenal, Inc.
(http://www.mg34.com/mg34_sales.html)
or directly from Folke Myrvang
(folkem@online.no)

Colt Defense’s introduction of piston operated M16/M4 type rifles over the past 3 years has been customer driven and expands the M16/M4 family of weapons. Prior to that, they had experimented with a piston driven mechanism in the late 1960s known as the Colt model 703. This piston system was looked at by the U.S. Army and they came to the conclusion that there was no benefit of the piston system over the direct gas system and the program was dropped.

In the last three years, Colt Defense has been involved in two military programs and one law enforcement program dealing with piston operated firearms. The first was the Special Operation SCAR (Special operations forces Combat Assault Rifle) and they submitted three rifles. The Type A utilized their proprietary one-piece upper receiver and a direct gas operating system. The Type B was a standard M4 upper receiver with an A.R.M., Inc. SIR (Selective Integrated Rail) system with a direct gas operating system. The Type C SCAR entry was Colt’s piston operated carbine utilizing their proprietary onepiece upper receiver. The Type C SCAR, as of this writing, is the only M16/M4 based weapon to ever compete and finish an official U.S. government test and evaluation program. The Type C would later be updated and improved, which leads to Colt’s current LE1020 weapon system. The second military program Colt’s piston system would be used in was the OICW (Offensive Individual Combat Weapon). However, the program was cancelled before Colt could complete the design of that family of weapons.

While Colt intends to offer only one piston operated weapon in its catalog, they are currently integrating the best of both designs into their final offering. The first is known as the LE1020 and the other is what Colt calls their M5. In this article we will get a first-hand look at the M5 carbine. This carbine has been shown at some industry trade shows but never before in its entirety. Small Arms Review gets the exclusive first look at Colt’s other piston carbine: the M5.

The M5 Carbine

The M5 uses a conventional short-stroke tappet piston where a two piece piston/ operating rod strikes the face of the bolt carrier group driving it rearward and the piston rod returns to its forward position by a spring. However, unlike the Colt LE1020, the M5 uses a conventional M4 flat top upper receiver cut with extended feed ramps instead of Colt’s proprietary one-piece upper receiver. The piston itself rotates and locks onto the end of the operating rod. There is a spring and a stop on the rear of the operating rod. The operating rod/piston is inserted from the front of the receiver, pushed inward and guided into the front sight base. In Colt engineering testing, the M5 has fired 18,000 rounds without cleaning (other than the bore of the rifle) and without malfunction.

There are two current front sight base designs for the M5. The first is the one we just spoke of and is primarily for use with the standard upper receiver. The second more so resembles that of the LE1020 where the piston assembly is inserted from the front of the front sight base, slid back into position and held in place by a detent pin. This is designed for use with the one-piece upper receiver.

The front base is also very different from the LE1020 with a change to the front sight itself. The LE1020 uses a front sight assembly that is identical to the standard M16/M4. The M5 front sight is more similar to an AKM. The same front sight post as the M4 is used but the wings that protect the front sight post are round in profile giving greater field of view in-between the front sight base’s sides and the front sight post. This was based on the project leader speaking with many different operators and getting their opinion on what they thought would improve the sight picture of the rifle.

The barrel itself has had some redesign work on it as well though still utilizing the standard M4 feed ramps on the barrel extension. There are modifications of the chamber area of the barrel and the changes further ventilate gas and helps with air circulation by drawing heat out of the receiver and out the handguards. The cycling of the weapon acts as an air pump. Colt engineers have made the M5 in 10.5- and 14.5- inch barrel lengths.

The current prototype M5 utilizes a standard double heat shielded M4 handguard on the bottom and a modified one on the top. However, Colt is currently working on a universal handguard that will include quad Mil-Std-1913 rails. Prototype hand guards have been manufactured using a steel handguard with aluminum heat shields. Final handguard material is still under evaluation.

The bolt carrier is very unique and is quite different from the LE1020 in the way that the carrier key is held in place to cope with being struck by the piston rod. The carrier key is locked in place in the bolt carrier by a T-slot. The male connector is on the carrier key and the female connector is the bolt carrier. Then a screw is torqued to specification and crimped into place. The head of the screw has heavy serrations and, when crimped, is held firmly in place. The inside of the top of the bolt carrier has to be machined out so the two-piece carrier key assembly can be put in place. Due to this being a piston operated system; the gas rings on the bolt are not needed. The bolt is the standard M4 bolt with the heavy extractor spring and black stiffer buffer.

The lower receiver is the standard M4 lower receiver. Part of the design of the M5 upper receiver was so that it could be placed on an existing M4 lower receiver using the standard H buffer. Colt has made a very conscious effort to keep interchangeability of the lower receiver in the event the U.S. military decides they want a piston-operated rifle. Colt would be able to offer a simple retrofit upper receiver group that will meet this potential requirement.

Side Folding Stock Assembly

Another project in development with Colt Defense is the design of a new sidefolding stock. This is accomplished by modifying the bolt carrier and the buffer extension is made significantly shorter. The bolt carrier has been heavily modified and does the job as the bolt carrier and the buffer. The rear of the bolt carrier has been modified so the recoil spring attaches to it. A bumper is placed on the rear of the bolt carrier. In order to assemble the modified lower receiver, the lower receiver is slid into position from the front and the takedown and pivot pins are engaged. To disassemble, both pins must be disengaged and the upper receiver slid out the front of the lower receiver. The stock pivots to the left side and the stock can be moved upward. When folded, the controls (i.e., selector, bolt catch) are easily accessible by the shooter. The stock is telescopic like the M4 and has four positions. The stock resembles that of the M4 as well but strengthened for the configuration it is in. The computer images provided by the Colt Defense engineering department show what they are working on. Models have been made and are currently going through testing.

Conclusions

The best features from both the LE1020 and the M5 will be combined into one. Colt has taken an incremental approach to their final release. Their piston designs have been proven in both the SOCOM trials as well as independent military testing in some foreign countries and it will be very interesting to see the final design. Nevertheless, the question remains as to whether the piston system will be the future of the M16/M4 weapon system, or will it be a passing fad. The debate continues and only time will tell.

Please join Small Arms Review as Contributing Editor Christopher R. Bartocci brings you a rare insideinterview with General William Keys, CEO of Colt Defense, LLC. Many rumors have circulated about how Colt is doing in the industry. SAR gets the opportunity to speak with General Keys about his background, how he came to work for and eventually run Colt, Colt’s corporate status, military production, new product development and much more.

SAR: General Keys, what is your professional background?

Gen. Keys: I had a great Marine Corps career. I commanded everything from a Platoon through a Force. It was a great experience and I loved every minute of it. Given a choice, I’d still be there. I was an Infantry Officer; I served my whole timeas an Infantry Officer. I had three combat tours, two in Vietnam and then I commanded a division in the first Gulf War. My first combat tour was as a rifle company commander with the First Battalion, Ninth Marines and I was a company commander almost my entire first tour in Vietnam 1966 and 1967. For my second tour, I went back in 1972 for about a year as an advisor with the Vietnamese Marine Corps. I was there at the end of the war. Then of course, my third combat tour was as the Commanding General of the 2nd Marine Division during Desert Storm, the First Gulf War.

SAR: What was your first experience with the M16 rifle?

Gen. Keys: That was in Vietnam. The first time was not a great experience. The weapons were just being introduced to the field and we had almost no initial training with them. They may have been fielded too fast but, mostly, we got hardly any indoctrination with the weapon when it was issued. We were told to be at a certain place at a certain time near Dong Ha and the M16s were issued and the M14s were taken back.

The M14 was a solid combat weapon. As I indicated, the M16 had some problems initially, but I think a lot of those could have been solved if we had more training with the rifle early on. I think those initial problems were sorted out in a few months or so and the gun performed well during the rest of the war. It turned out to be a very effective combat weapon that took out a lot of the enemy ground forces. You have to realize that there were a tremendous number of the enemy killed with this weapon. So to say that it didn’t do the job, is not true at all. In short, it turned out to be a very effective combat weapon, and its follow on design, the M4, has battle tested superbly.

SAR: Do you feel that you having been an end-user of military small arms affects the way Colt is run?

Gen. Keys: Absolutely. I feel that it influences my every day here at Colt; not only everything that I learned in the military, but leadership principles, etc., and the fact that I’m making a weapon for Soldiers and Marines in the field and know that they are going to have to use it in combat. So clearly that’s at the top of my priority list all of the time to make this weapon almost flawless, and I will accept nothing less.

SAR: Have you always had an interest in small arms?

Gen. Keys: Yes, I’ve always been kind of a gun guy since I was a kid. I still have my Dad’s guns, rifles and shotguns. I didn’t have a lot to do with handguns early on but as I got into the Marine Corps, I picked up on that experience. Now, I wouldn’t say that I was a “gun nut” but I certainly like guns and feel they serve a necessary purpose.

SAR: How did you become the CEO of Colt?

Gen. Keys: When I retired 1994/1995, I was looking for something to do. I wrote the owner of Colt, Donald Zilkha, at the time and told him that I would like to work for him and run his company because I heard they needed a CEO up here.

He said he didn’t need a CEO but he would put me on the Board. So I went on the Board of Colt in 1996 and remained a member until early 1999 when the company was having problems. They had numerous issues with several CEOs before me and so the Board asked me if I would come up here and take the job of President and CEO. I accepted on the condition I was really allowed to run the show, which they did and I have been here since 1999.

SAR: What is Colt’s current status in the industry? Rumors have been floating around about Colt not doing well and in danger of going under.

Gen. Keys: Well, that’s completely false. In 1999, we had some financial issues. We were very close to facing a serious dilemma but today Colt has never been in a more viable position. Our performance since we separated into two companies, Colt Defense and Colt Commercial, has been superb. The last three years our profit on the defense side is vastly improved and we are coming around on the commercial side as well. Today we are – well last year Colt and I made over 100,000 rifles, primarily M4s for the US Military. So Colt’s never been in a better position all round in probably the last 25 years.

SAR: How would you describe the focus of Colt Defense? Would you consider it mainly military?

Gen. Keys: Yes, it’s mainly military, clearly. The Army is our number one customer and by the Army I mean all services. So without question the U.S. Army as the contracting agency is our number one customer. We service them on a priority basis but we clearly want to make commercial guns, law enforcement and even some Match Target rifles as well. If we don’t make them, it’s because our priority goes to the US military. And we are obligated, especially in a time of war, to make nothing but U. S. Government guns if we have those orders.

However, as I said, we don’t want to get out of the commercial business. We would like to make more guns. One of the reasons that we bought Colt Canada was to allow us to expand production. They are making some law enforcement guns for us now, hopefully more in the future. So we clearly want to make all models of guns but without question, the U. S. Government definitely takes priority. We do service the law enforcement market as our second highest priority. And then finally we will make some civilian rifles.

SAR: Another rumor floating throughout the industry is that Colt is riding on the M4 and that no new products are coming out. Is that a true statement?

Gen. Keys: No, absolutely not. That is not a true statement. We have several guns that have already been developed and we have numerous guns that have been in R&D for a while. We have several piston guns. We competed very well for the SCAR program and were number two in the selection process. There have been a lot of very good enhancements to the basic M4/M16 over the years and they are without question much better weapons than went to war in early Vietnam. They may look similar but they are not the same guns.

We have two different versions of the piston gun, the LE1020 and the M5, which would be another version of the M4 down the road.

SAR: Accusations have come from military as well as industry professionals that Colt has done no improvements to the M4 since 1995. Is this true?

Gen. Keys: No, again, that is absolutely not true. Throughout the years we have worked closely with the Army and among the improvements include the buffer, heavy barrel, extractor spring assembly, compensator washer, bolt life, buttstock, barrel chamber, side swivel adapter, back up iron sights, burst cam, receiver extension and nut. We have also developed modifications for improved “over the beach” usage and more.

SAR: How difficult is it to make improvements and get them adopted into the Army?

Gen. Keys: The Army does not readily accept improvements to the weapon without a lot of detailed engineering work. For example, there is no reason why you couldn’t use a hammer forged barrel, as well as a drilled barrel. In fact, the Army has recently shown an interest in reviewing the hammer forged barrel and we are working on that now. They were going to allow it in a new XM8 program and it is used on the 240, etc. It’s proven over and over again that one is not really that much better than the other one. So to answer your basic question, it’s not easy to get a change into a government gun but on the other side that is not all that bad because the weapons are put through many series of tests prior to them being adopted as the service weapon.

We have a great group of engineers that look at every proposed modification. Wemake guns for a living here and we are not going to recommend anything that’s clearly not what I perceive as being in the best interests of the troops in the field.

SAR: Another rumor is that the company is being sold. Can you confirm or deny this rumor?

Gen. Keys: I think the company’s been up for sale since the day I got here, 10 years ago. You know, the people that own the company are investment bankers, they buy businesses and sell businesses, but we are very secure now and are not up for sale at this time.

Clearly the company is worth a lot of money now and much more than when they bought it. So maybe – if the right buyer came along, and it would have to be the right buyer. Someone who is going take care of the brand, take care of the quality, take care of the government contracts, then yes, of course, they probably would consider an offer.

For the most part I don’t see a change in ownership of the company changing the company. Basically they would probably run it the same; most of the people would be here. I’m not sure about me as the CEO; they may want to bring somebody else in. But clearly, I don’t see the company changing except to improve if it’s sold.

SAR: Okay. You sort of touched on this question already but we will get it out there. Due to the absence of many Colt rifles in the commercial market, the general consensus is that Colt does not care about civilian sales. Can you clarify Colt’s policy on commercial sales?

Gen. Keys: Again, Colt clearly wants to service the commercial market. I mean we feel that we make a very good product. We would like to make more of them. I know, I read the blogs all the time and they say that Colt doesn’t care about the civilians. That’s just not true at all.

But we are a company and we prioritize our capacity and clearly the priority has to go to the military. And that’s really the only reason we don’t make more commercial rifles. Our next priority is the law enforcement market. The LE6920 (Colt’s Law Enforcement Carbine) is the premiere law enforcement gun in the country. It’s very well thought of and is very competitive with the other companies that make a black rifle. We are always looking for ways to grow in this market and I just put on a very high quality and experienced person in that sales area.

SAR: The company’s motto is “Quality makes it a Colt.” Can you explain what sets Colt apart from the other manufactures of the M16-type rifles?

Gen. Keys: Well, that’s our motto, “Quality makes it a Colt.” To make quality products is everything to me. We really adhere to strict Colt quality measures here both on the military side and the commercial side with the handguns.

Our rifles are made to government specifications and by that I mean there are certain manufacturing processes that go into Colt weapons that I don’t think the other people use. I mean they are more costly and they require tighter tolerances and they just – you come out of it with a much betterrifle. We have to have interchangeability of rifle parts on every lot we build. I don’t think any other manufacturers do that type of production. So the guns are truly quality guns and I’m not trying to knock another’s product here but I think our quality is above the other products in the field of similar nature.

SAR: Are you referring to things such as proof testing bolts and barrels?

Gen. Keys: All that. All that plus the specific manufacturing processes and everything is gauged. The rifles – all of our guns are put through tremendous endurance testing and if one gun in the endurance lot fails then the whole lot fails and the whole lot has to be retested or brought back.

SAR: Does Colt plan on gearing up commercial sales for the rifles in the future or near the future?

Gen. Keys: We want to go into the commercial rifle business a little more. We would like to get our new piston guns out to law enforcement people if they want them, both the LE1020 and the civilian version of what I would call our new M5. We are working hard to make that happen.

SAR: Colt not too long ago acquired Diemaco, or now Colt Canada. Can you tell our readers how this will affect Colt?

Gen. Keys: Colt Canada was our licensee for about 15 years and they were kind of spun off from the parent company and we, number one, wanted to enlarge our footprint in the world. As I said, Colt is now doing well financially. We are growing and we felt this was a good acquisition for the company.

It gave us the ability to go into the Northern European areas, some of the Balkan countries and then with the change in the Soviet bloc, over there. We felt like we could move more of our products into Europe. The company itself is a good company, well run. It’s even more modern of a facility than here and their capacity is about 1,500 rifles or so a month.

SAR: Do you use Colt Canada more as an R&D firm or for manufacturing?

Gen. Keys: We use them for both. One of the reasons we bought them is that they had good R&D capability. And so, we were high on that when we bought them and we use the factory for parts and as I also indicated they make law enforcement guns for us.

SAR: Recently it was on the news that Colt is entering into a license agreement with Turkey to produce M4 carbines. Will this just be to produce for their army or do they intend to sell to other countries?

Gen. Keys: Colt sells weapons to numerous foreign countries: all of course with U.S. State Department approval. We tried to and have had past arrangements with other countries where they make the products, a version of the military weapon. It’s only for that country itself. We could later on expand the license so that they could sell to other places in proximity but at this time only in Turkey – that’s only for Turkey itself. They would have to buy a number of weapons before we actually go over there and set up the factory. Maybe they would buy the parts and put them together over there, etc.

SAR: Where do you see Colt in ten years?

Gen. Keys: I see Colt in ten years as a very viable larger defense company. I mean we are growing every day here. Sales are good. Our production capability, our financial portfolio looks very good for the future. The Army has indicated that clearly they are more than satisfied with the M4 and they are going to look towards putting more of these M4s into the combat unit. The term “pure fleet” has been thrown around: we look very good to the future.

I would see Colt, like I said, as a defense company. They could be a platform company to acquire other smaller defense products, companies, or whatever in the industry type environment that fall under this umbrella. And Colt as kind of the bottom platform company that shores all this up and pulls this together. So I would see Colt in the next ten years could easily be a several hundred million-dollar company.

SAR: Do you have concerns with 2009 coming up with a sole source ending?

Gen. Keys: No, I don’t see it as a major, major concern. Because really and truly that is not something the Army has to do by law. They don’t have to compete the weapon. All they did was give it to Colt for that period of time and so, if they’re satisfied with production, and they appear to be. And we are working with them on price. I don’t really see it is a major issue. We have orders far in the future. I just see it as something that will come and go if we work together.

SAR: The M16/M4-type rifles have been the longest serving family of weapons in U.S. military history. Many attempts have been made to replace it throughout the years and failed. What do you think keeps this weapon system in the hands of our troops?

Gen. Keys: Number one, it’s been highly effective. It’s been a good weapon. It and the AK-47 are the only really combat tested rifles in the past 50 years. I am talking about day-to-day combat. Like I said, after the kinks got worked out of it after Vietnam, the M16A2 and A4 were the basis for our military into the Cold War up until the Gulf War and it served the country well. Then along came the M4, which is even a better weapon because under today’s combat environment, everyone is mounted in a helicopter or some type of a vehicle. You get the same quality and the same range out of the M4 as you do out of the M16 and it’s a lot easier to handle.

And the weapon caliber overall has done exceptionally well and clearly this round will kill the enemy. You can carry more rounds and that’s primarily why it’s been around a long time. There is always going to be the heavy or light argument but when you put them all together, this rifle does the job and it enables you to complete the mission. And it enhances other capabilities as well. You know, you can put all the equipment on this – the rail system, the flashlights, the laser sights, etc. It’s just a perfect combat weapon for today’s environment.

SAR: Does Colt intend to keep revolutionizing this weapon system?

Gen. Keys: Yes, we do. As I indicated, we have several piston models available for both these weapons (LE1020 and M5) but there is really no solid proof piston firing systems are better, just different. We have a lot of changes on the drawing board. I have a great engineering staff here now. Along with Colt Canada, I think I have some of the key engineers in the industry and we are working everyday to enhance the weapon. They keep coming up with new ideas so we could be ready for any competition down the road; but until that comes, we will just improve the weapon. If the Army will take the changes: fine. If they don’t, we will continue to make quality weapons, as they want them. And then we will put these weapons in the civilian market.

SAR: Do you see the M16A2/A4 and the M4 serving this country for the next 20 years?

Gen. Keys: I would say it would be. It’s hard to put a time on it – I don’t know. But it would definitely be ten or so years. I don’t see a need to change. Improve, yes. We always need to improve to make it lighter – make the rounds more capable but the gun itself – the basic gun is a good weapon. Enhance optics, work on weight, etc.

To bring a weapon into the military system, it’s not an overnight process. It would take you 4 to 5 years to do it and do it correctly. All the proper testing, get it accepted by all the services and finally, get it accepted by the troops who use it in the field everyday. I feel it’s going to take 6 to 8 years probably to complete this process.

SAR: Does Colt have a stance on the reliability of the direct gas versus piston systems?

Gen. Keys: Again, both work well, you know, the argument sometimes is that thepiston system doesn’t foul as easily. But there is not really a lot of solid data that proves that. Both these weapons can work well but why change if there is nothing gained. If the individual Solider or Marine takes care of his weapon it’s going to work for him on a consistent basis and we know that the M16 works with the gas system. The piston system is certainly not new. It’s been around for a long time and a lot of weapons had it but there’s just no clear vote on which one is better and I know which one works well, the M4.

SAR: What is the difference between the M4 and the M5?

Gen. Keys: The M4 is just the basic gas system. The M5 would be a piston gun and we are just looking in all aspects at what we just talked about. Whether or not we want to – you know, we would change it to a piston gun; we would offer it down the road, if they want it. But clearly right now they don’t have an idea of whether they want this weapon. They are very satisfied with the M4 as it’s built with the gas operating system.

SAR: My final question is, do you have any message to convey to our readers that we haven’t discussed?

Gen. Keys: I would just say that Colt – Colt’s is America. Colt’s is quality. Colt is going to be around for a long time. I trusted Colt my whole life and I would recommend that you look at Colt weapons as something that you can count on in the future, both for quality and for getting the right weapon out to the people who need it, both on the military and commercial sides.

We’ve got a lot of new developments on the handgun side but we haven’t put them out yet. We will compete for the military pistol when it gets posted. So I think to sum it up, I think Colt has a great future. It’s a great company with great people who work here and I think our record speaks for itself.

SAR: Thank you very much.

Author’s Note: Regarding terminology, some will argue that because the term “assault rifle” (or rather, Sturmgewehr, which literally translates as “storm rifle” in the sense of “storming a defended position”) was devised for the StG 44, no earlier weapon can be called an assault rifle. To avoid such a debate, I will clarify that in this article I am only using the term “assault rifle” as a convenient, well-understood shorthand for “selective-fire military rifle designed around a cartridge intermediate in power between pistol/SMG and full-power rifle/MG rounds.”

The development of the assault rifle, and in particular the relationship between the AK-47 and the StG 44, is always a popular subject for argument. Such debates usually pay little attention to the development of the ammunition and, when they do, they often contain inaccuracies and misunderstandings. This article is an attempt to redress the balance by focusing on the development of the assault rifle cartridge, leading up to the StG’s 7.92×33 Kurz and the AK’s 7.62×39 M1943.

The concept of such a rifle goes back to the start of the 20th century. The Italian Cei-Rigotti was developed between 1900 and 1905 around the 6.5×52 Carcano cartridge. A decade later, the Russian Colonel Federov produced his Avtomat, originally in his own purpose-designed 6.5mm caliber. However, as the Great War was then underway there was no chance of a new cartridge being adopted, so he modified his gun to use the Japanese 6.5x50SR Arisaka cartridge; large quantities of the guns and ammunition having been acquired by Russia to meet a shortfall in their supply of rifles. A few thousand Federov Avtomats were produced and entered service, and these reportedly saw action as late as the Winter War with Finland in 1939-40.

It can be argued that neither the Cei- Rigotti nor the Federov Avtomat used “intermediate”cartridges, as the 6.5mm Carcano and Arisaka were the front-line rifle/MG rounds in the Italian and Japanese armies respectively. This is true, but it is worth bearing in mind that, in terms of caliber and muzzle energy, they were in the same class as the present-day 6.8×43 Remington SPC and 6.5×38 Grendel, which are today regarded by many as ideal cartridges for assault rifles.

An equally early attempt to produce a carbine firing an intermediate round was the Austrian Mannlicher Self-Loading Carbine in 7.65×32 caliber. This was an improved and enlarged version of their Model 1901 pistol carbine chambered for a lengthened version of the 7.65×25 pistol round, and was made in about 1904. It never went past the prototype stage and its ballistics are not known. However, the cartridge case is similar in length, as well as calibre, to the US .30 M1 Carbine’s, but slightly fatter as it is bottle-necked.

The next country with a claim to contributing to the development of the assault rifle is France. During the Great War they made some use of Winchester self-load-ing carbines: the Model 1907 in .351 SL and the Model 1910 in .401 SL. In 1917, France placed an order for 2,200 of an automatic version of the Model 1907 for arming special assault soldiers. At the same time, they were modifying the .351 case by necking it down to accept the heavy 8mm bullet from the Lebel rifle/MG round, thereby creating the 8mm Ribeyrolle – arguably the first purpose-designed intermediate military cartridge. The war endedbefore anything came of this, but it is not hard to see that had it lasted for another year or two, French troops would have been equipped with an assault rifle. As it was, neither the Ribeyrolle, nor a 7mm version designed in the 1920s, made further progress.

Next in the frame is Switzerland. Their prolific gun designer Furrer produced a short-recoil carbine with a new bottlenecked 7.65×35 cartridge in 1921. We are now getting very close to the concept – except that the cartridge had a round-nose rather than pointed bullet. A year later a modified 7.65×38 appeared which did have a pointed bullet. Swiss sources indicate that data from the tests of these rounds were passed to DWM in Germany, where they may have influenced later developments. Other pre-Second World War Swiss short-case ammunition designs included a different and rather mysterious 7.65×38 round for which unloaded components were made in some quantity, for an unknown destination, just before the war.

In 1925 Kynoch of the UK proposed a “7mm light automatic rifle cartridge” intended for BSA. The factory drawing shows a bottle-necked case with a length of 41mm and a round-nosed bullet. It is not clear whether the cartridge or gun were ever built.

In Russia, Federov continued to argue for the adoption of a smaller cartridge than the 7.62x54R. In the late 1920s he recommended adoption of the 6.5mm “if not even smaller” and a rimless or semirimmed case with a length shortened by about 20% (to 40mm). His ideas were supported in 1930 by V.E. Markevich, of the Red Army’s Weapons Scientific and Research Range, who pointed out that an ideal cartridge already existed – in the .25 Remington. The .25’s bigger brother based on the same case, the .30 Remington, was of course used as the starting point for the development of the 6.8mm Rem SPC.

The US Army did indeed experiment with a .25 cartridge in the 1920s – although this was a much more powerful round than the .25 Remington – before focusing on the .276 Pedersen. This was a 7×51 cartridge that was similar in power to the 6.5mm Arisaka, and to the modern 6.8mm Rem. However, the army was still thinking in terms of long-range semiautomatic fire (a mindset which did not change until the 1960s). The .276 cartridge was rejected in 1932, partly for cost reasons but also because it did not offer sufficient longrange performance.

In the early 1930s, Denmark made limited numbers of the delayed-blowback Weibel (or Danrif) assault rifle in a 7×44 caliber. Also in the early 1930s, the US Frankford Arsenal tested an Italian Terni semiautomatic rifle in 7.35×34, but nothing seems to have survived apart from a drawing of the round, which shows it with a pointed bullet of 134.5 grains. In 1939, a light automatic weapon was advertised in Greece in 7.92×36 caliber, the cartridge apparently being based on a shortened and necked-out 6.5mm Mannlicher case.

We now turn to Germany, where in the aftermath of the Great War a Hauptmann Piderit of the Rifle Testing Commission advocated a short-cased cartridge and a suitable rifle to fire it. His was a lone voice, however. It wasn’t until 1927 that DWM (actually, the “Berlin-Karlsruher Industriewerke A.G.” as DWM was known between 1922 and 1936) carried out the first tests of short-cased cartridges, possibly as a result of the data they had received about the Swiss rounds. This had no immediate result, and the direct line of development which led to the 7.92×33 Kurz commenced in the mid-1930s. Over the next ten years, no fewer than five German companies were involved in developing short-cased cartridges suitable for assault rifles: Geco, DWM, RWS, Rheinmetall- Borsig and Polte.

Geco was the first in the field, cooperating with the gun company Vollmer- Werke Maschinenfabrik, to produce the Vollmer SL Model 35 self-loading carbine in a nominal 7.75×40 caliber (the caliber was actually 7.9mm, with a bullet 8.05mm in diameter). This was officially tested with good results, but led to no orders. In 1942 Geco produced a new cartridge also intended for a Vollmer carbine, the 7x45SR. This used a wider case and was far more powerful, with a muzzle velocity of 1,000 m/s. Another cartridge, measuring 7.92×33.5, was designed at Geco and attributed to an H.G.Winter, a director of the firm, but the date and the gun for which it was intended are not known. DWM designed a 7×39 cartridge in the mid-1930s, for which a Walther self-loading carbine was reportedly made. It was appreciably more powerful than the 7.92×33 Kurz. However, the interest of the Heereswaffenamt (HWA) was by then focused on Polte developments, so the DWM round also failed to progress further. RWS produced several short-cased rifle rounds in the 1930s, including an 8×45, 8×46 and 7×46, but these developments were taken no further. Rheinmetall- Borsig were involved in a number of prewar experiments concerning 7mm rounds in various case lengths, some of them very long, probably for high-velocity aircraft gun projects. One drawing has been found of a 7×36 cartridge which would obviously have been suitable for assault rifles, but there is no evidence that it was made. The design work may have been done by Polte on behalf of Rheinmetall-Borsig.

This brings us to Polte Patronenfabrik of Magdeburg, who made by far the most significant contribution. The HWA awarded them a contract, probably in 1938, for the development of a short-cased infantry cartridge. This resulted in several different designs of cartridge; 7.9×45, 7.9×30, two different 7.9×33 and a 7×45, all by 1940. In all of these, Polte retained the head and rim diameters of the standard 7.92×57 rifle/MG round, and in all but the 7mm the same caliber as well. This kept production costs to a minimum and no doubt helped to account for the success of their proposals. The final 7.92×33 design (which had less case taper than the first or “transitional” effort) was approved in December 1940, the only subsequent change being to the angle of the extractor groove, which was altered from 45 to 60 degrees in May 1942.

At the same time as the German work was reaching its conclusion, the USA was developing the .30 M1 Carbine, a light rifle chambered for a new 7.62×33 straightcased round based on the .32 Winchester Special case. This was not intended as an assault rifle but as what would now be called a “personal defence weapon” for troops who would not normally carry a rifle. However, its handiness meant that some front-line troops carried it in preference to the much bigger and heavier .30 M1 Garand rifle. The M2 version of the Carbine introduced selective fire and was close to the specification of an assault rifle, but the cartridge with its round-nosed bullet was really too small and weak to reach out to 300m (330 yards), considered the desirable effective range as some 90% of fire-fights took place within that distance. Attention now switches back to the USSR. The key date was 15th July 1943 when a meeting was held of the Technical Council of the People’s Commissariat for Armament (NKV). They had met to consider “New foreign weapons firing lowerpowered rounds” and studied examples of both the US .30 M1 Carbine supplied by the USA, and the German MKb 42 (H) in 7.92×33, which had been captured while undergoing troop trials. The meeting con tridge were important developments and decided that a new reduced-power round must be designed. Responsibility for this was handed over to the OKB-44 design bureau, which produced the first prototype of what became the 7.62mm M1943 round only a month later, with the first batch of ammunition loaded with flat-based leadcored bullets being range-tested that December. This kept the same caliber as the 7.62x54R rifle/MG round for production convenience, but adopted a new case which was slimmer than that used by the 7.92×33. A pilot series-production run began in March 1944, and before the end of the war the round was combat-tested in prototypes of the Degtyarov RPD light machine gun and Simonov SKS carbine. At that time the case had a length of 41mm, but development work continued, resulting in a boat-tailed bullet shape being adopted and the lead core being replaced with mild steel. The case neck was reduced to the final 38.7mm to keep the overall round length the same despite the longer bullets.

The story was not yet over. The old pioneer Federov, now “Doctor of Services, Professor Lt. General (Technical Engineering Branch) V.G. Federov” and serving as a senior member of the Technical Council of the NKV, continued to argue for a smaller-caliber cartridge. As a result, between 1946 and 1948 several different rounds were made and tested in 6.75mm as well as 7.62mm caliber. Despite this,the 7.62×39 M1943 cartridge was finally selected in 1948, when the AK-47 was already undergoing pre-production troop trials. One of the reasons for retaining the 7.62mm caliber was said to be that the Soviet manufacturing plants did not at that time have the equipment to mass-produce smaller-caliber ammunition and gun barrels with the necessary precision.

Some sources claim that the 7.62×39 was no more than a copy of a German Geco cartridge for the Vollmer M 35 carbine, designed in 1934/35 by the aforementioned H.G.Winter. However, as we have seen, the cartridges designed for that gun were quite different, having larger case diameters. The round often cited as the model for the M1943 is the 7.62×38.5 Mittelpatrone, but the diameter of that case is also larger than the M1943’s and, according to Dynamit Nobel (Geco’s post war parent company), it dates from 1960. There is therefore no known German cartridge of which the 7.62×39 M1943 could have been a copy. The authors of a Russian history of the M1943, who had access to Soviet archives, were unable to find reliable information as to whether the USSR had any previous knowledge of the development of intermediate rounds in the West.

In summary, it is clear that the concept of a selective-fire rifle using a purpose-designed intermediate cartridge pre-dates the Second World War, and was not invented in Germany. Several countries were involved in developing ideas along those lines, from the Great War onwards. However, the German Army were the first to put such a weapon into service, and it was this example which led to the modern military rifle. It is also clear that while the development of the Russian 7.62×39 M1943 round was inspired by the 7.92×33 Kurz, it was not a copy of any other cartridge. Finally, the true father of the assault rifle concept was Col. V.G. Federov. As well as designing the Avtomat he consistently argued, over a period of three decades covering both world wars, for the adoption of a short-cased reduced-caliber cartridge in a selective-fire rifle. If he could have seen a modern assault rifle in 6.8mm Rem or 6.5mm Grendel he would doubtless have exclaimed: “Yes! That’s what I wanted all along!”

(Anthony G Williams is editor of “The Cartridge Researcher” (the bulletin of the European Cartridge Research Association), co-editor (with Leland Ness) of “Jane’s Ammunition Handbook” and coauthor (with Maxim Popenker) of “Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition”. He maintains a website you can visit at www.quarry.nildram.co.uk.

• at the Centre d’Expérimentation de Mulhouse, with the collaboration of German engineers who continued the development of the StG 45 (M), which was to become the CETME and later the G 3,
• at the Châtellerault Arsenal (MAC),
• at the Tulle Arsenal (MAT),
• at the Saint-Etienne Arsenal (MAS). This establishment carried out the most models of study with two or three prototypes each year from 1948 to 1962. The last of them was nearly adopted but it fired the 7.62mm NATO cartridge and the military headquarters was looking for the new small calibre, which had just appeared. Then it was urgent to do nothing…

However, at this time, various military interventions in Chad, Kolwezi and Lebanon, demonstrated the lack of an assault rifle in the French Army. To avoid the problem, a few thousand SIG SG 540 rifles, then manufactured by Manurhin for export, were supplied.

THE FAMAS F 1

In 1967, the French Army made known their desire to replace the individual weapons currently in use (submachine gun MAT 49 and semiautomatic rifle MAS 49/56) with a single weapon that can deliver single shots or full auto up to 300 meters and launch anti-tank or anti-personnel rifle grenades. The date to realise the new rifle was fixed in 1975 and preliminary studies began in 1969.

Ballistic tests carried out by the Etablissement Technique de Bourges of different ammunition made it possible to determine which cartridge was best suited for their needs; and chose the 5.56x45mm with the decision made in August 1970. The Saint-Etienne Arsenal was retained to develop the weapon. The ergonomic study was made jointly with the laboratory of Anthropology of the Medical college and it emphasized that it is advisable to create a weapon of the Bull Pup design. The choice of the mechanism was determined for a delayed blowback bolt. Indeed, ballistic tests showed the superiority of this mechanism compared to the system with gas port:

• no mechanical stress on the gun being likely to deteriorate the vibratory mode of the barrel at each shot,
• no internal turbulences of the gas tube. (These two elements allow a better accuracy.)
• Highest cyclic rate of fire power,
• smooth recoil when the bolt opens,
• no cook-off,
• less fouling,
• the weapon can be used in all climates without adjustment of any gas port, and
• launching of grenades does not require any preliminary action on the mechanism (no closing of gas port like the MAS 49- 56).

Following these experiments, and under the direction of Chief Engineer Paul Tellier and Small Arms Engineer Alain Coubes, the research board of MAS started to develop prototypes with ten A1 rifles in 1971, ten A2 rifles in 1972, ten A3 rifles in 1973 and twenty-nine A4 rifles at the beginning of 1974.

However, a short delay imposed by the program required the possibility to look at other weapons, and other tests were made with the German HK 33 and the Belgian CAL, if the French prototypes did not give satisfaction. These tests were also carried out with the American rifle M16 A1 used as weapon of comparison.

In spite of the efforts of the manufacturer, the new French rifle prototypes revealed many imperfections during the trials; in particular on the level of reliability. Due to these results, it was decided to stop the study in September 1974.

The evaluation of the foreign weapons continued and various modifications were made. The foreign prototypes did not prove entirely satisfactory and in May 1975, the Defence Ministry returned to the MAS weapon.

The study and the experiments of the French 5.56mm start again and the Type A5 is ready in August-September 1975. The development of this model gave way to the Type A6 prototype and MAS delivered 23 A6 prototypes for official evaluation in October 1976.

In spite of the important improvements noted on the level of reliability, it remained to correct three essential defects:

• lack of sighting device,
• insufficient reliability of the 3-round burst device, and
• poor resistance of the barrel, which had at this time six right grooves.

A new A7 prototype was presented in May 1977, and its experimentation was finished in July. It showed that the defects observed on the preceding weapons were solved except the 3-round burst device. The results having been considered to be satisfactory, the Chief of Staff of the Army came to a positive conclusion about the adoption of the MAS rifle without the 3- round burst device, by a decision dated August 8, 1977. The weapon then received the official name of: Automatic Rifle MAS 5.56 Model F 1.

While the manufacturer completed the development of the industrial infrastructure necessary for production, field trials were made by the 75th Infantry Regiment in Valence with 29 prototypes to detect and determine certain minor imperfections on the level of the user and make proposals for remedies.

The study of the 3-round burst device continued up to September 1977. A new system underwent tests by the manufacturer at the end of 1978, and the official evaluation took place in June 1979. The results being positive, the Chief of Staff made the decision of adoption of the F.A. MAS 5.56 F 1 with 3-round burst device, on July 24, 1979. It was installed in all manufactured rifles after serial number 27,000, and the other FAMAS rifles before that number were retrofitted.

Since this date, nearly 300,000 weapons were produced, thus making it possible to equip all of the first line troops of the French Army. The monthly rate of production reached 5,000 rifles per month.

Since 1984, the FAMAS F 1 was proposed for export and several countries, including Senegal, Lebanon, Gabon and Djibouti, acquired this weapon but in limited quantities. China bought one specimen, perhaps to make a copy.

In spite of particularly brilliant presentation campaigns abroad, the FAMAS never did enter on the international market because of a too high price. It was possible to get approximately seven Kalashnikovs for the price of one FAMAS).

Manufacturing

The Saint-Etienne Arsenal made the frame from a light alloy forged part and did the final assembly. The barrel and the bolt were produced by Tulle Arsenal and other components of the FAMAS are manufactured by subcontractors: Forges de Bologne (forged frame), Verney-Carron (tube wrap), Lhôtellier-Montrichard (synthetic material), Kléber-Colombes (butt plate), and GIE Loire-Emep, Giso, Flonic- Orbey, Socop, for the other parts.

Description

The FAMAS F 1 is a Bull-Pup design weapon and the nickname of “bugle,” by which it is sometimes called, is a pure invention of journalists.

The FAMAS is a very compact weapon with short overall length. It is entirely sheathed in a plastic material containing fibreglass, giving it great robustness. This makes the rifle resistant to shocks and crushing yet remains functional even after falling from a height or passing under the wheels of a truck.

The frame is machined from a block of high-strength light alloy starting from an outline coming from forging. The magazine housing is at the front and the firing device at the rear. The bolt moves in grooves located at the upper part.

The barrel passes through a tube wrap that holds both the rear and front sight. It has a fluted chamber and six grooves up to the first months of 1982 after serial number 11,000. Later guns have a three groove barrel with one turn in 305mm (12 in). The part of the barrel that protrudes over the handguard is arranged as a grenade launcher with a ring stop and a 22mm diameter flash hider.

The cocking lever is located at the top of the handguard and a device permits it to stop in the front position after cocking. The handguard is rectangular and made of two shells joined together. The lower shell receives the pistol grip, which is located exactly at the center of gravity point of the gun. This permits a perfect balance for the FAMAS. The grip is hollow and can receive an oil can.

The trigger guard can be folded on the right or on the left and the selector and safety lever is located just behind the trigger. The trigger mechanism is located in abox and includes the trigger, sear, hammer and 3-round burst device. The connection between the trigger and sear is realized with a flat rod located in a groove milled on the right face of the frame. The higher shell is surmounted by a bridge which provides several functions: carrying handle, materialize the line of sight, protection of the cocking lever and a scope mount. The sights are made of a single eyepiece adjustable in height for shooting up to 300 meters and comprised of a large hole for rapid fire and two others on foldable blades for more accurate shooting, and a blade front sight, adjustable in deviation. For night shooting, the line of sight is materialized by luminescent pellets. If the light is poor, it is possible to use a foldable enlarged eyepiece and an oversized front sight.

The rear part of the rifle has a plastic stock with a flattened hexagonal profile. In front are two ejection ports, one on each side. It is easy to reverse the ejection side after the intervention of a gunsmith. The ejection port that is not used is closed by the cheek rest. This permits the FAMAS to be used both by either a right handed or left handed shooter.

A buffer made of a spring and a return square is located at the top of the stock. The butt plate is made of Neoprene. The bolt has a mobile head and an amplifying inertia lever. The bolt head bears a reversible extractor (for both sides) and an ejector.

The gun is loaded with a 25-round straight magazine introduced behind the pistol grip.

Bayonet

The FAMAS F 1 receives the F 1 bayonet, a knife derived from the Model 1958, which was used with MAS 49-56 rifle. It is fitted over the barrel. The two edged blade is 215mm (8.46 in) long and receives a phosphate finish. The handle consists of two black plastic grips and two rings. The sleeve is of black plastic, with an olive green synthetic holder and metallic hook. A parade variation is chrome plated with black varnished holder with red wire and chrome plated sleeve. It is used by the two infantry regiments of the Garde Républicaine.

Accessories

Accessories for the F 1 include a removable and folding bipod with tubular legs, universal olive green synthetic sling, which permits transport of the weapon on the shoulder, in the back or across the chest, a special single shot plastic magazine for a grenade launching cartridge, blank firing device, mirror training sighting, extractor for broken cases, cleaning rod in four parts, chamber brush, barrel brass brush, barrel nylon brush, oil can, brush, accessories pouch, magazine pouch for three magazines, technical manual MAT 1057, and a grenade launcher M203, to launch 40mm grenades. This can be installed on the FAMAS F 1 with a device made by Société des Artifices Titan (used by the Air Force). A similar adaptation made by MAS was not retained.

Disassembly

• Remove the magazine and ensure there is no cartridge in the chamber.
• Remove the stock assembly pin.
• Remove stock and cheek rest.
• Remove the handguard assembly pin and remove the handguard.
• Remove the firing mechanism’s box pin and take off the firing mechanisms box.
• Pull the bolt back and remove the assembly pin. Remove the assembly pin of the mobile unit. Dismount the mobile head, amplifying inertia lever and firing pin.

The FAMAS F 1 is used by the French Army, Gendarmerie and Air Force. These weapons are fitted with a three groove barrel with rifling of one turn in 305mm or 12 inches. The Commandos Marine also used the FAMAS F 1 with a three groove barrel, but with a rifling of one turn in 228mm or 9 inches.

Variations

• FAMAS F1 Export. This weapon was equipped with a barrel 9-inch twist allowing the use of 5.56mm NATO ball SS 109 cartridges (U.S.M 777). A version with a 7-inch twist was also available.
• FAMAS Open Sight. On this model, a 1.5x scope is integrated into the upper handguard, which permits shooting with both eyes open for a distance of 500 meters. Two marks placed on the reticle are used for the anti-tank grenades and replace the azimuth device for shooting at 65 and 100 meters.
• FAMAS Sniper. The upper handguard receives a NATO Stanag device that permits the use of a 4×25 day scope or Sopelem OB 50 for night shooting.
• FAMAS Short. This gun had a 408mm (16.06 in) barrel and is appropriate particularly for a use in confined spaces or aboard a vehicle.
• Simplified FAMAS. Similar to the standard model but without the grenade launching device.
• FAMAS Police. Experimental short gun, possibly intended to eventually replace the MAT 49 for the police. A few models were made about 1975, but this model was not retained and the Beretta M 12 S was chosen.
• FAMAS Gendarmerie. Weapon with conventional organization (magazine before the pistol grip) and wooden stock.
• Semi-automatic FAMAS carbine. It had a 531mm (20.91 in) barrel, no grenade thrower device, receives no bayonet and uses the .222 Remington cartridge. It was marketed for the civilian shooter until 1993 and was later classified as a military weapon regarding the new European Community rules.
• FAMAS Pellet Rifle. A repeating rifle made for training; it was not retained by the Army but was sold on the civilian market until the fatal law of 1993. It shoots 4.5mm pellets placed in a special magazine located in the pistol grip. The pellets were powered by a CO2 cartridge.

All these weapons could be provided in black, olive green or sand plastic except the semiautomatic FAMAS and the FAMAS Pellet Rifle. None of these models was manufactured in series.

FAMAS G 1

In spite of excellent results on the technical plan, highlighted at the time of presentations abroad, the FAMAS did not manage to take a lead in the international market. This led the manufacturer GIATIndustries (a former state organization which covers all the arsenals and became a private company in 1990) to study and propose a new FAMAS with a 40% less cost.

Some functions were removed on the basic model, but remain available as an option (3-shot burst device, night sights, bayonet, bipod, universal belt, scope). The grenade sight and ring stop were removed. A broad arcade protects the trigger and replaces the trigger guard permitting shooting with any types of glove. Many elements were altered to obtain a lower price. The straight 25-round magazine used with the FAMAS F1 was kept. The G 1 FAMAS did appear just after GIAT became a private company, including F.N. Herstal in Belgium, who received the responsibility to sell the small arms produced by GIAT.

FAMAS G 2

A more advanced version of the FAMAS G 1 is the FAMAS G 2, which takes on the characteristics of the G 1, but now added the use of M 16 magazines, rifled bore with 7, 9 or 12 inches twist and utilizing the M16 A2 bayonet. The use of anti-personal or anti-tank grenades is still possible and a 40mm grenade thrower can be mounted on the FAMAS G2.

Several variations were proposed to include the Standard model, Short barrel, and Sniper variation with a day or night scope. All these weapons were the subject of presentations to many foreign countries. In France, the Navy did adopt the FAMAS G 2 as standard with a 9 inch twist barrel and the French bayonet. 10,000 specimens of them were ordered.

Low Profile FAMAS

To modernize the infantry troops, the French Army developed a new program named FELIN (Infantryman with equipment and integrated radio transmissions). It is defined in several versions: team leader, marksman, collective gun crew, and sniper. It includes: communication and transmission device combining a day/night camera, sight, navigation system and energy management device; camouflaged battle dress fireproofed, treated anti-mosquito and a low infra-red signature; chemical nuclear and bacteriologic protection, and ballistic protection. The FELIN system weighs 24 kg (52.91 lbs) and it is fed by refillable batteries in the AIFV. It is associated with a low profile FAMAS.

The low profile FAMAS was developed by GIAT-Industries and other partners under a program established by the STAT at the Satory Proving Ground. It underwent a renovation treatment and the upper handle grip was removed and replaced by a Picatinny rail receiving a sight tube, a laser sight or a compound glass-camera. The front grip received a control cluster for the electronic system. The former barrel was replaced by a new one with a 7- inch twist to ensure the compatibility of the ammunition with those of the MINIMI light machine gun. The cocking lever tilts to one side or the other and the legs are lower and bent. A new bayonet is also being used, with a 178mm (7 inch) blade manufactured in Italy by Extrema Ratio.

The new generation of FAMAS will be carried out by GIAT-Industries at the Saint-Chamond arsenal (Saint-Etienne is closed now) by transformation of existing FAMAS F 1s. The new barrels will be furnished by Beretta in Italy. 20,000 F 1 rifles will be converted to low profile FAMAS.

Ammunition

The FAMAS shot the F 1 or F 1 A bullets, an exact replica of the M 193 ammunition. Other loadings were: tracer, armor piercing, short range, grenade blank, blank, and dummy. The Army retains steel cartridge cases but the Air Force prefers brass cases. Since the closure of all the cartridge factories in France at the end of the1990s, French forces use cartridges supplied from various countries such as Belgium, Canada, Dubai, and Israel.

While new flexible mounts were developed with the belt-fed weapons, it appeared that the early type of links did notprovide the required multi-directional flexibility of the belt. Accordingly, a second design of links was developed so as to enable a greater flexibility both fan-wise and helical. The single center loop was enlarged by 1mm (from 11 to 12mm) thus enabling a greater helical flexibility. The flat center portion of the link was chamfered both to the top and bottom edges thereby enabling a greater lateral flexibility in both orientations (base-fan with bullet pointing outside the circle and nosefan with the bullets pointing inside the circle). This 2nd model is also made of stainless steel sheet without surface protection. The 2nd model of link was used all through the Second World War by the German Luftwaffe in the Model 1930 weapons renamed MG 30 (t), predominantly used as ground anti-aircraft weapons.

During the Second World War, stocks of Czech links of pre-war production, being probably exhausted, and stainless steel sheets being probably spared for other more strategic production, a new production of links was started using carbon steel sheets.

The links produced during WW2 retained exactly the same design as the prewar links but since they were made of carbon steel, they had to be surface-protected by us of phosphate. These greenish links represent the 3rd and last variant for the Model 1930 machine gun. Although these phosphated links are unmarked, it is suspected that they were manufactured in the same factory in Strakonice where the weapons and links were also produced prewar. One might emphasize that since 1939,this very factory was situated in a region ruled by the German administration under the Bohemia-Moravia protectorate and was renamed Böhmische Waffenfabrik AG, Werk Strakonice. This factory also produced throughout WW2 different types of links for various machine guns using the code “fnh”.

The Link Loading Machine

Belt assembling is achieved with a crank operated machine fitted with a main rotating cylinder piece. The movement of the crank rotates the main cylinder and drives straight a rod that pushes the cartridges. The main rotating cylinder bears 10 longitudinal grooves that accommodates and indexes the link in front of the cartridge feed lane and then enables to drive out the loaded belt. The empty links are fed by gravity from a vertical feed guide. The cartridges are provided in bulk through a hopper, which does not allow any specific belting sequence with different types of cartridges (armor-piercing, tracer, incendiary, etc.).

An ingenious device fitted at the end of the center maneuver rod also enables the unloading of the belts. The end of the center maneuver rod, which is also the axis of the main cylinder, is fitted with a device that somewhat recalls a bolt head, with a hollow part in which the cartridge head is seated, as well as with an ejector and extractor.

The loaded belt, oriented with the projectile tip facing towards the machine, is inserted into the grooves of the main cylinder. When the crank is operated, the main cylinder drives the loaded belt along a fraction of turn and the main maneuver rod makes a longitudinal movement back and forth. During the back movement of the rod, the end “bolt-head piece” catches the cartridge head while during the forth movement of the maneuver rod extracts the cartridge out of the link. Finally at the end of the forth movement of the maneuver rod, the cartridge is ejected out of the “bolthead piece” by means of the ejector piece. The empty link remains in the main cylinder until it is evacuated out of the machine after a few turns of the crank.

The machine is transported disassembled in a steel chest containing 4 elements: the main machine body, the crank handle, the feed-guide for the empty links and a clamp. The inner side of the chest is fitted with a thick brass plate that enables it to fasten it to the machine on the side of the chest by means of the clamp.

This loader, which allows both the loading and unloading of belts assembled with Prideaux-type links, is particularly effective and reliable. It seems that the British company Vickers never developed any crank-operated loader for the various Prideaux links used with the numerous aircraft weapons sold worldwide.

It was spring of 1942 and the war was going badly for Allied forces. In March, American, British and Dutch troops surrendered Java to the Japanese. Just one month later the Japanese would capture Bataan in the Philippines and send 75,000 men on a 65 mile death march with only 54,000 to survive. There was no good news coming from the German front. The Germans captured the Greek island of Crete in an impressive vertical envelopment completing their occupation of most of Europe. In each newly conquered country, the Germans started rounding up Jews and began sending them to concentration camps.

Americans were enlisting in record numbers. War refugees from Europe, Africa, and Asia were anxious to join in the fight, and were looking to the Americans to supply them with rifles and equipment. The Government facility at Springfield Armory and privately owned Winchester were producing rifles in record numbers, yet they could not produce them fast enough.

The big bottleneck in rifle production was manufacturing the barrel and of this process cutting the four groove rifling was the largest time consuming element. Running at full speed, the rifling operation alone required between 10 and 15 minutes per barrel. On existing equipment, there wasn’t any way to speed things up.

In those years, there was only one way to manufacture an accurate rifle barrel: a hole was drilled in the barrel blank and then reamed to the exact dimension of the bore. Afterwards each groove was individually and painstakingly cut on a very special rifling machine. In a high volume production environment, rifling only 6 barrels an hour equated to an eternity.

It’s not that the best, state of the art equipment wasn’t available. Most of the rifling equipment in use at that time were top notch machines, manufactured by Pratt & Whitney – today a name that is synonymous with high-quality jet engines. There weren’t enough machines and there wasn’t enough time, which always led to the same conclusion: not enough gun barrels to keep up with the production of other rifle components.

As always, the firearms industry worked hand-in-hand with the U.S. Government, making available their finest engineers to support any effort to improve weapons or produce them faster. In the spring of 1942, one idea that surfaced was to eliminate cutting two of the grooves in the barrel. If this could produce an acceptable barrel, the time to cut the rifling would be reduced to almost half. The Industrial Engineers at Remington’s Ilion, New York facility and the Ordnance Department from Remington’s research division at Bridgeport, Connecticut stood ready to answer the Government’s question: would a two groove rifle barrel be as good as the current four-groove barrel?

Cutting two groove barrels wasn’t necessarily a new concept. Since the mid-1800s, the British had been using two groove rifle barrels on their percussion rifles. But this was the mid-1900s and there was a more strict demand for accuracy from the military, not to mention smokeless powder and spitzer bullet forms. Before any rifles could be shipped, a U.S. Government inspector would be on hand to check each production lot, inspecting parts and checking records to assure that each one met specification. The performance standard required every rifle be tested for accuracy and that at 100 yards five shots must fall within a three-inch circle. Failure to meet this “extreme spread” requirement was cause for rejection.

The state of the art rifling machine of that era was the Pratt & Whiney 1/2 B, available in two different models, one capable of producing 30-inch long barrels and the other for barrels up to 50 inches. Two other models of the larger 1 B could produce barrels up to 74 and 98 inches. These Pratt & Whitney 1/2 B and 1 B rifling machines were high precision , well designed machines, each having two spindles that could operate independently of each other. This meant that two different gun barrels could be made on the same machine at the same time.

The rifling operation on the P&W is simple, and is essentially the same process that has been used for centuries. The barrel is held stationary while a rifling rod is pulled through the bore, turning as it travels to give the required twist. Protruding from the rifling rod is a cutting tool set to a fixed depth in order to cut one groove on each feed stroke. At the end of the feed stroke, the pressure of the cutter plunger spring on the cutter plunger forces the cutting tool back into the rifling tool head so it no longer protrudes. This allows the rifling rod to make the return stroke without marring the bore or cutting additional material. After one groove is cut and the rifling rod has returned, the barrel is indexed 90° for cutting the next groove. This process is repeated until all four grooves are cut to the same depth.

Next in the process is the deepening of the cut. In this stage, the tool support wedge forces the cutting tool to increase its depth of cut. The feed screw, having been previously adjusted to control the depth of cut, advances automatically to the next cutting depth increment. Now the P&W is ready to make another series of cuts. The process repeats making the grooves progressively deeper until all four grooves have been cut to the required depth.

Rifling Tool Head for P&W 1/2 B Rifling Machine

The maximum cutting stroke speed for the 1/2 B is 50 feet per minute and the return stroke maximum is 65 feet per minute. To keep the cutting tool and barrel cool, oil is pumped through the rifling rod and into the rifling head. Keeping the cutter free of chips from the material removed is important. The P&W 1/2 B takes this into account before making a new cutting stroke. A small motorized brush attachment cleans the cutting tool, removing the chips of cut away barrel material. The M1903 barrel drawing specifies a groove depth of .004 inches, or just about the thickness of a normal sheet of notebook paper. With all this speed and sophistication, cutting four grooves, each one only .004 inches in depth doesn’t seem like it would take any time at all, but that wasn’t the case.

In order to run the P&W efficiently, the deepest single cut that can be made on a barrel of .30 caliber is only .0001 inches. Why? Simply because making a deeper cut creates a larger chip that can potentially clog the cutting surface resulting in a rough surface finish or a broken cutter. This limitation means that cutting a single groove to the specified depth of .004 inches requires 40 complete strokes. Just to make a single 4-groove barrel took 160 cutting strokes and 160 return strokes. In the spring of 1942, there was a lot of incentive in reducing the number of grooves to two.

Springfield Rifle Bore
Dimensions Ref:
RDR-42-12 Remington Arms
Company Report 1942

Remington engineers worried about the potential negative effects on this proposed change. There would no longer be four small lands in the barrel, all four totaling to about 0.2 inches in width that would dig into the projectile jacket to impart spin to the bullet. Now there were two huge ones, each one almost 0.3 inches wide. Would these two wide lands create so much additional bore friction that the projectile would be significantly slowed? Nobody knew for sure. Lower velocity and increased pressure were a concern.

Firearm experts knows that after primer ignition, any delay in getting that projectile moving causes the chamber pressure to rise quickly – sometimes to dangerous levels. Would the wider lands make a serious increase in chamber pressure? How much additional pressure could be expected? Would the 1350 barrel material be able to withstand the amount of increased pressure?

Accuracy and barrel life were also a consideration. Would the rifle be as accurate with two grooves as it was with four? It would be counter productive to find out the two groove barrel would meet all the performance requirements up front and later learn that barrel life was so greatly reduced that the new barrel would need to be replaced sooner. Again, extensive testing would be required to find the answers to all these questions. Through their years of experience, the Remington engineers knew there was something else to be considered. They knew that if it runs on gunpowder, they could expect the unexpected.

On March 1, 1942, the Remington Arms Company of Ilion, NY was awarded a contract to investigate the two groove barrel. The study was to be a joint effort of the Ilion Industrial Engineers of the Ilion Development section, Remington’s Research Division in Bridgeport, CT and the Army’s Ordnance Department. In their test plan, the Remington engineers proposed there – barreling of twenty seven Spring field ’03 rifles with the two groove barrel to be used in the test.

Manufacturing a two groove barrel at the Remington facility was accomplished by indexing the barrel by hand, bypassing the automatic indexer so that two grooves and not four would be cut. If the testing turned out to be successful, it became immediately apparent there would need to be a modification of the indexing mechanism for volume production should the two groove barrel be adopted.

The accuracy test was performed at 100, 200, and 600 yards. The 100 yard test was conducted indoors. Each rifle was hand held using a muzzle and elbow rest. Remington’s Mr. R.A.A. Hentschel described the test res ults : “Twenty-seven guns have been built with two groove rifling. All have passed the Government inspection standard for accuracy at 100 yards. This standard calls for five shots to be within, or cut the edge of a three inch circle. No difference in accuracy was noted between these guns and regular production.”

Following those encouraging results, Remington proceeded with the 200 and 600 yard testing. Two of the two groove test rifles were fired along with s/n 1283325, a standard 4-groove barrel used as a control sample for comparison. Again, the rifles were hand held, shooting from the prone position with a rest at the elbow and muzzle. As a baseline, four groups were fired with each rifle at 100 yards with the average group size indicated in the included table.

The two groove barrel was performing very well next to the four groove standard. Maybe the endurance test would give some indication why up to this point the service rifle barrels were designed to have four grooves in stead of two. The weapon selected for the endurance testing was Springfield , s/n 3030571. The endurance schedule required the firing of 16,000 rounds with three 5 round groups fired for accuracy after each 1,000 rounds.

The extreme spread was averaged at each 1,000 round interval. Other than an occasional foray slightly outside the 3 inch circle, the results were considered exceptional.

The results so far looked great with only a few tests remaining. Accuracy requirements were equal to or better than the four groove barrel on new guns and the endurance gun. Barrel life indications were also good. The bore of the rifle with 16,000 rounds was measured using sulfur casts. Although this barrel was badly fouled and significant heat checking evident at the breech, there was no measurable wear.

Two tests were left that still might keep the two groove barrels out of military service: pressure and velocity. Pressure testing was performed using the copper crusher method. It was the latest technology in those days but not highly accurate, giving not much more than a good approximation of the actual pressure developed.

Test results showed the expected: The pressure to force the projectile through those huge lands did increase the pressure with the two groove barrel, but fortunately not to a huge extent. The biggest concern was with the armor piercing ammunition that showed chamber pressure was unquestionably higher with this ammunition. Quick calculations showed the current barrel material could withstand the increase provided there was not extended firing with the AP ammunition.

Those two huge lands caused a small drop in muzzle velocity, but again the difference was not of great importance. With all testing complete, Remington concluded: “On the basis of tests made to date, the two groove rifling equals the standard four groove rifling in performance. Tests show an increase in pressure from 3,000 to 4,000 pounds when using armor piercing ammunition in the two groove barrel. Since armor piercing ammunition is seldom used in the Springfield rifle, this latter result is not particularly significant.”

On 22 October, 1942 the Ordnance committee met to review the results of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds testing. No one could argue with the performance of the two groove barrel. The recommendation for the two groove barrel was sent to the Ordnance Department for final approval.

When the approval was received, the following rifles were designated to receive the new barrel.

• U.S. Rifle Caliber .30 M1
• U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30 M1903A1
• U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30 M1903A3
• U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30 M1917

The Remington engineers described their testing and disclosed their findings in a concise report, No. RDR42-12. Upon completion, the report was classified “Confidential” to keep these results from reaching the enemy. Twenty years after the report was written, the security officer in charge downgraded each copy to “Unclassified” by scratching out the “Confidential” stamp and initialing below it.

Just over 300 Pratt & Whitney barrel machines 1 B’s and 1/2 B’s were produced, preferred for volume production over the older Pratt & Whitney sine bar model. Many of the 1B and 1/2 B models are still in use today. Most remained in the U.S. while some were sent to Australia and other countries – including Border Barrels Ltd. in Scotland.

Rifle barrels produced today use a variety of techniques to form the grooves, most being much faster than the single point cut method used by the Pratt & Whitney. But unquestionably the most accurate way to make a barrel is with a single point cut. The P&W 1/2 B is the preferred machine tool for this operation from the time it was introduced up till now. It is for this reason that the Pratt & Whitney 1/2 B and other models are currently used in the production of today’s competition and military sniper rifles.

The M1 and Springfield rifles with two groove rifling are scattered around the country and the world. Their accuracy, reliability, and durability is enjoyed by shooters everywhere. However, few people recognize the major impact on the war effort that resulted from this minor configuration change to the rifling – a change that made the two groove barrel one of the unsung heroes of World War II.