While the British Sten gun of World War II is more familiar to collectors, the Lanchester was the first British submachine gun preceding the Sten Mk II in service. In fact, the heavy and quite expensiveLanchester was the catalyst that launched Great Britain’s desire for an inexpensive and lightweight replacement weapon for the primary purpose of defending England’s aerodromes from a possible German airborne invasion.

Even before their entry into the war, the British Government was procuring Thompson submachine guns from the United States. The Thompson, originally designed in the 1920s, was dated, heavy and very expensive. What the British needed was their own submachine gun. During the 1920s, Birmingham Small Arms, Ltd. (BSA), under the direction of the British Government, did manufacture a few “European” carbine-style 9mm versions of the Thompson. But after testing, decided that there was no significant advantage over the standard U.S. model. During the summer of 1940, the British decided that they would copy and manufacture the German MP28 II submachine gun; a 9mm weapon that was simple to use and accurate at ranges out to 200 meters. Most importantly was that the manufacturing drawings and several examples of the German weapon were already in British hands. Ironically, the German MP28 II, like the American Thompson, was a twenty-year old design.

The Lanchester’s single-feed doublestack box magazine was also copied from the German design. There were two variations of the magazine. One had a 32-round capacity and the other a 50-round capacity. The 32-round configuration was the same magazine later used for the Sten guns. The double-stack single-feed magazine would prove to be the weak link of both weapons.

The British based Sterling Engineering Company, Ltd. was the company chosen to manufacture the Lanchester. On 13 June 1941, the first contract was signed. The Lanchester was made in two separate plants: the Sterling Engineering plant in Dagenham, and Sterling Armaments, North Hampton. The first deliveries were expected by September of that year. There were few changes from the original German design; the most obvious was the brass magazine housing and the shroud-mounted lug designed for the British P-1907 bayonet. The Lanchester was 1.5 inches longer and weighed 1.4 pounds more than the German weapon it was copied from. The name of the British submachine gun came from George H. Lanchester, an engineer employed at the Sterling factory who had been placed in charge of submachine gun production.

Lanchester Machine Carbine Mk1

As production plans were being laid, it was quickly realized that the Lanchester Machine Carbine was not going to be as cheap or easy to manufacture as was originally planned. During production there were several changes employed to both reduce cost and increase production. The original Mk1 Lanchester had a select-fire capability: firing either semiautomatic or full automatic. The selector switch was located at the front of the trigger guard. This characteristic was eventually deemed unnecessary as it complicated the design and had caused some reliability problems.

Lanchester Machine Carbine Mk1*

The original design was reconfigured and designated as the Lanchester Mk1*. This variation fired full-automatic only. Discarding the semiautomatic feature also allowed the breech bolt and firing pin to be redesigned requiring fewer machine operations. In place of machine screws, the rear sight and trigger housing were now welded directly onto the receiver. The rear sight was changed from the original adjustable tangent type to a much simpler two-leaf flip design calibrated for 100 and 200 yard ranges. During early production, a brass buttplate was fitted, but brass being a critical wartime material, was replaced by steel version. A directive was issued requiring all existing select-fire Lanchester Mk1 weapons to be converted to the Mk1* full-automatic versions, making an original select-fire Lanchester nearly extinct.

Additional Contractors

To keep pace with the wartime demand several new companies were brought on line to produce the Lanchester: W.W. Greener and The Boss Company. The two companies only produced the later fullautomatic Mk1* model.

The manufacturer of any particular Lanchester can be easily identified by the markings on its magazine housing. Sterling made Mk1 select-fire models were marked with the letter S, and a serial number prefix A. Sterling made Mk1* models were marked SA M619. W.W. Greener made guns were marked M94 with a serial number prefix G. Boss guns were marked with the name Boss or their code S 156, and a serial number prefix of H. In addition to the prime contractors, a number of other companies were subcontracted to make small parts.

The Lanchester Today

When Lanchester production was terminated during October 1943, nearly 75,000 Lanchester machine carbines had been manufactured. After the war ended a number of the weapons were sold off or given to affiliated commonwealth governments. However, many of the Lanchesters remained in the service of the British military as late as 1979. After being in service for nearly 38 years, most of the remaining Lanchesters were declared obsolete and subsequently scrapped. Only a few examples were spared for reference and museums.

A number of original Lanchesters did make their way into the U.S. NFA registry and these guns are included in the Curio and Relics list. Most examples in collector’s possession today are the Mk1* full-automatic only variation. Firing a Lanchester is quite an experience; the 9.6 pound unloaded weight of the piece together with its 9mm cartridge makes it an extremely accurate weapon in its full-autoonly mode. There is little felt recoil and virtually no muzzle climb making it a joy to fire, and easy to hold on target. The Lanchester would make for a worthy competitor in the popular subgun competitions.

The negative aspect is that the Lanchester does have a few problem areas. The firing pins and extractors are quite prone to failure, and there are few replacement parts available due to the scarcity of the guns. Currently there are no aftermarket parts available. The other downside of a Lanchester is original examples are not especially common, and like most original receiver Curio & Relic eligible subguns, they can be quite expensive.

Sten Conversions

Back in the good old days, prior to May 19, 1986, the British Sten MkII was one of the easiest submachine guns to construct. Parts kits were widely available and the receiver tubes could be easily manufactured. As a result there were a lot of Sten guns and receiver tubes produced and registered. Those familiar with the Sten know (arguably) that they are certainly not the most eye-catching of submachine guns; in fact to those unfamiliar with weapons, it doesn’t even look much like a real gun.

Fortunately, the dimensions of the Sten gun’s receiver tube allow it to be utilized in a few other more desirable configurations. Enterprising and talented Class 2 manufacturers have sought, and received, approval from the Technology Branch of ATF to turn Sten tubes into guns other than the utilitarian Sten. One that comes to mind is the popular Sten to Sterling Mk IV conversion. The Sterling is a very desirable submachine gun, but transferable examples are quite rare and those that are available are exceptionally expensive. The Sten tube to Sterling submachine gun changed the situation allowing for an affordable replica for the cost of a registered Sten tube, a Sterling parts set and labor.

Now, there is another ATF approved Sten tube conversion pioneered by Don Quinnell of Don’s Gun Shop in Ft. Myers, Florida. Sten owners now have anotheroption: Sten to Lanchester.

The Sten to Lanchester Conversion

Before any Sten tubes could be reconfigured, the conversion details needed to be worked out, documented, andsent to the ATF Technology Branch for approval. Only after receiving official authorization could the conversion work proceed.

There were a few problems encountered. First of all, the cocking handle slot on a Sten tube is at a slightly different orientation than that of a Lanchester. This problem was easily overcome by using the original Sten bolt. The Sten bolt and recoil spring, inexpensive and relatively common, also addresses two design flaws of the Lanchester mentioned earlier; the firing pin and the extractor. The Sten uses a fixed integral firing pin and the robust extractor claw is nearly indestructible. To give the conversion a more authentic appearance, Don’s shop manufactures a bolt cocking handle patterned after that of the original Lanchester.

One other problem was that the Sten receiver tube has an outside diameter that is slightly smaller than that of the original Lanchester. This resulted in a loose fit between the receiver tube and Lanchester magazine housing. This was solved by using a thin .015-inch spacer installed between the housing and the receiver. The perforated barrel jacket of the Lanchester is attached to the Sten tube by welding. For attachment of the original endcap, a receiver extension with swept-style threading was fabricated and welded to the rear of the Sten receiver. As the finishing touch, the original wood stocks are painstakingly refinished, and the brass pieces polished and coated with a baked on clear coat.

Don’s Lanchester conversion field-strips like an original except for one small detail. Original Lanchester bolt handles are not removable. The cocking handle slot on a Lanchester extends to the end of the receiver, allowing the removal of the bolt assembly after unlatching the receiver and titling it to access the endcap. To remove a Sten bolt, the cocking handle must be removed before the bolt can be removed through the back of the receiver.

The Sten and Lanchester have very similar cyclic rates of approximately 600 rounds per minute. However, once converted, the Sten-Lanchester will no longer have a select-fire capability.

Don reports that his shop is currently working on a bolt conversion that would allow the use of the very reliable Sterling magazines in his Lanchester conversions. Completion of the magazine conversion would address the last weak link in the Lanchester: the magazine.

Don’s Gun Shop also performs the Sten to Sterling conversions as well as all types of fabrication, conversions and builds on semiautomatic and Class III H&Ks AKs FN-FAL, FNCs, as well as the more common gunsmith and refinishing jobs.

Sources

Don’s Gun Shop
3112-3 Palm Ave.
Ft. Myers, FL 33901
Phone: (239) 334-6779
Email: DGSMFG@AOL.COM

Other Lanchester Sources

Lanchester Reproduction Stocks
Keystone Arms
PO Box 599
Mill Rift, PA 18340
Phone: (570) 491-4867

Lanchester Display Guns and Parts
International Military Antiques, Inc.
PO Box 256
Millington, NJ 07946
(908) 903-1200

By Jean Huon

The first French light machine gun was created in 1900 and was invented by a military engineer named Rossignol, who also developed several models of semiautomatic rifles. They had the characteristic to function by direct action of the gases to the bolt but this weapon remained experimental only.

About 1910, several light machine guns were tested: Hotchkiss light machine-gun (same as Bénet-Mercier), a CS (Chauchat-Sutter) for aircraft and others such as Berthier and Madsen.

In 1915, the Chauchat light machine gun was adopted, resulting from the model CS tested before the war. It was a crude weapon, easy to manufacture, but badly protected from mud. It was also prone to repeated operational incidents because of the profile of the case of the 8mm Lebel cartridge that was incompatible with a correct feed by the magazine.

Before the end of the conflict, the French Army looked to adopt the American Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) and to manufacture in France the .30-06 cartridge. But the idea was abandoned.

The 1914-1918 war ended on November 11, 1918, but peace is fragile and the French headquarters were afraid of a possible resumption of the hostilities. In 1919, a military group was charged to study what the needs for the French Army would be for the years to come. Its conclusions revealed that the light armament was out of date and inadequate to the new requirements of modern warfare.

In 1921, a new program of armament for the infantry was drawn up, aiming to the creation of new models of a:

• light machine gun,
• submachine gun,
• automatic pistol;
• rifles (both semiautomatic and repeater),
• machine gun,
• light mortar,
• light anti-tank gun for infantry.

Of all the weapons studied, only the light machine gun was carried out quickly. The other weapons were adopted fifteen or twenty years later. Thus, modern armament was lacking, so much so, that in 1939 when war broke out again, the material employed were the guns of the preceding conflict.

However, the light machine gun was regarded as a top priority. The first prototypes manufactured in France appeared in 1922 with tests taking place the following year.

At the same time, new cartridges were developed that were more cylindrical to allow easy operation in automatic weapons: particularly the 7.5×58, also known under the name Model 1924 C, appearing in its primitive form since 1921.

Between 1920 and 1923, the Section Technique de l’Artillerie, who works in the Camp de Satory close to Versailles, carried out many tests of light machine guns, including:

• Berthier 1922. Development of the weapon was tested before the war and one hundred specimens were manufactured at the Châtellerault Arsenal, chambered for the American cartridge.30-06.
• Madsen. A Danish made gun, it had a large career and was used by more than25 countries including France during World War I. Two weapons chambered in 8mm Lebel were presented to the tests for the infantry and cavalry.
• Lewis 1920 (.30-06) and 1922 (7.92mm Mauser). These British weapons were not the same as the former model. The circular magazine was replaced by a straight box located under the gun.
• Hotchkiss 1922. Two of these light machine guns firing the 7mm Mauser cartridge were presented. One was fed by rigid link, the other by box magazine. These weapons were used by various countries in the world (China, Chile, Spain, Greece, Lebanon, Peru, Romania, etc).
• Browning 1922. A variation of the BAR M1918, firing the .30-06 cartridge.
• MAS 1922 and 1923. Manufactured by Saint-Etienne Arsenal, they are copies of the Browning light machine gun, manufactured for the new 7.5mm cartridge. Two variations were made: one for infantry (long barrel) and another for cavalry (short barrel).
• Darne 1923. A French light machine gun derived from the aircraft model, it fired the 7.92mm Mauser cartridge.

The tests had shown that the Browning Automatic Rifle was the best of all the guns presented. However, there remained a delicate problem: the payment of the royalties for the license to manufacture the gun in France. The requirements of the Colt Company for the transfer of license were considered to great and the weapon was withdrawn from consideration.

Looking for the experience gained at the time of the development of the Berthier light machine gun, lieutenantcolonel Reibel, chief of the research department of the Châtellerault Arsenal, proposed on February 8, 1923 to the Ministry of War, the development of a new weapon; less expensive to manufacture and designed by military engineers, which would exonerate the State of any royalty due to an inventor.

The ministry agreed and Reibel put himself to work and was able to submit to the Versailles proving ground the prototype of the light machine gun produced in MAC. Jean Reibel (1868-1954) was certainly a technician of high value but some of the characteristics of the Châtellerault light machine gun were borrowed from other weapons; particularly from the Berthier.

In June 1923, the first prototype was ready firing the 7.5mm Model 1924 (7.5×58) cartridge and was subjected to a series of tests. After some modifications, it was followed by an order of twenty-five prototypes to be tested by troops. On January 21, 1924, the weapon was adopted and designated in France as the Fusil-mitrailleur Model 1924 or F.-M. 24. In English speaking countries, it is known as the Châtellerault light machine gun.

Production began in July 1925, and at the end of October of the same year, 600 weapons were made. The new light machine gun was tested in combat on May 11, 1926 in the Djebel Inskritene (Morocco), where it was used by the 2nd battalion of the 66th Moroccan Riflemen Regiment. But at that time the French Army also used captured German weapons (rifles and machine guns), firing the 7.92mm Mauser cartridge. The similarity between the German cartridge and the French 7.5×58 cartridge sometimes caused confusion with the wrong cartridge being used in the Châtellerault. If a 7.92mm Mauser cartridge is drawn in the Châtellerault M1924 light machine gun, the weapon is put out of service.

After more tests to cure certain defects and improve various details, it was decided to modify the cartridge whereby it was shortened by 4mm, becoming the 7.5mm Model 1929 (7.5×54).

It then became necessary to modify all the Châtellerault light machine guns in service by exchange of the barrel, which required the return of the weapon to the factory, as well as building new weapons chambered for the 7.5×54 cartridge.

The new weapon is designated Fusilmitrailleur Model 1924 – M29 or F.-M. 24-29. It was manufactured at the Châtellerault Arsenal, with barrels provided by the Tulle Arsenal (MAT) or private factories (Hotchkiss, Gladiator).

The Châtellerault was manufactured from 1925 to 1939 with 45,530 Model 1924 guns being produced, and 53,769 Model 1924 – M29 guns being produced. From September 1939 to June 19, 1940, MAC produced 34,500 Model 1924 – M29 light machine guns. After an interruption during the war, production began again in January 1945, and 53,613 new guns were made until 1957 when the AA52 was adopted. The production of all versions of the Châtellerault is 187,412 guns.

Manufactured in great quantity since its adoption, the Châtellerault LMG was in quasi-general allocation in all the units in 1939 (except some reserve and specialized troops as engineers, which still used the Chauchat). During the war, it continued to be used by the Vichy French forces and the Militia, while the Germans brought it into service under the name of L.MG.116 (F). The Free French Forces from the Berthier. also largely used this weapon.

The Châtellerault LMG was used in Indo-China and Algeria, and was kept by reserve infantry regiments until the beginning of the 1980s. It was withdrawn from service in the gendarmerie in 2004.

There were efforts to export the Châtellerault to Yugoslavia and Romania in 1930s, but these attempts failed. The Châtellerault was used for a long time by the former French colonies in Africa, North Africa, South East Asia and also in Lebanon and Israel.

Description

This gun is a select fire, gas operated, air cooled light machine gun. It was used by infantry combat groups and intended to provide a sustained fire both in the attack and defense. The doctrine for the main use was a legacy of the fight in WWI. Designed during peace time, it is made of forged and milled steel parts. The result is a well designed and strong gun, which costs nowadays would be prohibitive.

The stock is fitted with an articulated shoulder rest and it contains a speed reducer and a recoil buffer. It is assembled within the frame by means of a fitting maintained by three pins.

The stock also has a removable monopod support Model 1930. It has a shoe made of sheet metal and an adjustable cylinder that regulates height by means of a double screw.

The receiver frame carries the cocking lever on the right, ejection port on top and contains a gas piston slide and the bolt. Below the receiver frame is the trigger mechanism, with a pistol grip. A short forearm is just forward of the trigger guard and is fitted with a vertical tube to allow the gun to be fitted on an anti-aircraft support.

The magazine housing and the ejection port can be closed by a single articulated flap. Below the barrel is the gas cylinder and at its front end has two blowholes. The gas cylinder and slide is the same part and has inside the recoil spring made of round or twisted wire.

The barrel, cylindrical with thick walls, is finished by a truncated flash hider with holes. The barrel has four lands and grooves; one turn at left in 270mm (10.63 in.).

A folding bipod is fixed permanently at the end of the gun and is fitted with cast iron or bronze shoes. Its tubular legs are not adjustable for height; they are joined together by an articulated compass. In position for transport, the bipod is folded back on the right side of the barrel.

The rear sight is graduated in hectometers from 100 to 2,000 meters and carries a folding eyepiece. The front sight is a blade fitted on the left side of a collar which is between the barrel and the flash hider.

Characteristics of the Châtellerault.
Model 1924 – M 29 LMG
Caliber: 7.5mm
Ammunition: 7.5 mm Model 1929 C
Overall length: 1,070mm (42.12 in.)
Barrel length: 500mm (19.69 in.)
Weight,emptys: 8.9 kg (19.62 lbs)
Mag Capacity: 25 rounds
Rate of fire: 450 rpm

Before Shooting

Place the weapon in a shooting position with the barrel pointed down range. Turn the eyepiece on the left and adjust the sight. Open the flap cover of magazine housing and ejection port. Unlock the magazine lock. Install a loaded magazine, pull off the safety and pull the cocking lever to the rear and replace it at the front position.

Operation
Full Automatic Fire

As the gunner pulls the rear trigger, the sear goes down. Pushed by the return spring, the bolt and piston move forward. A cartridge is stripped from the magazine and chambered. The bolt goes to the closed position and is locked by the action of the links, tilting the rear of the bolt on a hard steel locking pin. The slide which carries the firing pin goes forward and the cartridge is fired. When the bullet pass over the gas port, part of the gas is bled into the cylinder and pushes the piston backwards. The bolt is unlocked, opened, and the empty case is extracted from the barrel and ejected. As the bolt and gas piston travels rearward, the recoil spring is compressed. The piston goes to the rear and contacts the buffer; the bolt pushes the speed reducer pin and is retained by the speed reducer lever. The speed reducer pin comes back and unlocks the speed reducer lever. Pushed by the recoil spring, both the bolt and piston move forward. The cycle of operation is repeated until the gunner releases the trigger or until the ammunition is exhausted. The purpose of the speed reducer is to slow down the return of the bolt and piston to the front position for fraction of a second in order to lower the rate of fire.

Single Shot Firing

The gunner pulls the front trigger. The sear goes down a short time, permitting the bolt and piston to go forward, but the sear then returns to its place. The moving parts will thus be stopped in its movement at each shot. The other phases of operation are identical to those of full auto fire.

Disassembly and Reassembly

Remove the magazine and clear the weapon. Place the bolt in the front position. Unscrew the stock pin and remove the butt stock. Take off the pistol grip. Remove the recoil spring and guide. Withdraw the bolt and piston slide out of the receiver. Turn the gas cylinder lock and remove the gas cylinder. Separate the bolt, the links, their axis and the piston. Take off the ejector rod. Reassemble in reverse order.

Accessories

There are many accessories for the weapon and include:

• Spare parts. Placed in the stock, they include an ejector and a frame screw,
• cleaning kit. Two models exist; one for service in the barracks and the other for in the field,
• magazine loader,
• magazine unloader,
• blank firing devices. Two models were used: M1930, blued, for the wooden bullet blank cartridge and Inox steel M1958 for a plastic training cartridge. It is placed behind the flash hider.
• M1935 recovering box for empty cases. It is made of a fabric bag with metal reinforcement and sheet hooks,
• key to dismount the barrel and flash hider (reserved to gunsmith).
• Model 1938 leather strap, used for transport or shooting in the prone position,
• fabric sheath for transport with leather reinforcements (infantry),
• rigid leather saddle holster for cavalry,
• metallic closure for the rear of the frame that makes it possible to transport the weapon on the back with the stock removed (used by mountain troop),
• canvas holster for paratroops,
• magazine pouch containing two magazines,
• haversacks for magazines, several models were used : improved M 1915, M 1924, M 1935 and M 1950 (two for infantry and one for paratroops),
• camouflage unit (consisting of thread and pegs),
• anti-aircraft sight and support.

Variations

Châtellerault LMG in 7.92mm Mauser

To answer the request of foreign governments, the Châtellerault Arsenal, realized in 1927-28 that the light machine guns were able to shoot the 7.92mm Mauser cartridge, and some were delivered to Serbia, Poland and Romania. But these weapons were not retained and ZB 26 or Browning were chosen instead.

Fortress Châtellerault LMG

In order to equip the casemates or turrets in the Maginot line, the Model 1924- M 29 LMG was modified to allow it to use the 7.5mm Model 1933 D heavy bullet cartridge. The barrel with one turn in 270mm (10.6 in.) is replaced by a barrel with one turn in 235mm (9.25 in.) and the tangent rear sight is replaced and the bipod is removed.

This weapon was installed into single or double mounts in turrets or firing ports. They were equipped with a device for the recovery of empty cartridge cases so that they did not block the systems of rotation of the turrets. 2,512 light machine guns were transformed to this configuration.

7.62 mm NATO Châtellerault LMG

Following the adoption of the T65 (7.62mm NATO) cartridge by NATO, France entered into a program of assault rifle for the 7.62×51 cartridge and considered the modification of older weapons such as MAS 36-51 rifles, Châtellerault LMG and MAC 31 tank machine guns.

On October 17, 1951, the decision was made to study the feasibility of making such a conversion of the Châtellerault LMG and in June 1952, two converted weapons were tested. The modification relates to the replacement ofthe barrel and the extractor; as well as the use of a new magazine as the old one was not able to be modified.

Fifty Model 1924 – M 29 were then modified and tested in October 1956 with troop evaluation taking place in 1957. The project was not adopted.

Competition Châtellerault LMG

In the 1960s, the Army organized shooting competitions combining speed and precision. The most current guns in usewere the pistol and rifle, but also the light machine gun. To improve the performance of the Châtellerault, some modifications were made and were approved on July 13, 1966.

This modification relates to the following points:

• a curved pistol grip like the Bren LMG,
• adoption of a new rear sight which cannot be folded, but adjustable in height and windage,
• a more prominent safety lever,
• a handle for transport,
• a gas port with a four position regulator,
• a bipod adjustable in height, with lighter shoes without holes,
• a shroud to protect the front sight,
• a new bigger flash hider.

Conclusion

Developed during peaceful interwar years by highly competent technicians and having profited from recent engagements, the Châtellerault Model 1924 – M 29 light machine gun was undoubtedly one of the most successful weapons of its category.

Accurate, reliable and easy handling, it always gave satisfaction to its users and was shown under certain conditions (e.g., in the desert) higher reliability than other models.

The negative points that could possibly be noted are the position of the magazine that may cause the avoidance of use by a left handed user, it is difficult to camouflage, it had no device for a quick change barrel and the use of box magazines is less practical than cartridges on a belt.

In spite of that, the Châtellerault is a beautiful weapon whose success has proven itself.

The Black Rifle business has never been bigger or stronger. Nearly every company in the industry is making AR-15/M16/M4 rifles, components or accessories. Some of the companies make very high end gear for the professional user whose very lives depend on their equipment, and others are more suited for range shooting at paper targets. However, some of these manufacturers are literally on the cutting edge; creating components to carry the weapon system to the next level by increasing durability and reliability as well as making it extremely versatile allowing it to be set up mission specific.

Magpul is just one of those companies taking it to the next level. The company was founded in 1998 on a single product created by former Marine Corps Amphibious Reconnaissance Sergeant Richard Fitzpatrick. Anybody who has ever tried to pull a magazine out of a pouch under stress knows how difficult it is to get the magazine out. Troops learned a trick to speed up the process by taping a piece of 550 para cord to the bottom of the magazine creating a loop which they could grab quickly, or duct tape tabs. So when Sgt. Fitzpatrick got out of the service, he designed the Magpul (U.S. Patent 6212815): a rubber slip over loop that slid over the bottom of the magazine. A rather simple design, but it took off like wild fire. The company manufactured the Magpul for 5.56mm, 7.62mm and 9mm/.45 caliber magazines in black, olive drab green as well as flat dark earth. Law enforcement and military personnel bought them up. They sped up the reloading process and made it easier to pull magazines out of weapons with dirty magazine wells or out-of-spec magazines that fit tight. You would be hard pressed to find a SWAT team in the U.S. that does not use them for their M16 or M4 rifles. That innovation went on to the M93 Modular Stock (Out of production and replaced by the UBR) and the MIAD grip. The innovation of the company has also got into firearms design with their multi-caliber Massada. Magpul relies on real world users to drive their engineers to develop products that are needed in the field: soldiers designing for other soldiers.

The MIAD (MIssion ADaptable) Pistol Grip

The pistol grip was another area that Magpul felt could be improved. Not just in ergonomics and use with gloves but as a storage devise as well. The MIAD grip is a pistol grip that is customized for the user. Both the front and back strap are removable and can be custom fit for the user. The front strap has 4 different options. The F1 is the flat A1-style insert. This omits the finger swell for those who prefer it. The F2 has the finger swell identical to that of the standard M16A2/M4 grip. The F3 insert is for those who wish to use the MIAD as a vertical fore-grip. The F4 insert incorporates both the finger swell and enhanced trigger guard into one piece. The enhanced trigger guard is large enough to allow troops with heavy gloves to easily manipulate the trigger. There are three back strap inserts. The insert used depends on the size of the shooters hand. The B1 is the insert for the user with small hands. The B2 and B3 inserts both have an extended web area in the rear of the insert. The B2 is for those with medium size hands and the B3 is for those of us with really large paws.

The inside of the MIAD serves as a storage compartment with various cores offered by Magpul. The most innovative core offered is the Bolt/Firing Pin core. This core holds an M16/M4 bolt group with inserts for a firing pin as well. There are two cores available for those who use battery powered optics. The AA/AAA/N core offers the ability to carry two of each type of batteries. There is an additional insert that the two skinny AAA batteries fit into and slide up into the MIAD. A waterproof cover fits over the top of the core to protect the batteries from water. The 123 core carries the larger 123 batteries commonly used in tactical flash lights. That also has a waterproof cap that fits over the top. The final option is the three 5.56x45mm cartridge holder. This core holds three rounds of ammunition. The MIAD is the most innovative and versatile on the market. No other lets the shooter fit it to their hand size and preference. The MIAD can be had in black, foliage green and flat dark earth.

The Magpul Enhanced Trigger Guard

The standard M16/M4 rifles have, since day-one, a winter trigger, which by pushing in a detent and pulling downward gives easy access to the trigger guard. That has not changed. However, there is a major disadvantage to not having the trigger protected. The trigger could easily get caught on clothing or any other gear and get unintentionally pulled. Magpul saw this danger and developed a solution to unintentional discharges due to an unprotected trigger. The enhanced trigger guard creates a deep loop-shaped trigger guard allowing heavy gloves to be used and still have a protected trigger simply by replacing the original trigger guard. The standard roll pin goes in the rear of the trigger guard and a small hex pin in the front right side to lock it in place. This feature is also offered with the MIAD grip F4. The main difference is the F4 is made of super tough polymer and the Enhanced Trigger Guard is made of aluminum. For those who do wish for a folding trigger guard, Magpul offers the Enhanced Trigger Guard in both folding and non-folding variations. Both Knight’s Armament Company and LWRC offer this as standard on their rifles.

The PMAG (Polymer Magazine)

Perhaps of the entire line of advanced accessories Magpul Industries offers, the PMAG is the most revolutionary designed magazine in their catalog, and maybe in the industry. Throughout the years, many attempts have been made to manufacture synthetic magazines for the M16 family of weapons and, for the most part, it has been a complete disaster. The only success was to be made by Diemaco in Canada. Their first attempt was a failure but their second was well received (although not by the Canadian military) by Diemaco customers abroad and Law Enforcement. The magazines were good, but did not have the durability that many would rely on in real world situations nor extreme rough handling. Magpul showed a prototype magazine at the 2007 SHOT Show with a cowboy boot heel digging into it. A magazine was requested for T&E (test and evaluation) and the first one received was a black PMAG without observation windows. A genuine GI, Okay Industry magazine was used as the standard for comparison. Magpul has posted numerous videos of their testing on the construction of the PMAG. This includes running them over with a good size Chevy 4×4. They ran over a GI magazine, H&K high reliability, Orlite, Thermold and PMAG magazine. The test included a slow run over, fast run over and a grind with the magazine under the tire. The only magazine to make it through all the tests was the PMAG and, after the testing, the PMAG was the only survivor and was test fired without failure. This set a new bar for magazine reliability for the M16 weapon system. It proves once again that new age polymers are stronger and more reliable than conventional steel and aluminum.

The construction of the PMAG is from the ground up and not a modified version of a previous design. The mag body itself has several departures from the standard magazine. Other than being made of polymer, the shape is quite different though it will fit in a standard mag pouch. The magazine has no bends in it like the standard GI magazine that has two bends. The shot column in the PMAG is one constant curve consistent with the way the cartridges sit increasing feed reliability. There are four gripping grooves on the sides and five on the front and back of the magazine. There are two different mag bodies; the first is called the PMAG, which has a solid magazine body, and the second is called the MagLevel PMAG, which has a window. The MagLevel PMAG has an additional change to go along with the windows. The magazine spring has blaze orange painted on it showing when in the magazine how many cartridges are in the magazine. The PMAGs drop free from the magazine well either empty or loaded. Due to the numerous manufactures and wide variety of specifications, some weapons may experience the magazine sticking in the mag well and have to be pulled free. Testing shows Colt and FN GI rifles made to military specification have had no issues with the magazines dropping free. The construction of the magazine allows the use of the standard U.S. GI stripper clip and loading tool to be slid and used on the back of the magazine. Additionally, the Maglula LuLa can be used to load and unload the PMAG as well as their Bench Loader which is designed for the standard GI M16 and British SA80/H&K high reliability magazine.

The follower is also a great improvement in the reliability of the magazine by utilizing a no-tilt follower. If you were to take a standard GI magazine with either the black or green follower and push downward on the front of the follower, you could jam the front of the follower into the inside of the magazine. This can cause the tip of the cartridge to jam on the inside of the front of the magazine body. The PMAG follower will not do this. There is no way for the follower to come out of alignment in the magazine body ensuring constant shot column location and proper feeding position on the top of the magazine. Realizing this benefit, Magpul has offered this style follower as a reliability enhancement to standard GI magazines. The enhanced followers are offered both in orange and grey and replace the standard GI followers.

The next true innovation of the magazine is the addition of a removable cap that serves a couple purposes. The most obvious is a dust cover to keep unwanted dirt and sand out. The next is to allow the magazine to be stored for an indefinite amount of time without damaging the magazine. When the magazine is to be stored for long periods of time, the cap when installed pushes downward on the top cartridge in the shot column taking pressure off the feed lips. What damages magazines over time is the force of the cartridge on the feed lips leading to the feed lips spreading apart and eventually even the spot welds can break on the standard magazine. The PMAG does not require the use of the protective cap. Magpul testing has shown that there is no feed lip creep in 11 months when stored without the dust cover. It is designed to be used for long term storage. If one should choose to use the cap on duty magazines, a simple loading drill addition would be to hook the back lip of the cap on the inside of the magazine well and pull: removing the cap and allowing the magazine to be inserted into the rifle.

The test and evaluation magazines have seen several thousand rounds through two magazines without failures of any sort. Most fire has been fully automatic out of Colt M4 carbines. A drop test was conducted with a loaded PMAG and a loaded GI aluminum magazine. Both were dropped from 7 feet on their feed lips on concrete. The GI magazine failed and was unusable. The PMAG fired the ammunition and was loaded twice more with no malfunctions. The PMAGs are offered in three different colors in both standard PMAG and MagLevel variations: black, foliage green and flat dark earth. The PMAGs are in use with several law enforcement agencies including the Rochester Police Department SWAT team. Additionally, they are seeing use in the Global War on Terror with American forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Additional Magazines and Accessories

The aluminum and stainless steel MagLevel magazines are standard GI-style magazines with some major enhancements. The MagLevel aluminum magazine is a standard GI-style magazine with the MagLevel system that allows the operator to know how many rounds are in the magazine. There are 5, 15 and 25 round indicators on the window on the left side of the magazine. The stainless steel magazine offers the same MagLevel system but comes with a black Teflon finish. Both magazines also come standard with the Magpul Self-Leveling- Followers. Both magazines also come with the options of either the Magpul Ranger or LPlate floor plates.

The Ranger and L Plate Floor Plates
The Ranger Plate incorporates a finger loop right into the magazine floor plate to allow rapid magazine control and repeatable index for magazine removal from magazine pouches. The floor Plate/loop is made of a rubbery material to prevent breakage from rough handling. This variation is also offered in the Speedplate configuration for the Glock models 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26 and 27 magazines. They have a full loop and a compact loop.

The L Plate floor plate is flat and features integrated holes for use with para cord. Both the Ranger and L Plate can be used on any standard GI magazine by simply replacing the standard floor plate with the Magpul ones. Both floor plates are available in black, foliage green and flat dark earth colors.

XT and Ladder Rail Covers
With the increase in the use of rail systems, there has been a demand for rail protectors, not just to protect the rails but the shooters hand as well. Many companies have offered them and some companies offer them in different lengths to cover portions of unused rails not in use by vertical pistol grips or flashlight or any other accessories.

Magpul offers two different versions of rail covers. The XT panels feature a heavy texturing to provide the most positive grip in any conditions. The six inch panels can be cut into eight different lengths to custom fit your rail needs.

The Ladder rail covers offer a low profile rail protector that can be cut into 18 different lengths. It protects un-mounted rail sections and covers sharp edges. Both the XT and Ladder rail covers can be obtained in black, olive drab and flat dark earth color.

Magpul M4/AR-15/M16-Series Enhanced Stocks

CTR (Compact/Type Restricted)

The CTR stock is an advanced stock assembly designed to replace the standard GI type sliding buttstock. There are many aftermarket stocks available from a number of manufacturers. Most are very similar adding a battery compartment or a more ergonomic shape. The CTR offers a very unique feature: a shielded operating lever and a positive lock. That positive lock prevents the operating lever from being pushed accidentally and the stock collapsing with tough handling. Magpul offers a rubber butt-pad as well as cheek risers (.25, .50 and .75 inches) to custom align the shooter’s cheek weld to their individual optic. The CTR also uses a friction locking system that secures the stock to the buffer tube eliminating rattling and instability. Additionally featured are ambidextrous quick detach sling mounts. The CTR is offered in two configurations. The first is the Mil-Spec that has the proper dimensions for a Mil-Spec buffer tube (Colt). The second is what is called the Commercial configuration. There is a different dimension used in non-Mil- Spec buffer tubes that normally have six positions instead of four. However, both Lewis Machine and Tool and VLTOR offer Mil- Spec buffer extensions with six position engagement. The CTR is available in black and flat dark earth colors.

UBR (Utility Battle Rifle)

The UBR, as of this writing, is in the final stages of development and getting ready to go into production. What separates this stock from the CTR is that it is designed to offer the same stability as the standard fixed rifle stock. With the adaptability of theM16/M4 family of weapons to larger caliber (6.8 Rem SPC, 6.5 Grendel, 7.62x39mm, 7.62x51mm, etc.), the UBR is designed to take the recoil and offer a constant cheek weld regardless of the position of the stock. The buffer extension comes with the UBR and is proprietary to the UBR. The stock moves independently from the cheek weld area as the cheek weld area is permanently fixed to the buffer extension. The stock is a separate piece that extends and contracts to the shooters choice of length. The shooter’s anchor point on the stock will not change. There are no sharp edges on the UBR to catch on anything. The shooter will also have options for a storage module, extended rubber buttpad, aluminum strike plate with 1.25 inch sling loop, wider triangular shaped cheek piece, front and rear quick detach sling mounts as well as an integral strike plate. The stock length closed is 8 inches and fully extended is 11.3 inches. The UBR will be offered in black, foliage green and flat dark earth.

The PRS (Precision Rifle/Sniper)

The stock has much to do with the accuracy of the rifle. Stability, cheek weld, proper length for the shooter and the ability to anchor the non firing hand are all key elements. The PRS does all these important jobs. The sample stock was placed on a Knight’s Armament Company 7.62x51mm SR25 sniper rifle. As the rifle came from the factory, it had a standard mil-spec A2 rifle stock. The A2 stock was removed and the PRS installed with no special fitting or tools; only a standard screw driver was used.

The PRS was designed by Magpul specifically for tactical precision rifles in the M16/SR- 25/AR-10 family of weapons. Both the aluminum buttpad and cheek weld are precisely adjusted with machined aluminum dials with posi-click detents. The rifle is adjusted for the individual shooter and can be changed by a simple dial. This means the shooter will have precise cheek weld for the optic on the rifle and will have the proper length according to the length of the shooter’s arms. There is an anchor point for the non shooting hand as well. On the bottom of the PRS is a Mil-Std-1913 rail for use with a monopod. There is a slipcover to protect the rails when not in use. Magpul offers the PRS stock in either AR- 15/M16 or AR-10/SR-25 variations. The difference between the two consists of a small cheek piece for the SR-25/AR-10 versions to allow the longer charging handle to function properly. Additionally the PRS is made for the FAL rifle (PRS-FAL) as well as the Heckler & Koch G3/91 (PRS-G3). As with all their other lines, the PRS is offered in black, olive green and flat dark earth.

Shooting impressions were incredible. After the PRS was adjusted to fit my long arms and big head, I found the stock made a big difference in my shooting. The rifle itself will fire 1/2 MOA all day long; better than me usually. But the feel of the rifle changed with the use of the PRS. It felt sturdier and more solid. Using the anchor point on the stock I was able to hold the rifle steadier with little effort and my groups consistently tightened. With Black Hills .308 match 168gr OTM bullets, the rifle shot consistently under 1/2 MOA at 100 yards. This stock is a must for anyone shooting tactical variations of this weapon system.
v Magpul is a growing company with incredible products. Their PMAG will set a new industry standard for durability and reliability in M16/M4 magazines correcting 40+ year old problems with magazine durability issues and should be seriously considered for the U.S. Army Enhanced Magazine Program. These magazines already fit the bill for that requirement and are fielded with several units now. The enhanced followers are also setting a reliability standard. The original Magpul has been in use with military/special operations forces as well as law enforcement all over the world. Their stocks are in use by the same exclusive group of users. This equipment is being fielded by U.S. forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This goes to show you what one operator can do when he thinks there has to be a better way, and does it himself.

Contact Information


Magpul Industries, Corp.
P.O. Box 17697
Longmont, CO 90308-0697
Phone: (877) 4MAGPUL
(303) 828-3460
Fax: (303) 828-3469
Email: magpul@magpul.com

“To instill the requisite antiterrorism warfare mindset – Navy wide – and to create the premier security force for the world’s greatest naval power…” Center for Security Forces Vision Statement.

SAR’s loyal readers will recall our first encounter with the US Navy’s Center for Security Forces (CSF) in our report on the US Coast Guard’s Special Missions Training Center (SAR September 2006). A large percentage of students in SMTC’s Small Boat Crew-Served Weapons Course were US Navy Sailors, undergoing extensive training in the martial art of effective machinegunning on land and at sea.

Makes sense, we thought, as these Bluejackets were from the Navy’s Mobile Security Squadrons. Basic Crew-Served Weapons training for these and other Sailors has been done under CSF, then known as the Center for Antiterrorism and Navy Security Forces, since its establishment in June of 2004.

It wasn’t until January 2006, when the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) was established, that CSF was faced with the additional challenge of preparing Sailors for the demands of expeditionary unit level training. How, we wanted to know, is CSF handling these vitally important missions?

A request for more information, launched through the Navy’s elaborate public affairs apparatus, was answered in surprisingly short order and we were invited to CSF for an orientation visit.

Headquartered aboard Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, Norfolk, Virginia, CSF shares its home with numerous elite units, including Naval Special Warfare Groups Two and Four. NECC is also formidable presence on the 2,500 acre base, serving as a central hub for diverse components including SEABEES, EOD, Riverine Forces, Navy Individual Augmentees and others.

Our host for the morning was Lieutenant Brian Simpson, a seasoned thirty-four year old career officer whose primary duty assignment is Assistant Expeditionary Warfare Program Manager. He is also CSF’s collateral duty Antiterrorism Officer and collateral Public Affairs Officer, a combination that makes him, in our humble opinion, a particularly credible source.

First order of business was the Center for Security Forces Command Briefing, an essential overview of the mission, structure and capabilities of this little known but undeniably essential organization.

At first glance, CSF’s mission “To produce disciplined, motivated, physically fit and tactically proficient Sailors who embody Navy Core Values and who are fully prepared to augment combat security forces around the world,” may seem overly ambitious. However, when backed by the right people, such lofty goals can be transformed into a practical reality. Staffed by some 690 dedicated military, civilian, and contract personnel, CSF graduated more than 21,000 Sailors from seventeen training sites across the continental U.S., Hawaii, and Japan during the past year.

Additionally, thousands of other Sailors have gained invaluable professional knowledge from the Center’s offerings on NKO (Navy Knowledge Online) an internetbased resource for self-paced instruction.

Curriculum

CSF’s impressive course list contains more than 45 subjects grouped into four program areas: Antiterrorism (AT); Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure (VBSS); Code of Conduct (CoC); and Expeditionary Warfare (EW).

As the command’s official title suggests, security force related training comprises the majority of CSF’s offerings. Accordingly, the AT program is the largest, dominated by the security requirements of the Navy, and reflects the Navy’s reliance on CSF to conduct “A School” (initial Military Occupational Specialty qualification) for the Master- at-Arms (MA) rating, as well as antiterrorism instruction for Commanding Officers, selected staff officers, and security force personnel throughout the Navy.

“The majority of our MA’s receive their initial training at Navy Technical Training Center, located onboard Lackland Air Force Base in Texas,” Simpson explained, “but back in March 2006, CSF had to establish a second MA ‘A’ School here in Norfolk to meet the increased demand for MA support in the Navy’s various missions in the Global War on Terror.”

Instruction for Sailors in many specialties tagged with specific Navy Enlisted Classification (NEC) codes is also provided by CSF. Courses include Correctional Specialist Ashore/Afloat, Military Working Dog Handler/Kennel Master, Military Police Investigator, Protective Services, Non- Lethal Weapons Instructor, Small Arms Marksmanship Instructor, and Crew Served Weapons Instructor.

Certain AT courses, such as Security Reaction Force-Basic (SRFB), provide the foundation for CSF’s VBSS program and include essential training for personnel assigned to Advanced SRF and Non-Compliant Boarding (NCB) VBSS teams. Sailors assigned to these critical mission areas learn advanced shooting techniques and the other skills necessary to conduct pier side security and “blue water” Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO).

The Navy’s need for NCB VBSS training is a direct result if increasing numbers of compliant inspections and their potential to turn ugly. This prepares search teams to deal with hostilities that may arise if violations are detected.

Code of Conduct (CoC) training applies to all Navy personnel. Introductory instruction is provided to those who have just joined the Navy, followed by periodic refreshers. Additional training is provided to those personnel deploying to various theaters of operations, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

Advanced Code of Conduct training, or SERE, which stands for “Survive, Evade, Resist, and Escape,” is provided to those persons categorized as being high risk of capture (HRC), particularly aircrewmen and Special Warfare personnel . While the introductory, basic, and intermediate level Code of Conduct courses can be taught nearly anywhere, SERE training is limited to two specialized CSF learning sites, located on either coast.

The unyielding demands of Expeditionary Warfare drive the last grouping, and CSF has risen to the challenge with six intense courses specifically tailored for individuals reporting to units deploying to Iraq, Afghanistan, and various other locations around the world.

Simpson emphasized how the Center’s Expeditionary Warfare program is aligned with several strategic objectives as set forth by the Navy Expeditionary Combat Enterprise (NECE). This is a cooperative effort between NECC and its constituents on the Navy’s operational side, and various commands on the training side including CSF.

“When NECC was established, some of its training requirements drew heavily on courses already established by CSF,” Simpson said. “Others, such as the CSWI course, weren’t a perfect fit and have been revised accordingly.”

Brown Water Navy

CSF has also created new courses to support training for some of NECC’s newly established components, particularly the riverine force. Manning the brand new Riverine Squadrons (RIVRONs) necessitated an urgent requirement to write and implement training packages for Boat Captains, Tactical Coxswains, and plenty of gunners like the ones SAR had encountered at SMTC.

“CSF, with direction from NECC and assistance from the Marine Corps, has diligently worked to define and reestablish the Navy’s capability in this arena,” Simpson said.

Also notable are the Small Craft Maritime Interdiction Operations course. Although similar to the NCB-VBSS course in concept and objectives, Small Craft MIO presents more of a challenge because of the environment.

Rather than boarding and searching large merchant vessels at sea where third party threats are more easily detected, Sailors are now securing and searching smaller boats on inland waterways where a third party threat has the potential to appear from any direction. This 360-degree threat environment presents unique challenges not often encountered by typical blue-water Sailors.

Simpson underscored the importance of CSF’s standardization and quality assurance programs. “One of our primary objectives is to ensure the training we deliver is both consistent and on target with the needs of the Navy.”

Consistency implies that all Sailors who have received CSF training on a particular subject have the same skills and knowledge, regardless of where they were trained. “We continually strive to ensure our courses meet operational requirements, are effective, and fit within current budgetary constraints.”

This is obviously a delicate balancing act when money is tight, requirements shift, and effectiveness is measured in the metaphor “how well you can hit a constantly moving target.”

Combat Skills Training

While the Navy’s Expeditionary Warfare mission requirement is growing and requires more Sailors to operate in potentially hostile surroundings, combat skills training is not part of the typical Navy Fleet experience. Although similar in content, the training for those Navy commands already operating in the expeditionary arena has been developed independently and to varying degrees of proficiency depending on mission requirements.

CSF is working to develop and establish a basic combat skills course for the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command. This course, dubbed “Expeditionary Combat Skills” or ECS, features several elements working together, providing standardized individual basic combat skills training to all NECC personnel.

The curriculum for this 4-week course includes combat shooting with the M9 and M4, land navigation, radio procedures, and combat casualty care using the time-honored “crawl, walk, run” progression. Classroom, field, and realistic, scenariobased training will force students to get their hands dirty and think on their feet while they learn to “shoot, move, communicate, and care.”

NECC’s desire is to eventually expand ECS content to 8 weeks and include training for chemical/biological warfare defense, crew-served weapons, and convoy operations.

The Center for Security Forces also plays a key role in the combat skills training of Navy Individual Augmentees (IAs). “This particular group of Sailors faces a unique challenge,” Simpson observed, “because they are reassigned from a familiar Navy environment to perform similar duties with other services, typically the Army.”

This unusual situation has become necessary due to the intense operational tempo of GWOT, leading to additional requirements in specialized fields such as EOD and Electronic Warfare.

The Navy has gone to great lengths to smooth this transformation with dedicated orientation training. For example, Navy Electronic Warfare (EW) specialists deploying to an Army unit will learn not only how the equipment and tactical employment differs, but also the many cultural differences like jargon (e.g., latrine vs. head), Army customs and rank structure.

“Sailors receive ‘differences training’ between Navy and Army methodology and philosophy while learning the basics of land warfare and combat tactics in order to prepare them for a potentially hazardous environment,” Simpson explained.“We want to minimize the potential danger Sailors pose to themselves and friendlies or neutrals while maximizing the danger they pose to the enemy.”

This last part plus a whole lot more is packaged in a concentrated 12-day course called Navy Individual Augmentee Combat Training (NIACT). CSF’s NIACT curriculum is delivered in a very unusual partnership with the Army at Fort Jackson, South Carolina where Navy personnel bound for Army assignments undergo a crash program of instruction delivered by Army Reserve Drill Sergeants.

Clad in desert camouflage battledress with helmets, body armor, canteens and other gear, Sailor-Soldiers get full immersion combat training built on an intimate relationship with the iconic M16A2 rifle or the handy little M9 pistol. This bond is forged over several days of concentrated instruction on safe handling, maintenance, operation, marksmanship, and qualification.

Additional weapons training follows with familiarization firing of all the Army’s standard infantry machine guns including the 5.56mm M249, 7.62mm M240, .50 cal. M2HB, and 40mm MK 19. Battlefield survival training continues with land navigation, individual movement techniques, radio communications, first aid, military operations in urban terrain (MOUT), IED recognition and avoidance, and convoy operations.

New Initiatives

We asked Simpson to tell us about any new developments at CSF. What is the latest challenge that needs to be met?

“Judgment-based Engagement Training, or JET,” he immediately replied. “The JET concept integrates combat shooting with the ability to ‘think on your feet’ while taking into account the overarching concepts of Rules of Engagement, Rules for Use of Force and Escalation of Force.”

The goal of JET training, as Simpson explained, “is to develop the cognitive and shooting skills a Sailor needs to be able to assess a rapidly evolving situation based on the information at hand, decide on a course of action, take the action decided upon, and evaluate the result.” CSF’s desire is to train Sailors not only how to shoot, but just as importantly, when to shoot in a combat situation.

Find out More

The Center for Security Forces provides training and human performance solutions to Navy Expeditionary, Security, and Antiterrorism professionals to meet the needs of the Fleet. The Center trains Navy personnel worldwide in security and antiterrorism measures and procedures. CSF’s focus tends toward supporting personnel serving in the Master-at-Arms (MA) Rating, Sailors assigned in an antiterrorism role, Navy Security Officer communities, and the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC). CSF reports to the Naval Personnel Development Command (NPDC), and falls under the Naval Education and Training Command (NETC) claimancy.

CSF website: www.npdc.navy.mil/csf
NECC website: www.necc.navy.mil
US Navy: www.navy.mil

Coming Soon
Our interest in CSF was further rewarded by Lieutenant Simpson’s invitation to observe a Crew-Served Weapons Instructor Course in progress. Come along as SAR journeys to the Headquarters of the US Marine Corps at Quantico, Virginia, for a fine day of live fire machine gun training.

By Christopher R. Bartocci

At the 2006 SHOT Show, Mark Westrom, CEO of ArmaLite, Inc. debuted the first ArmaLite pistol. Westrom had been on a business trip to Turkey where he came across a manufacture making a CZ-75-like pistol that was the finest quality he had ever seen. Westrom has made a reputation based on his very high standards and determined that this pistol warranted the ArmaLite name.

Examination of the AR-24 pistol showed it to be a more traditional design rather than modern; being made of steel with no synthetics. The pistol is double/single action with no decocking lever, similar to the original CZ-75. The trigger mechanism of the AR-24 is more robust than the CZ-75 that includes some spring changes as well as safety enhancements. The hammer has a 1/4 cock position for lowering the hammer on a loaded chamber. However, unlike the CZ-75, the AR-24 has a firing pin block: probably the most important safety feature any pistol can have. The firing pin block blocks the firing pin from protruding through the breach face unless the trigger is pulled all the way to the rear. As the trigger is pulled to the rear, an arm on the firing mechanism lifts upward on the spring loaded firing pin block disengaging it so when the hammer releases to strike the firing pin, it can reach the primer. However, if the trigger is not pulled and the hammer was to drop, the firing pin block would prevent the firing pin from connecting with the primer.

The quality of the AR-24 was quite impressive. Most eastern European weapons are quite crude with a rough fit and finish. There are normally heavy machining marks on all the metal parts and the tolerances are quite sloppy. These old time defense contractors were in the business to make extremely reliable combat weapons, not precise engineering masterpieces. The AR-24 test and evaluation pistol was tight as could be and the metal was polished perfectly with no machining marks present. The quality was up to par with a Beretta or a SIG. The trigger was excellent; very smooth and no creep. Westrom was right; these are extremely high quality pistols worthy of the ArmaLite name.

The origins of the AR-24 go way back to the model 1935A pistol developed by Charles Gabriel Petter of the Societe Alsacienne de Constructions Mecaniques, France. An interesting pistol, it used a Browning short recoil method of operation. The greatest departure from the Colt M1911 and the Browning High Power were the locations of the slide rails. Unlike the traditional pistols that had the slide rails on the outside, the M1935A were made on the inside. This was also a single action pistol like the M1911 and the High Power.

The next evolution of the pistol would come from SIG in Switzerland. The SIG model P47/8 would be adopted by the Swiss Army as the P49. SIG would later produce the P49 for commercial sales as the highly sought after and expensive P210. The SIG P210 was highly refined, precision made, and had the reputation of being the most accurate 9mm pistol in the world. The safety was located on the left side of the pistol along with a slide lock. The pistol uses a single column magazine.

The next great leap for the P210/P49 pistol would come from Czechoslovakia: the CZ75. With the influence of pistols such as the Walther P-38, the major change would be the opting for a double action trigger group instead of single action. This is much safer to carry than a cocked and locked pistol. The other major improvement of the CZ75 was the use of a double column high capacity magazine. This pistol could carry 15 rounds of 9x19mm ammunition rather than 8. The CZ75 went on to have an excellent career with the Czech military and would go on to be copied by Tanfoglio in Italy (EAA Witness) chambered in many different calibers. The simplicity of the design led it to be a favorite among competitive shooters due to the ease of accurizing it. The AR-24 would fit more so in-between the P210 and CZ75 in appearance, however there are several mechanical changes. The slide of the AR- 24 is more similar to that of the P210 and the frame is more similar to that of the CZ-75. Basically, it is a blended gun from these two famous designs.

The Turkish manufacturing firm that Westrom was speaking of was Sarsilmaz. This company is the defense contractor for the Turkish Army that manufactures their Kilinc pistol, which is basically a CZ75. The Kilinc pistol is chambered for the standard 9mm Luger pistol cartridge.

When Westrom decided to market the Turkish pistol, he determined he wanted two sizes: the standard and a compact. The full size 34.9 oz. AR-24 pistol has a 4.67 inch barrel and has a capacity of 15 rounds of 9mm Luger ammunition. The 33.4 oz. AR-24K compact has a shorter 3.89 inch barrel and a capacity of 13 rounds. The butt of the pistol has also been shortened. The frame, slide and barrel are machined from forgings and the pistol is finished with a durable blackfinish. Rubber grip panels are used with the ArmaLite logo. After the 9mm pistols went into production, Westrom decided he wanted another, more powerful version but did not want to put the more powerful .40 S&W caliber cartridge on the 9mm frame. He felt that it is problematic to scale a 9mm up to fire the more powerful 40 S&W cartridge. Currently Westrom is working on a .45 Auto caliber pistol that he will later scale down to fire the .40 S&W cartridge.

The AR-24 pistols are offered in four configurations. The standard AR-24 with fixed sights as well as the compact AR-24K with luminous (luminous paint) fixed sights. Both pistols are offered in the Match grade models as well. The major difference is a different frame isused. This frame comes with additional material on the front and back strap. Then checkering is machined into the front and back strap. Due to the additionalmetal, the checkering process does not decrease the grip diameter. The Match pistols also have adjustable luminous (luminous paint) sights. It is suggested that if a pistol is to be used for personal protection or duty use, fixed sights are preferable. Adjustable sights are more likely to come out of adjustment or break with rough handling. The barrel is inserted from the inside of the slide and there is no separate barrel bushing. The spring guide and recoil spring are inserted with the spring into the slide and the rear of the spring guide to the barrel. It should be noted the CZ- 75 did not have a full length spring guide but the P210 did. The barrel has two locking lugs that lock into grooves in the top of the inside of the slide just after the ejection port. No barrel link is used either. A more durable slot is machined into the barrel providing the locking/unlocking track, which is held in place by the slide stop lever.

The AR-24 has a manual safety lever. The pistol can be carried in two ways. With a round in the chamber, the pistol can be carried cocked with the safety on; the same as the M1911. Or the pistol can be carried hammer down with or without the safety engaged. This takes a very careful decocking process. The operators thumb must catch the hammer when the trigger is pulled lowering the hammer to the 1/4 cock notch. The trigger should be released prior to lowering the hammer so the firing pin block will be engaged. It is this author’s opinion that if there were to be a change to this pistol, it would be the addition of a decocking mechanism. The safety lever is located on the left side of the frame of the pistol.

Loading of the pistol is as simple as inserting a loaded magazine into the magazine well and pulling the slide to the rear and releasing it. The slide may be locked open, magazine inserted and the slide released. Unloading is accomplished by engaging the safety, removing the magazine, retracting the slide and engaging the slide release lever to lock the slide to the rear. Observe the chamber to be sure it is empty.

Disassembly is accomplished with no tools as one would expect of a combat pistol. Be sure the weapon is not loaded by retracting the slide and checking the chamber. On the left side of the rear of the frame and slide are two dots. Pull the slide back enough so both dots are aligned and push the slide stop lever inward from the right side of the frame. Remove the slide stop from the left side of the slide. Now separate the slide from the frame by pulling the slide forward off the frame. Flip the slide over and push the base of the recoil spring guide inward and lift out. Pull the spring guide and spring out of the slide. Lift the rear of the barrel up and pull the barrel out of the slide. This is all that is required for cleaning.

Shooting impressions were quite pleasing. The feel of the grip is very natural and easily pointed. The width of the grip was not excessive and fit quite well. The low profile of the rails and the grip angle make recoil very manageable. The profile of the trigger made it very reachable in the double action mode. The magazine release button and safety are easily within reach of the right thumb. The crisp single action pull produced 2-inch groups offhand at 15 yards. The double action was pleasant as well. There was no problem getting off rapid shots and keeping them center mass. The ammunition chosen for the testing was Federal American Eagle 124-gr 9mm ball ammunition. A total of 200 rounds were fired with no malfunctions of any kind.

The AR-24 is a well made pistol that provides combat reliability with excellent accuracy. ArmaLite is branching out to cover more markets and Mark Westrom assures us that this is not going to be the last handgun offered by the company. The AR-24 is certainly the next evolution of the combat proven CZ75/P210 family of pistols.

All the pistols are currently being offered by ArmaLite with a MSRP for the standard and compact models of $550, while the Match grade models are $630.

ArmaLite, Inc.
P.O. Box 299
Geneseo, IL 61254

Bob Faris was born in 1930 in Chicago, Illinois, but spent most of his youth in the Germantown, Pennsylvania area. He is an Ordnance veteran of the Korean War, and participated in testing many of the modern small arms used by today’s military at Aberdeen Proving Grounds and Yuma Proving Grounds. Bob is a lifelong collector of military small arms, their ammunition, belts, magazines, and accessories, the paraphernalia that accompanies them, and the uniforms and militaria. He shoots, makes parts, and generally has mentored several generations of firearms designers, testers, users and civilian shooting enthusiasts.

SAR: Bob, you’ve always been a “gun guy.” During that period, in the ’50s and ’60s when you were at Aberdeen, did you expand your gun collecting?

Bob Faris: Every time I got a raise, I’d go down and buy another bundle of guns. Most of my shopping was at Interarmco, then InterArms. I knew Dick Winter, and I got to know them all pretty well. Of course, I met Sam Cummings and I got to be one of their information resources. They were getting so much stuff in they couldn’t identify, I was helping them out, so I got a discount on guns and things. They’d call me up as soon as a ship was offloaded, and as soon as I could get off from work, I’d come down there and help them out. Start sorting and going through piles and find out what things were. Sam had his own little warehouse floor in the office building. Anything new that came in there, they would immediately pick out the best of whatever got there, and put it in Sam’s storage, which is logical.

SAR: Of course it is. It’s one of the perks of being a gun guy. Anyone in particular that sticks out?

Bob Faris: I forget what year, but Tom Nelson got out of the Army, and I introduced him to Winter, and later he came back down and got a job with them. It was the early ’60s. Tom came out and was working for them. They had finally hired someone who knew weapons.

SAR: Any interesting guns that come to mind that you found there? Any weird stuff?

Bob Faris: Sure, all of it. (Laughs) Very few automatics. They did get a few in, as did Val Forgett. Val and Sam, they kind of worked together. I wasn’t buying machine guns in those days. I had a couple of them, Dewats, but it wasn’t until ’65 that I got my first live machine guns. I got a Thompson 28A1 and a MK II Bren gun. Paid 100 bucks apiece.

SAR: That was a lot of money.

Bob Faris: I know. I had to pay the $200 transfer tax as well.

SAR: Do you still have those two pieces?

Bob Faris: Yeah. I’m pretty dedicated to collecting and not getting rid of the items I buy. I’m very careful what I buy most of the time. Hardly ever have any trading stock. Every one that I do get rid of, I have regretted it later. Those first two guns were imported guns, from Interarmco. There wasn’t a big shipment; it was a pretty select shipment. I had my choice of some fairly worn 1921A1s, and I picked a 1928A1. I wished I’d gotten the Colt 1921A1 now. I could’ve dip blued them and they’d look like new. The Bren was a Canadian MKII – that one over there (Bob points at his collection). That was in pretty good shape when I got it and I still enjoy shooting it today, especially since I traded for the Mark I that I also have, which is also a Long Branch gun. I converted it to 7.62, sold it and got it back in trade again. Technically an “L4 Bren.” The next gun I got was either a Dutch FAL or a Lewis.

SAR: How about dealing with Val Forgett?

Bob Faris: I was working at Aberdeen, and Colonel Jarret called me up one day. He said, “I got an Army GI over here, just new, just come in, and he’s assigned to help me out. He’s a real gun nut. Come on over and meet him,” so I did. I knew Val ever since, because he was working for Colonel Jarrett who had started and run the Aberdeen Museum. I also met Don Bady. Colonel Jarrett’s assistant took over when he retired in the 1950s. Val always knew the interesting guns, and I bought quite a few from him as well.

SAR: Did you register any guns in the amnesty?

Bob Faris: Yes, the Dutch FAL and then the 25mm Puteaux had to be registered as a Destructive Device, and a Dewat Chatellerault 1924/29 and I registered that. I registered maybe ten guns in the 1968 Amnesty.

SAR: Did you know anybody else that was registering guns in the Amnesty?

Bob Faris: Everybody I knew that was interested in machine guns. Some guys held some back, which they regretted later. They held them back because they felt uncomfortable with registering them, they didn’t trust the government. They thought the government was going to come and take the guns that they registered. It is good sound reasoning you know, not to trust a government when it comes to gun control. This may happen yet.

SAR: Were you going to gun shows?

Bob Faris: I was going to the Ohio Gun Collector Association (OGCA) gun shows from ’59 on. Tom Nelson introduced me to them. There I met Allan Coors. He’s big into tanks as well and he’s getting more into machine guns now. He’s got a great military rifle collection too. Remember, there weren’t many gun shows back then, it was a big deal. The three of us, Tom and Allan and I, and maybe two more guys would meet and then drive up to Ohio, taking turns driving. All of the collectors would meet a few times a year at these shows, and buy and sell. When I moved to Yuma there was nothing out west like that OGCA show; except for that big one in Pomona, California, The Great Western. It was a pretty good substitute for OGCA. It was the biggest show I’d ever been to. You did a lot of walking, but you could see the stuff and buy it.

SAR: That’s where I first met you, way back, because my family was always there twice a year. Tom Nelson was there, the whole old crew. A big gathering in the sunshine in Southern California. Everybody’d come out from the East Coast and get in the sunshine and come down to Pomona and go to the Great Western twice a year. I miss that show.

Bob Faris: Absolutely, I never missed one. It was great getting together with everyone there, finding all the parts, manuals, old guns. Too bad the local politicians killed it.

SAR: I understand the name was sold, and they run “The Great Western” in Texas now. At Yuma, most of the testing you were doing there was on aircraft guns?

Bob Faris: It started out as aircraft guns. XM-140 was what originally was tested extensively for a new aircraft, and I was up to my neck in that. The aircraft Lockheed Cheyenne pooped out and they dropped it, started over again. That eventually was replaced by the Blackhawk. They had this completely electronically run, mechanically operated gun, the XM-140 30-millimeter. It was about the same as the NATO 30mm round. It had a different semi-rimmed head, instead of adopting the one that they had standardized in the NATO group. They had to make this new thing, and eventually they did make the change, to NATO standard, mid-length ADEN round. The XM230 Chain Gun replaced the XM140.

SAR: They didn’t standardize with the British ADEN system?

Bob Faris: Not the guns, but they eventually modified the XM140 round to interchange with the ADEN ammunition. The HEDP project had a lot of work going into it. Ballistically, they’re almost identical, but were not interchangeable. They were firing mostly from the air for these ammunition tests. There was a lot of fuze testing on the ground, because they had problems, and eventually wound up with a pretty good fuze. It was an all-purpose projectile. It had blast effect, some fragmentation, that’s a shaped charge in the projectile for anti-tank effect.

SAR: You worked on the 25mm Bushmaster program at Yuma.

Bob Faris: That started with the TRW 6425 weapon system, which was sent to Aberdeen for test, for military potential evaluation. The government officially didn’t have a need for that system, but the military really did. I was pulled off another program of grenade launchers. This first design was by TRW, a combination of designs between Oerlikon and TRW. The ammunition had shown success against light armor, and you could stop any tank going with a burst. The gun was recoil operated to start with, and then gas operation was an alternative. It had right and left hand feed that was quick change, electrically fired, and could be worked by hand. You could put your armor piercing ammunition on one side and your anti-personnel on the other. This was a very important design feature. I ran the military potential test on it, and it had some problems but many good features. It needed a balance between adequate and excessive powering, and between maximum depression and maximum elevation, which was a problem. You don’t do all the adverse conditions in the initial military test. You do certain ones that you feel may be important, or may show a problem but it had potential. This project was put on the shelf for a while. In the meantime, the infantry was working out what they really wanted from this kind of system, what kind of ranges, what kind of speeds, what kind of capacities and so forth for their new Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) concept. They needed more space for a bigger turret because they wanted to put a bigger gun in it. At Aberdeen primarily, they tested an interim rapid fire weapon system. They spent a lot of time and money on the German interim M139 20 millimeter. It was supposed to be an off-the-shelf item just to give the Seventh Army something to put on their scout vehicle and the predecessor of the IFV, MICV (Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle), having a one-man turret with the M139 20mm gun.

Now, since it was to be replaced with the IFV having a two-man turret with a 25mm gun, they needed someone to run the tests at YPG (Yuma Proving Ground), and here I was at YPG. So, I was picked for the project. The Army had to choose between the recoil/gas operated XM241 and the motor driven XM242. Both used the same ammunition and link belt. APG (Aberdeen Proving Ground) conducted the engineering tests from test stands. The XM242 performance was better than that of the XM241 in almost every test. However, there had been incidents of the XM242 firing out of battery (unlocked) at other test installations (at least one at a Hughes test range). The Army convened a Source Selection Board to summarize and analyze all of the test results and decide which gun should be chosen. In December of 1978 I was appointed to review all of the results for safety because of my experience as I had either conducted or observed many of the tests. All of the testers including the contractors and other Army agencies were represented.

SAR: Identical ammunition in 25 millimeter?

Bob Faris: Same ammo. The TRW gun had no significant safety problems. Hughes knew their Chain Gun was in trouble. They had to make a design decision. They said; “We have a fix on the way, so wait a bit.” Everybody knew how it was going to go on the decision if they had no fix; they were dead in the water. I was noncommittal. But the team chief, who was at the Tank Automotive Command where this meeting was, took me aside to say, “Hughes is here with high-speed movies, an explanation and a fix for the safety problem. Come with me.” Dan, you’ve seen how the chain gun works. The bolt goes back and forth on the chain that’s going around the receiver bottom, and it gives a fixed delay between rounds, guarantees a minimum unlocking time and a maximum travel time. In their fix, the chance of a round going off when you’re unlocked is nil because it’s set up so that it will not unlock unless there’s a recoil impulse from the previous round. The chain stops unless there’s a recoil impulse. I watched the high-speed movies and I thought it through, trying to figure out a way to make it fail. I couldn’t come up with a reasonable way. In other words, this thing had to be failsafe now. The meeting broke up; I hadn’t asked too many questions because they were pretty clear in their explanation. We were riding back and the chief wanted to know what I thought. I said, “I gotta chew on it a little overnight, but I think they got it fixed.” I couldn’t check it by tests, there’s no time for testing. The decision was due the next day.

SAR: So you had to make a call on it right then.

Bob Faris: I had to make a call on it. “Go with the XM242 Chain Gun.” My chief had agreed with it, and all the rest of the team disagreed. We were right down to the wire. I stuck to my guns because I had been doing a lot of sand and dust testing, with only minor problems with the XM242, and their fix worked to keep the out of battery occurrences. So, the M242 was accepted. I had my fingers crossed for many moons.

SAR: The first M240 Coax guns, the Americanized MAG58s were used on that project as well.

Bob Faris: I know, because I ran into belt pull problems. I immediately ran a test on those guns by testing belt pull capability. I established that it had plenty of belt pull capability and the problem was in the feed chute and ammo box. It was fixed and no further feed problems occurred.

SAR: While you were doing these tests, you were involved in the shooting community around Arizona. When did you first correspond with Herbie over in England? (The late H.J. “Herbie” Woodend, former Custodian of the MOD Pattern Room at Nottingham) I know you shared a common passion with him on belts, links and feeding devices.

Bob Faris: I started contact with him sometime after John Cross started coming over here. John came over here with a cartridge collector, and I don’t remember the year there either. The cartridge collector never came back, but I would see John practically every year. Still do. He introduced me to Herbie by mail. The students of belts and links and that type of thing are few and far between, it’s a small fraternity of serious collectors. I corresponded with Herbie, but I never made it over to the Pattern Room. Every time he came over here, he visited me, and Bill Woodin, and the others back East.

SAR: You have a passion for collecting a lot of different things to do with military. Is there a direction you’re going to go into?

Bob Faris: My collecting would be called “International,” and it is military based. There are different emphases in investment. Guns are the most expensive part of it, the most important part. No matter what, I still want to have a certain amount of each country’s military insignia, the accessories to go with all the guns, and of course the ammunition. If I had the money and the years, I’d collect tanks, armored vehicles, planes and helicopters. The trial and testing information and manuals are every bit as important as the weapons themselves to collecting. It’s part of the whole thing for doing research. The user can’t really learn how to use it without some basic material to go with it. My personal collecting parallels the job I had. I still understand that information is important. That was one of my responsibilities as test director, more so than when I started. Today that is a separate function. I remember on the M39 they’d send a few guys down, writers, technical writers, and they’d have me go through assembly, disassembly, technical issues, with them, particularly with the M39. They combined that with the testing. They had provisional ordnance manuals and we had to review those along with the guns as they approached acceptability in testing. This was to make sure the manual matched up with the real information you were finding. Originally, they would write it and we would critique it and see that it serves its purpose adequately. As time went on, it became the test director’s responsibility.

SAR: You’re always at the Wikieup shoot, The Big Sandy, and before that at S-P Crater shoots. You seem to have a heck of a great time there.

Bob Faris: Oh, yes. My favorite shooting activities bounce back and forth between the aerial targets and the on-the-ground, reactive targets: things that explode. On the aerial targets, I developed different weapon mounts to use over the years. Whatever it was, it usually would have high cyclic rate and large sights. It’s not a really realistic situation. You have a target that’s this big (3 feet) going by you, gyrating all around, and it’s at 250+- yards. If you can hit that, it’s luck. At the first, I used Vickers, Brens, whatever. Then I made a twin mount for the Vickers, and changed the cradle to make a twin Bren gun with drums. As the model plane guys got better, we got better guns.

SAR: A microcosmic arms race.

Bob Faris: (Laughs) Yeah, our own arms race. The guys flying the planes are allowed to do anything they can to keep from getting hit. In other words, they’re not flying at scale speed. And if they were, they’d lose a lot more airplanes and it’d cost more.

SAR: There’s at least one guy who brings an M134 Minigun so that he can try and take down the planes.

Bob Faris: It’s still hard to do it with anything because of the scale/speed ratio. Heck of a lot of fun though! My twin Vickers were inspired by that. Doesn’t necessarily do as well as the single Vickers because it’s bulky and you traverse the twins with your feet. It’s heavy. It’s really a lot like normal World War Two Radial and Motley mounts. These target planes are flying relatively much faster than that design could cope with.

SAR: Have you run into many unusual machine guns in private ownership?

Bob Faris: Sure, lots of them, I own some unusual guns. I also see FG-42s out there, and there’s plenty of MG-3s and MG42s as well. I seem to buy enough of most of the really odd machine guns. Weird Italian, French, other designs will always catch my interest. Most of the guys out there are more shooters than collectors, and they’ll buy a machine gun that they know is tried and true, they can get parts and ammo for. I lean towards the odd, strange machine guns as a collector, but I shoot them too.

SAR: You’ve done a lot of work on Vickers guns to change the calibers around. How many calibers can a Vickers gun be changed into?

Bob Faris: They can do 13 rifle calibers, and I shoot nine of them. They produced 13 different calibers of Vickers. I’ve done some of them different ways, but all of the calibers I shoot, I have the barrels and the belts and the locks, all the parts. I do manufacture my own parts when I need them. I have a shop with a lathe and drill press and grinders and all that stuff. I like the 11mm Gras, which was the balloon gun. I made the cases from the 11mm Austrian round; the case is slightly shorter, but it works with cast bullets. I also shoot 8mm Siamese Type 66, because I happened to have a couple new barrels for it. I got components that Kynoch had disposed of. John Cross helped me with these deals.

SAR: You bought some other things from England at one point, didn’t you?

Bob Faris: I bought rifles there, too. Also a lot of Vickers rusty gauges, 900 pounds worth. They came from the scrap yard adjacent to the old Enfield Locks. I wish I’d gotten them sooner before they got so rusty. That was in the late ’70s. These were the gages used in manufacturing the Vickers guns. I got 90% of them and lots of parts. If it involved a major receiver component, it was not shipped. There were some Lewis parts and original factory production gages in there, too. There was a small box of .50-caliber Vickers parts and locks and stuff.

SAR: From the Vickers light .50 low velocity or the heavy .50 high velocity?

Bob Faris: Both. I have a new barrel for the high-velocity Vickers. (Laughs) All the others were the low velocity model.

SAR: Have you seen a transferable Vickers .50 in the US?

Bob Faris: No. Only the parts, some were just thrown into a pile. I bought the whole lot, which was in England.

SAR:Always the best thing to do. Do you have a favorite machine gun?

Bob Faris: Probably my Vickers 1912 MK 1. That’s the first one, the very first production gun. Favorite rifle? A Number 4(T). I like shooting it, and I like its accuracy, versatility and form.

SAR: (Dan eyes Bob’s rifle wall) When did you get that Mondragon? How much did you pay?

Bob Faris: 1950 and I paid $35. (Laughter) It’s in 7mm and it came from Mexico. I’ve got the drum for it, I got it from another collector, Steve Fuller. The leather case and drums over there is for the Farquar-Hill rifle. They only made 100 of those. These are the early 20th century prototypes of the modern semiautomatic rifles like the Mondragon, the Farquar Hill, the ZH-29 and the St. Etienne.

SAR: Do you believe that collecting firearms has enriched you? Aside from doing the opposite and spending your money for you.

Bob Faris: I couldn’t think of a better way to spend money. I’d just like to do more. You get a feel for history through the weapons. I can appreciate the history books that I read. Probably wouldn’t need nearly as much research with a certain rifle in front of you. Lately I’ve been trying to track the history of the machine gun during the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War. It’s very hard because most of the publications talk about the same machine gun.

SAR: There was a British officer who went there to observe from the Japanese side. He wrote a book…

Bob Faris: That’s mentioned in the book I am reading now; Rising Sun and Tumbling Bear: Russia’s War with Japan by Richard Connaughton, printed in England. I have different books in different parts of the house that I read whenever I can. When I see something interesting about a firearm in the book, I make notes on the back inside page, what guns, what units, so I can research further.

SAR: Favorite handgun?

Bob Faris: Currently, the CZ-75. I like it. It handles well, it shoots well, it’s reliable, and it fits my hand perfectly. I like that Enfield Number 4 or the Number 5 for a rifle, I like them both. Number 4 has a good reputation. Number 5 kicks like hell.

SAR: When LMO was doing the Stembridge Gun Rental analysis and sale, I brought in J.R. LaRue’s company as the specialists on the Title I firearms. There was a particular Enfield that caught a lot of interest from people and J.R. made sure that went to you. Herbie Woodend just about killed me for that; the Pattern Room didn’t even have that model. He never forgave me and would make me sit through a night of bad English Karaoke every time the subject came up.

Bob Faris: That’s too bad. (Bob grins) That was a pre-Short Rifle made about 1900. They made two patterns, Pattern A and Pattern B, and I had the Pattern A already, which is the one the UK adopted with modification. I got that from Cholly Steen, along with some other early short rifles that had all come out of a military school in Nairobi. That was a Sarco deal – I’ve bought a lot from Cholly over the years, known him since the late ’50s. Most of those Nairobi guns weren’t even pictured in the good gun books. The one I got from J.R. and you out of Stembridge was the only known Pattern B. There’s a saddle lug on it. There is a chart that Skennie (Ian Skennerton) re-drew to put in his book, because they had no guns nor photos in England of Pattern A or Pattern B. There’s been a lot of conjecture, why are there only two of them left, one Pattern A and one Pattern B? I’m sure there’s some more out there, but we just don’t know where. They were never photographed for the record, either one. If you see an old SMLE with a white band around the butt, check it out because there were others in that same time frame, plus about six years, I have them hanging on the wall too. They came from the same lot. The British Army didn’t want these anymore when they adopted the SMLE No I MK III in 1907. They just dropped them all off in Nairobi, and most are marked “DP”, usually meaning “Drill Purpose.” Not suitable for service use.

SAR: All the readers should be running to their gun rooms about now, looking through their Enfields. Bob, you had the opportunity to work with some of the young engineers and designers on many of the new small arms systems over the last 30 or 40 years. Are there any particular messages you have for the young designers out there?

Bob Faris: As a tester, I have heard everything from, “You’re doing everything wrong, the test is too severe, you’re being unfair,” to, “We know how to fix this,” and they often did, and everything in between. If you’ve got modifications or a new design and you think you might have problems, you will have. Try to avoid that at the test facility. Try to get all the things done you can afford to, or can do before you bring it to the test range, because it can get a bad name if you have a lot of problems in the beginning. Do real thorough testing before you even come out to do the testing in front of anyone else. Your methodology should be considered as well – by you that is. I don’t know what was in their minds when they started on many projects, and why they chose the design they settled on, but sometimes it seems like it was something they just pulled out of the air. A lot of careful study and analysis should go into the design, and you should test as much as you can before you try to go in front of the users/buyers. Most of the designers and developers of the M85 and M73 simply designed themselves into a dead end; could not get out of it. What a debacle. Don’t do that to yourself, before you present or try to get it into service, work it all the way through.

SAR: Weren’t they restricted by the physical length of the receiver that they could use?

Bob Faris: Dan, there are always restrictions, but that was the main reason for the new design requirements. There are solutions. It gets back to more testing. The testers are under attack all the time for holding up production, holding up getting the guns out there, keeping the developer, the producer, from getting their money. Sometimes even we testers don’t do enough testing. As I’ve indicated here on the M73 and the M85, they don’t properly analyze the results. The user is just as guilty of that as the producers are. The user would usually take an optimistic view of problems, because after they’re through the engineering tests, they go to the user tests, and they’re supposed to, in a haphazard way, pick up what we don’t get, or do dumb things that we wouldn’t do except by accident. That’s important to the process of finding and curing the problems – making things soldier-proof. However, you want to find the problems BEFORE these go to combat.

SAR: Do you see a value for working reference collections of firearms to the country and the industry?

Bob Faris: Absolutely. Take a look at the history of firearms from the beginning to today. It’s a series of incremental improvements. You have to know what has been going on before, how they arrived at those conclusions, and what kind of a lifestyle they had while they were working on it. Take Browning for example, a most original designer, however, he had to know what was done before him. For Browning to change the design of machine guns, there were only one or two other designs that were even known, and he probably didn’t know much about them, because Maxim and other contemporaries were not showing their designs to each other. Everything since then has been incremental in development, and you have to know what’s failed or works and why they did certain things in their designs to avoid that.

SAR: As a tester you saw a lot of people repeating mistakes?

Bob Faris: Sure, or not accomplishing the objectives at all. They can get carried away with their little “improvements,” that are not really improvements. These modern multiple weapons, a veritable walking arsenal, barrels and calibers and bayonets and lights and lasers pointing in one direction. It doesn’t work out too well when you get out in the field. Nearly every one of these multi-guns they proposed for the Army has fallen by the wayside so far.

SAR: Do you have a principle in mind when you think about design?

Bob Faris: Ruggedness, simplicity, accuracy and portable. Those have to be satisfied first. After that you can expand the system. I think we have a problem with these Objective-whatever guns. There’s something wrong with their objectives. With some of them, it’s like playing an accordion. They make them so bulky and heavy, a shooter can’t get a hold of it for any kind of natural pointing capability. I think someday the dual guns are going to be at a point where they’re going to be better, but so far they haven’t been good enough. Having the full and semiautomatic capability of the rifle, and at least a fast repeater for the grenade is good. I’m sure they’ve got improved projectiles, leading to smaller rounds and smaller weapons. In the grenade category, they’re working on 30mm, they’re working on 25 mm. I am not so sure they can maintain those design objectives I just stated.

SAR: They need to do the initial designs to get smaller.

Bob Faris: In my opinion they should persevere in what they’re working on, but they’ve got to remember those four basic principles and keep it rugged, simple, and accurate, as well as reliable.

SAR: What do you think is the best operational General Purpose Machine Gun in the world today?

Bob Faris: What caliber? In rifle caliber, it would be the PK series. The PKM is nice and light and easy to carry around, and very forgiving to use. Very reliable. The M240 is a bit too heavy for optimum dismount use. Did you know they had spade grips for the M73 to dismount with? They dropped the off-vehicle requirement because they found that it wouldn’t work on a tripod, or the M85 either. They found out early on that the M73 would only work at all from a rigid mount, and the M85 was too light. In heavier calibers? The best we have is still the M2HB. It beats the DShK; I don’t know the NSV. I hear good things about it. They apparently made a working short receiver gun.

SAR: It’s a good gun. I’ve shot the NSV in a number of places, and in Serbia with the Zastava infantry stock on it; it’s pretty interesting. Weird little side-shuttle vibrations, some lateral dispersion from that, but the designers say that’s conquered. How about for an infantry rifle? If you were looking between the FAL and the SA-80 and the M16 and all those different ones that are in different uses, the Famas, the G3, what would you think was best?

Bob Faris: You haven’t even mentioned my choice: the AK. I like Kalashnikovs. I like the Finnish variants the best, the Valmet series. It’s the most accurate. I like the 7.62 x39 but I’m doing a lot of shooting these days with the 5.45. I haven’t made up my mind yet. Kalashnikov’s designs show up in a lot of different weapons. It’s very robust, it’s simple, and it works.

SAR: Thanks for talking with us today, Bob.

Bob Faris: My pleasure, Dan, but there’s still some things I’d like to say to the readers of SAR, whether they’re collectors, designers, or military. Please, be diligent, make sure you keep your Right to own firearms alive, and don’t let the government take them away. Quit electing liars. Know who you’re voting for, then let all the people you know, understand what you think of who the candidates are. Don’t go by what the politician says, go by what he does. That’s the most important thing I can think of. I have very strong feelings about firearms ownership and firearms rights. This comes from experience, you betcha. I lost a lot of my Rights in 1968, when they banned so called “surplus.” Through good luck and Bob Dole, we got a lot of it back when they allowed importation again of Curios and Relics. Lost them again in 1986 i.e.; the Machine Gun Ban. We need those Rights back.

By Jeff W. Zimba

What happens when you mix a few individuals with a passion for firearms research with a Chronograph, a Chop Saw, a Shotgun and a Title II Manufacturers License?
The Great Shotgun Chop of 2007.

Along with the increase in mass production of short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns on the market today, there have been several debates about the effect of these short barrels on actual performance. Since the ability to measure the speed of a projectile was perfected, there have been countless muzzle velocity tests on numerous firearms with an enormous number of loads. Most tests come to a similar conclusion; that a shorter barrel equals a lower projectile speed, therefore making the firearm less effective at longer ranges. Published data for long barrels and short barrels has been available in the past, but something always seems to be missing. How about all those lengths between very long and extremely short? What about continuity with loads, weather and firearm type? All of those factors will affect the final results. What if you could measure the same firearm with the same ammo using the same barrel and collect all required data on the same day? Well, that is exactly what a small team from Small Arms Research in Fairfield, Maine prepared to do.

The concept of this test was mentioned on the popular Class III firearms discussion website www.Subguns.com and within what seemed like only minutes, a fellow Brother-In-Arms with an interest in the test results offered to donate a test firearm and promptly shipped us a 12 gauge, 30-inch barreled, H&R single shot shotgun. A few hundred 1-ounce slugs were purchased, and an uninterrupted day at the range was scheduled.

Unloading everything in preparation for our testing looked more like a construction project than a simple gun test. A generator, a chop saw, and a 1/2-inch drill were set up along with the chronograph, several targets and lots of 12-gauge ammo. Our test firearm needed a little minor surgery as the stock was weathered and cracked and for safety purposes we reinforced it a little before the shooting began. We took a few crucial measurements and started the testing.

Since we would be measuring muzzle velocity with several different barrel lengths we decided to gather a little more data at the same time and also measure the effect the barrel lengths had on shot spread. We selected a standard 9-pellet 00-Buck because of its popularity and effectiveness in many circumstances.

Commence Fire!

After everything was set up and in place, and the barrel was measured and marked in 1-inch increments, it was time to get shooting. We had a lot of ammo to shoot and lots of data to gather in one short day. With a barrel length of 30 inches and an inside diameter of .695 we started by firing the 00-Buck at a distance 15 yards. Although we were measuring the muzzle velocity with the slugs at 1-inch intervals, we decided to measure the spread of the buckshot every 6 inches in barrel reduction. Initial shots were fired, spreads were measured and it was time to start with the slugs. At every length, 3 rounds were fired to provide an average. This would alleviate the chances of encountering an odd round that would affect the test results. On the rare occasion where one of these questionable rounds was encountered, a 4th round would be fired to use in the equation and the odd round was discounted.

All muzzle velocity figures were measured using a PACT MKIV XP Chronograph and Timer from a distance of 8-feetfrom the muzzle. As we watched the flex of the screens with each round fired, it quickly became obvious that this day would be a serious endurance test of the Chronograph at the same time. We are happy to report that it survived just fine and is still used regularly.

The first readings with the 2.75-inch Remington Slugger, 1-ounce rifled slugs in the stock shotgun averaged 1,555 feet per second (fps). The generator was fired up and it was time to start chopping. The barrel was carefully squared off and the abrasive wheel easily sliced through the barrel. The barrel was de-burred after each cut and the inside diameter was measured every time. Much to our surprise, the inside diameter of the barrel was completely consistent throughout the entire test.

A Brief Side Experiment

The shotgun barrel was marked only “choke,” and the initial bore measurement we took was .695. After the first chop, and all the way to the last, the inside diameter remained exactly .725. The only time there was a fluctuation in the inside diameter of the barrel was when we tried a little experiment and created a “deformity” intentionally. At one point in between the regular cuts, we used a pipe cutter to shorten the barrel to see if our displacing some of the material (as opposed to the clean cut using the chop saw) could create a field improvised “choke” and have an effect on the pattern while testing the buckshot. After the normal de-burr process we checked the pattern against the previous, and found that the slightly tighter (.710) muzzle actually created a horizontal pattern similar to that created with the Duckbill muzzle device tested in an earlier issue of Small Arms Review. The pattern had exactly the same dimensions as the previous shot, but it was wide instead of tall. While the first pattern with the clean cut barrel measured 9 inches wide and 11 inches tall, the one with the reduced muzzle created a pattern 11 inches wide and 9 inches tall. This was the only time we deviated from the parameters we set for the rest of the testing, and after this short curiosity was explored we immediately resumed as planned.

Back on Track

As you will see in the included Muzzle Velocity chart, as the barrel got shorter, the velocity typically dropped slightly or if there was an increase, remained very close to the previous shot. The changes were fairly consistent and mostly minimal, until we reached the 20-inch mark. In the 10 inches of measurements recorded from 30 inches to 21 inches, the muzzle velocity never varied anymore than 150 fps. At the point when we dropped in length from 21 inches down to 20 inches the velocity dropped an immediate 250 fps. Noticing this drastic change, we fired several additional rounds to make sure there was not some kind of ammo abnormality but all remained in the same area. At this point we thought we discovered some magic combination of barrel length where there is a drastic change downward, and just as soon as we digested the previous numbers, we were scratching our heads on the very next cut. As soon as we dropped down to 19 inches in length, the muzzle velocity shot back up almost 220 fps and from that point on continued on the previous, gradual decline, as the barrel got shorter. We have absolutely no explanation for this 20-inch abnormality and would certainly entertain any ideas to help understand it.

Other than the previously mentioned 20- inch abnormality, the testing produced results that we expected to see. The point where there was a sharp drop in muzzle velocity was the place we were looking to pinpoint and on average the difference from the 30-inch barrel all the way down to 12 inches only gradually declined approximately 200 fps. In our opinion, that is quite consistent for such a drastic difference in length. It was below 12 inches however, that the velocity started to drop quickly. With a drop of only 200 fps in the first 18 inches of barrel reduction, the next 6 inches produced a smooth and consistent drop falling 250 fps when decreased from 12 inches in length to 6.875 inches in length. If there is indeed a magic number for barrel length where muzzle velocity rapidly declines, that number would seem to hover around 12 inches in length.

The final muzzle numbers for the tests conducted during The Great Shotgun Chop are included in the accompanying chart but the summary is as follows: the starting muzzle velocity with a 30-inch barrel was 1,555 fps. The highest muzzle velocity measured was at the 26-inch point at 1,605 fps. The shortest barrel length tested was 6.875 inches and the muzzle velocity at that point was 1,117 fps. The spread from fastest to slowest recorded average was 488 fps. As indicated in the included data there is no consistently reliable formula to determine decrease or increase in muzzle velocity based on initial barrel length vs. inches cut. This is mentioned because the most popular question asked during the research phase of the testing was, “What was the drop in muzzle velocity per inch cut?” From 12 inches down to 6.875 inches it could be established that the average drop in muzzle velocity per inch of barrel reduction was 48.2 fps, but it would not be reliable as the sharpest decline was in the last few cuts.

Spread ‘Em

Thus far, the focal point of this article has been based on the muzzle velocity portion of our tests. For those interested in the “scattergun” function of their shotguns, this section should be of particular interest. All the test firing was done from a distance of 15 yards from the muzzle. Targets used for the testing were “Economy B-27 Silhouette” targets (used because “hits” are much more visible and easier to photograph on the green targetthan the traditional black targets) and the point of aim was center of mass, or at least the best possible with no bead or other aiming implement.

There is a separate chart showing the data from this portion of the testing but the summary is as follows. There were 5 barrel lengths tested. Starting at 30 inches the spread was measured at every 6 inches in barrel reduction. Ammo used was RemingtonBuckshot, 9-pellet, 00-Buck. The maximum number of hits was 9, and hits were measured for extreme spread distance. They were also rated as grazing hits, vital hits or misses, based on their position on the target. At a barrel length of 30 inches the maximum spread averaged 10 inches. All pellets were scored as hits, and all were vital hits. The other end of the spectrum was a barrel length of 6.875 inches where the average spread was 17 inches. The number of hits recorded was 8 and the number of vital hits was only 4.

Not every “rule of thumb” came into play in this portion of the testing any more than it did in the muzzle velocity testing. Just like some barrel lengths seemed to “like” the slugs more than others andconsistently record a better performance, the same was true with the Buckshot. While the fact remained consistent that the shorter the barrel would become, the lower number of hits, including vital hits would also follow suit, The “Magic Number” with the buckshot, at least as far as spread size, was recorded with an 18-inch barrel. At its smallest size, the pattern averaged only 8.5 inches. The next test however, at 12 inches in length, would find the spread growing again and would continue to do so until the end.

Conclusions

This series of tests proved to be extremely interesting and the results quite different from “the rule of thumb” that the author has heard repeatedly over the years.Although looking only at the small picture by comparing the first round and length tothe last round and length, the outcome would be exactly as expected: “Shorter barrel equals slower round and bigger group.” It is the subtle details in between the extreme ends of the testing that provide the real data and made the results much more interesting than we initially thought possible. Aside from the unexpected results in the 20-inch muzzle velocity testing, it is a safe assumption that for maximum performance at a minimal size for shooting slugs, a 12-inch barrel seems to be the optimum length. In thebuckshot testing, it was the 18-inch stage that performed the best and had the smallest extreme spread. The spread of the 12- inch barreled version was almost identical to the much more cumbersome 24-inch barrel, with an extreme spread only 1.5 inches greater. After conducting these tests it is our opinion that a 12-inch barreled shotgun with proper sights gives the owner/ operator the best performance in the smallest practical package without any major sacrifices in size or performance.

By taking a deep look inside something considered to be obvious, at least on the outside, we were able to harvest some valuable data on an age old topic. With all the recent chatter about the effectiveness of short-barreled rifles, maybe next time the test subject will be a centerfire rifle. I can think of several HK clones and variants, not to mention many models of the Black Rifle that all employ extremely short barrels. Add to those the ever-growing popularity of the “Krink” AK-type guns and we seem to have a full field of potential candidates.

Legal Notes

Please bear in mind that in order for a traditional Title I shotgun to remain legal under Federal Law without further registration, it must have a barrel of at least 18 inches in length and a minimum overall length of 26 inches. The author of this article is a licensed Title II Manufacturer and the test subject was registered as a Short Barreled Shotgun for the purposes of completing this research. As an individual you can do the same thing as we did as long as you receive prior approval from BATFE in the form of an approved ATF Form 1 “Application to Manufacture an NFA Firearm” and pay a $200 manufacturing fee. If you wish to purchase a short-barreled shotgun the same $200 fee would apply inthe form of a transfer fee. Your local Class III dealer can easily walk you through either process.

Sources:

Synthetic Stock
Advanced Technology
102 Fieldview Drive, Suite 400
Versailles, KY 40383
www.atigunstocks.com
(800) 925-2522

There have been relatively few attempts to introduce new heavy machine gun cartridges since the end of the Second World War. The main reason for this is that many of the roles formerly carried out by these guns have been taken over by cannon of 20mm or larger calibre, while their remaining tasks can be adequately carried out by the existing rounds. However, that has not stopped several manufacturers from experimenting, usually with new technology which possesses some theoretical advantages. The first two considered here are, however, conventional: the BRG rounds from Fabrique Nationale of Herstal, Belgium.

15×115 FN

Having observed that armoured personnel carriers and other light AFVs were acquiring thicker armour as protection against .50/12.7mm AP rounds, FN decided to develop a more powerful HMG to give NATO an equivalent to the Russian 14.5mm KPV. The gun, designated the BRG-15, was a gasoperated, dual-feed design, and it was first chambered for a cartridge made by necking down the 20×110 Hispano case to create the 15×115. However, this experienced difficulties with barrel wear and inaccuracy, so it was decided to replace the cartridge with a new design; the 15.5x 106.

15.5×106 FN

For the new BRG-15 cartridge it was decided to abandon the conventional jacketed bullet design and replace it with slightly larger-calibre projectiles using a cannonstyle separate driving (rotating) band made of plastic. It was also decided to adopt an entirely new case, this time based on theRussian 14.5×114. This is wider than the Hispano case, so it was possible to shorten it while still retaining the same ballistics, resulting in the 15.5×106. Despite all of this work, the project was shelved in 1991.

Several attempts have been made to simplify ammunition and gun design in the postwar period. These have included various shapes of caseless rounds, and “folded” cartridges with the bullet alongside the propellant. Three of the more practical efforts are described below.

.50 Dardick Tround

This system was developed by David Dardick in the 1950s, and was aimed at simplifying the gun feeding mechanism. The basic idea was to push the cartridges sideways into an open chamber instead of lengthwise into a closed one. Three of these chambers were formed on the outside of a revolving cylinder; at any given moment, one round was being loaded, the second fired and the third ejected. The cylinder was partly surrounded by a fixed sleeve; this left two chambers open for loading and ejection, but supported the round being fired by providing the third side of the chamber.

This would not have worked with a conventional cartridge case, so each round was entirely surrounded by a plastic case with three slightly rounded sides. This not only provided a close fit with the supporting chamber walls, but also added strength to make up for the lack of a solid chamber. The description “triangular round” was shortened to Tround.

Most of the initial effort was in small arms with a few examples being made for commercial sale, but these were not successful and production stopped in the 1960s. However, interest in larger-calibre automatic versions continued, mainly because the short cartridge movements involved in chambering and ejection permit a very smooth action with an extremely high rate of fire. Experiments with a .50 calibre Tround MG continued into the 1990s, but did not result in a production gun.

.50 Hughes Lockless

A different approach to the same problem was tried by Hughes in the 1970s. They also developed a gun with a sideways-loading chamber, although in this case the chamber was fixed while the surrounding sleeve moved. The ammunition was in the form of a flat box, which was slotted into the chamber from the side; the shape led it to be dubbed the “chiclet”. Before firing, the loading and ejection ports were covered by a sliding sleeve to complete the chamber. The next round to be c h a m b e r e d pushed the fired case out of the ejection port. This layout led to a very simple gun mechanism, and ammunition was made in calibres from 5.56mm to 30mm, but again without any production being achieved.

The cartridge is interesting because it is of the “telescoped” type; the propellant is packed around the bullet instead of behind it, leading to a much shorter cartridge. Ignition takes place in two stages. The primer first ignites a small quantity of propellant; just enough to drive the bullet up into the bore and thereby seal the chamber. The movement of the bullet exposes holes connecting with the main body of the propellant, which then ignites to drive the bullet from the barrel. The expansion space left by the bullet on its initial movement means thatthe propellant can be packed in tightly, allowing the case to be very compact.

.50 ARES TARG

This was another telescoped round, although with a more conventional cylindrical shape and designed for a very different type of gun action. The TARG (Telescoped Automatic Revolver Gun) was of the conventional single-barrel revolving cylinder type, as the name suggests. The cylinder had four chambers and, as with the Hughes Lockless, ejection occurred when the next round to be chambered pushed the fired case out of the chamber. The project commenced in 1989 and resulted in a light and compact machine gun, but it was cancelled in the late 1990s when ARES was acquired by the AAI Corporation.

In HMGs, as with small arms, much work on producing designs to use advanced ammunition concepts has failed to result in any production contracts. However, it seems unlikely that this will always be the case. The US Army is experimenting once more with telescoped ammunition (both plastic cased and caseless) in the Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) programme, while the British and French are bidding to introduce 40mm cased telescoped ammunition in the CTWS (Cased Telescoped Weapon System) for future use in light armoured fighting vehicles. We have not yet reached the end of the development of the heavy machine gun cartridge.

By Julio Montes

Last April 2007, Imbel leader General Cássio Cunha signed an MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) with Dr. Fritz Visser, CEO from Rippel Effect Weapon Systems (Pty) Limited, for the two companies to cooperate with the production of the highly successful Multiple Grenade Launcher (MGL) in Brazil. The MGL is designed to be simple, rugged and reliable, and has been well received by military establishments in South America. Rippel Effect (formerly Milkor Marketing) is a member of the Ngwane Defense Group of South Africa, and is the prime contractor for the 40mm multi-shot grenade launcher systems to more than 30 countries worldwide. It is reported that the company has sold more than 6,000 grenade launchers to various international clients within the last 18 months. Some 30,000 weapons have been produced, and the company recently concluded a MoU with Raas Intratech Pvt Ltd. of India as well.

In Brazil, André “MGL” Louw, from Rippel Effect Weapon Systems, allows us a look to the XRGL40, a redesigned MGL capable of accepting all the available 40mm low-velocity grenades, and most interesting equipped with a digital laser rangefinder, which basically allows precise shooting to the maximum range of the weapon (up to 1,000 meters). The XRGL40 uses the same semiautomatic revolver system with a drum magazine holding 6 grenades. The MGL traces its lineage to 1981, as one of the many innovations of Armscor during the counterinsurgency war in South Africa. The first production MGLs came out in 1983 under the designation of Y2. Other countries adopted the weapon under the name of MGL L6. Louw tells us that between other things, the XRGL40 allows for the use of longer grenades, providing for additional range and more lethal loads. The digital sight replaces the Trijicon Occluded Eye Gunsight (OEG), which had a 375 meter range.

The MGL perhaps traces its inspiration to the Hawk Engineering MM-1, a weapon of similar concept, with a drum magazine and revolver style operation, which was designed in the US at the end of the 1970s. The MM-1 was a simple multi-shot launcher, holding 12 ready grenades, and operated by a spring system. A few were supplied to the Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols (PRALs) in El Salvador, and another handful went to support companies to be used “ala Mk19 style” as a support weapon since, in theory, the launcher could be fired at a 144 rpm rate – but a more realistic 30 rpm was the norm – to a 350m range. The MM-1 had a hefty weight of 5.7 kg (12.57 lbs.) empty and 10 kg (22.05 lbs.) with all 12 grenades.

In contrast, the South African MGL has a 356mm (14.02 in.) length barrel, and a total length of 566mm (22.28 in.) with the butt retracted and 788mm (31.02 in.) with the stock extended. Its weight is 5.3 kg, (11.68 lbs.) and features a rotating drum style cylinder with 6 chambers.

MGL

In 1995, this author was the first one to publicly notice the Armscor MGL L6 (MGL Y2) in the hands of Mexican units. After the report was published with Jane’s in London, the Mexican newspaper La Jornada made its own inquiries, and – taking someone else’s assessment – alleged that the weapon was evidence that the military had violated the UN imposed arms embargo against South Africa. It was claimed that the weapons were acquired long before being operational in September 1994, and before the embargo was lifted in May 1994 – this assessment as a result of the sophistication in the operations of the MGL. The Mexican National Defense Secretariat (reportedly, and apparently, backed by the U.S. DoS) immediately denied the existence of the launcher in the ranks, which clashed badly with the truth, and the pictures. This only placed doubts on whether the embargo had indeed been violated.

Although being able to fire with accuracy requires some training, any soldier can easily operate the weapon. The MGL is a very simple, rugged and unsophisticated weapon that operates much like a shotgun, and sports a revolver-style magazine. The cylinder is spring-loaded and rotates automatically after each shot – again much like a revolver. The drum magazine is unlocked and pivoted to load 6 grenades, which could be launched to some 350 meters. It comes with an adjustable folding metal stock, and an IR-capable OEG red dot sight for precision fire up to 375 meters. In America, the USMC has taken delivery of the MGL as the M32, and it is also used by the military in Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and now Brazil. The Salvadorian PRALs could also do with a few MGLs to replace their obsolete MM-1s.

The original model has evolved in a family of weapons. Richard Potgieter, from Milkor, gave us a look into several of these models while in Brazil. The MGL Mk1, with an aluminum frame, came to the market in 1996. In 2004, the company presented the Mk-1S, with a stainless steel frame, and incorporating several Picatinny rails, and the Mk-1L, with a 140mm (5.51 in.) long cylinder with the capacity to fire a larger menu of grenades, including tear gas canisters. The information available indicates that the Mark-1S variant is a 3rd generation model with a 105mm (4.13 in.) chamber, and meets all NATO standards. The Mark-1S is an area type weapon with the capacity to deliver 40mm grenades to an efficient range of 375m at a rate of 6 rounds in three minutes. The chamber space allows accommodation of tear gas, rubber baton, and flash-bang grenades in addition to combat types. It functions under the same semiautomatic operations, using a spring revolver system, with a practical rate of fire of 24 rpm, and a theoretical rate of 120 rpm. It measures 740mm (29.13 in.) with butt extended, and 640mm (25.2 in.) with stock retracted. Its empty weight is 6.3 kg (13.89 lbs.) and it comes with the standard OEG sight. The Mark- 1L has been designed with a longer 140mm (5.51 in.) chamber space cylinder that allows the use of “smokeless” grenades in addition to those used in the Mk-1S. Its total length is 775mm (30.51 in.) with extended stock, and 680mm (26.77 in.) with it retracted, weighting 6.8 kg (14.99 lbs) empty. The MRGL is a multipurpose tactical weapon with interchangeable 105mm (4.13 in.) and 140mm (5.51 in.) drums, and having the standard 375 meters range with low velocity grenades, and up to 1,000 meters with medium velocity models.

A product improvement appeared in 2005 under the designation of MGL-140, with retail cost of $6,000 per unit. In October of that year, Milkor USA received an initial contract from the USMC for 9,000 units; these would be somewhat modified and supplied as the M32 MGL. This new variant has a minimum range of 30 meters and a maximum of 400 meters, and it is capable of firing the new Hellhound Hyper Lethal grenade. It comes with a “crane-style Vltor Modstock,” a “Sopmod Tan” color and a “weighted twostage trigger.” For now, the MGL is distributed among various USMC battalions in small numbers for field-testing and familiarization, with the first examples reaching combat units in Iraq in 2006. Milkor USA also offers the MGL-140 and the MGL-105 (MGL Mark-S), and all of them, including the M32, come with a M1A2 reflex sight standard (power provided by a AAA battery, for a 500 hours use).

The South African MGL simplicity, reliability, and effectiveness in harsh environments ranging from jungles to deserts have made it a favorite of sophisticated and not-so sophisticated armies and security forces alike.

Technology Branch (FTB) Procedures Manual has become quite an undertaking and it is occupying many of our members time; in some cases nearly 100%. Developing this manual is also a tricky process since much of the written word will be used to assist in enforcing the law in cases where abuse of the system or procedures is in question. So it goes slowly, but at a calculated pace, to insure that the document that is produced is supported entirely by our own community and especially the Firearms Technology Branch. This is a new partnership and we are asking FTB, in light of an overburdening work load, to put in the time and attention to develop a product that will better align not only the NFA community but the entire firearms industry with ATF rules and regulations.

With FTB working literally hundreds of technology issues, the NFATCA is more than appreciative for the time and energy Branch Chief, John Spencer and Assistant Branch Chief Rick Vasquez are putting into this program. For many years now we all know that if you want and need help with a technology issue from FTB, the best way to get that help is in writing. Word of mouth with decisions that can affect the entire industry is a bad idea, so rightfully many years ago FTB issued the edict “put it writing.” This concept has opened the door to literally thousands of requests from gun owners and manufacturers from all over the United States and in some cases the world. With a minimum staff it is sometimes just plain difficult to keep the pace with the demand on the branch. For their efforts in giving the NFATCA and our community the time to get this job done we are truly grateful.

Parallel with the work on the FTB Procedures Manual, the NFATCA is addressing a number of other policy issues affecting all of us. The issues, once again, are those that affect the greater good for the entire community. Almost daily, we receive requests from individuals that need help. Unless the issue has far reaching effects on the community we work as hard as possible to refer you to proper counsel to get the help you need. We unfortunately don’t have the time or the resources to handle these types of requests. We are working diligently to assimilate a list of gun-savvy attorneys nationwide to help more and more of the community with issues that affect an individual.

The NFATCA Agenda for 2008

• The NFATCA is better aligning itself with the larger gun manufacturers and NFA programs that affect their operations.
• We are establishing a much closer relationship with the FAIR Trade group where we will jointly assess common strategies and goals in order to strengthen our numbers and have a stronger presence in negotiations with ATF on many issues.
• This year we will also cross the threshold between the NFA community and the regular gun community and begin to strengthen our presence on gun issues that affect all of us in this community.
• We will roll out the NFA title insurance program.
• We will issue the first set of updates to the NFA Handbook.
• We will issue the first draft on the NFATCA counsel support list. This listing will recommend attorneys nationwide for support in gun related issues that are handled on an individual basis.
• We will make our membership 500 strong.

In 2008, the FTB Procedures Manual will require about 55% of the NFATCA resources to get this project completed in late 2008 or early 2009. Another 25% of our resources are being focused on spreading the strength by recruiting the larger manufacturers and gun organizations that support the efforts of the entire gun community. The balance of our efforts is being used to support legislative activity and negotiations on a number of critical issues that we are working with ATF to resolve. Those issues we can not discuss at this writing but will continue to work to resolution to insure that the best of all of our interests are the focus of our efforts. As we close those issues, future columns will support the work involved and the outcome.

2008 will be an ever more powerful year for the NFATCA in strength of numbers and value to the community. The ride with the organization will be a powerful one in the light of a political agenda that is as uncertain as ever. The time to help us build this powerful strength to stand for those issues is NOW. Visit www.NFATCA.org and join us in our efforts that do affect you.