The National Defense Industrial Association’s (NDIA) President and CEO, LTG (Ret) Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., offered these intriguing thoughts when he rightly noted, “The small-arms sector is a critical component of the defense industrial base… The industry is small and somewhat fragile. To maintain its robustness, it sells products both to government and to commercial customers such as sportsmen and gun enthusiasts. To survive, the industry needs to make commercial sales, which provide a cushion between military orders.” These comments were published in 2002 in the article “Assault on the Small Arms Industrial Base. (President’s Perspective)” featured in the February issue of NATIONAL DEFENSE magazine. Now, seven years later and in a stormy political climate, those insightful words are as valid as the day they came off the press. But at the time there was little concern of any major legislation that would stifle the industry with only two years remaining on the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB 94). After the ban expired it ushered in an abundant and progressive time for small-arms manufacturers that continues to this day, but the looming threats of new legislation are moving ever closer to reality and calls attention back to the integral relationship between the commercial and defense small-arms communities that Farrell touched on those years ago.

After the inauguration on January 20, one change we could believe in was espoused on the new White House website, online in minutes, and making clear the new President is not bashful regarding his intent concerning civilian firearms and the Second Amendment. In an effort to save the nation from gun violence in cities the administration has adopted a rather blunt stance:

“Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.”

The idea of renewing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in order to reduce violent crime is not a new or proven concept, but is certainly gaining ground in liberal circles. Besides a new government that is more inclined to such an agenda, events in places like Mexico are beginning to have a bearing on popular thought as Mexican authorities have asserted that U.S. commercial gun laws, not internal corruption, are the cause for their failure to wrestle control of the country back from the drug cartels. Even more so, lessons from Hurricane Katrina as well as grim prospects featured in congressional reports on the economy, electromagnetic pulse attacks, and bio-terror have all prompted further exploration into commercial firearms regulations and what role they may play in a future crisis.

The Missing X Factor

The controversy surrounding the renewal of an Assault Weapons Ban and other gun control legislation is not one that has been kept out of the public eye. It has been the focus of passionate articles, both pro and con, by the NRA and the Brady Campaign, newspaper editorials, independent studies, congressional reports, debates on The Hill, and as pointed out, the White House website. Questions regarding a future AWB and its relationship to the Heller decision were even raised by Sen. Tom Coburn during the confirmation hearing of Attorney General Eric Holder and placed before the world on C-SPAN. (AG Holder’s responses were not a surprise and consistent with his past record on the subject matter). With all of this attention it seems LTG Farrell’s observation that “The industry’s ability to make sales to commercial customers is critical to its survival” is an overlooked factor in the equation that has been either negligently, or in some cases dutifully, left out among most of the participants in the AWB issue. Arguably however, the most important question that can be asked in the debate is what effect will a new AWB have on the ability of the small arms industry to support the defense establishment and ultimately the warfighter and law enforcement officer (LEO)? A look into the controversy, with this question in mind, raises the alarm for both end users and those who supply them and suggests that the effort to promote awareness of this issue must be greatly increased before we are reeling with the blowback that inevitably comes with gun control legislation in the commercial market.

A Difficult Issue

An analysis of the effects civil legislation can have can only begin appropriately with a historical assessment of the past AWB implemented in 1994 and other commercial firearms legislation from the past. Ironically, the two major reports to stem from the ten hard years of the 1994 AWB, William Krouse’s CSR report, “Gun Control Legislation”, (Congressional Research Service, Updated 5 Sep 08, Order Code RL32842) and Christopher Koper’s “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapon’s Ban; Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003” (with Daniel Woods and Jeffrey A. Roth, June 2004, Jerry Lee Center of Criminology) are virtually devoid of any useful information relating to an impact on national defense in spite of the important authoritative audience of the first report and the promising title of the latter. In fact, the further one investigates the interrelationship between the small arms defense industry and the commercial market it looks less like an unofficially neglected subject and more like an unofficially forbidden subject.

Why the apprehension to address this issue? There are several aspects that have affected open communication in this arena. It is unquestionable that the political and apolitical realms come to an unavoidable collision point any time gun control legislation and the controversy surrounding it is given a forum. As a result of this amalgamation, the reputable organizations that seemingly would tackle this subject become somewhat distant. The National Rifle Association for instance, though busy protecting the Second Amendment rights of Americans, would be outside of its normal function of representing the individual right to keep and bear arms by crossing into the arena of Defense lobbying. On the apolitical side, non-partisan defense associations can be skittish when toeing the line on a topic that has political ramifications that will impact their influence. Ironically, commercial legislation, whether it is federal or through international treaty through bodies like the U.N., may have more potential to rapidly destroy the small arms industry and have irreversible effects on the weapons that make it to the field than any other issue we are facing today.

The Present State

So is everything in the present healthy and conducive for happy coexistence of the military/LE and commercial markets? Undeniably no! Manufacturers have dealt with hundreds of pages of fine print that has run rampant since 1934 and reinforced in 1968 when the National Firearms Act (NFA 34) and Gun Control Act (GCA 68) came on the scene. It would take quite a large report, considerable time, and some good models to project just how severe the effect gun control legislation has been on our nation’s ability to produce more Hiram Maxims, John Brownings, Eugene Stoners, and “Carbine” Williams’ to put the best weapons in the hands of our warfighters. One could assume that these regulations would have a similar affect on the evolution of the classes of weapons they influence that new AWB would have.

The overly burdensome regulatory system itself is especially hard for the new designer, engineer, or manufacturer looking to build a reputation as the required (and increasing) licensing fees create severe monetary obstacles for those seeking to research and produce new weapons and accessories. Outside of BATFE requirements there is the constant plague of the ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations), which requires all manufacturers of weapon related items to be registered with the State Department (DoS) by paying an annual fee of $2,250. Though all would agree with the need to keep secure our nation’s privileged defense information, the stipulations found in the ITAR often make common sense business principles that would not compromise national security impossible. The effect of the exuberant fee on small manufacturers for simple registration with DoS causes concern as well. “They’re taxing us right out of existence” noted one industry insider when citing the recent three fold increase in the filing fee. The industry still flourishes not because of, but in spite of, the myriad of laws and regulations in place; a credit to the American ability to adapt and overcome, not the efforts of the government to support a healthy small arms industry.

Laws meant for commercial gun control affect not only the development and manufacturing process, but also the availability of weapons and accessories in the Defense market and ultimately the end user. Since 1986, small arms providers adhering to 27 CFR 479.105(d) and ATF Rul 2002~5 have been forced to get end user sample letters from eligible organizations to get newly manufactured machine guns for demonstration purposes despite already being licensed and registered with BATFE and DoS for this business. Agencies, especially smaller law enforcement organizations, are often hesitant to provide the letters due to the discomfort of having the agency and authorizing officer’s name on a highly specific document related to a weapon they may not even commit to purchase. The letters require intensive detail and can be long in processing, while an agency wanting to have more than one weapon available for demonstration must submit excessive amounts of information to include the number of persons participating in the event, location, number of rounds to be fired, and any other reason they can find to justify why multiple demo weapons are necessary. For large organizations that want multiple weapons for demonstration, the weapon selection process may require several models or even multiple variants of the same weapon to be present which further complicates the acquisition. Providers on the other hand are unable to follow normal business practices applicable in most other businesses like purchasing samples for training, R&D, and marketing in order to gain customer interest in a particular product. Even worse, the sample weapons used for demonstration purposes currently cannot be transferred except under very limited circumstances and free market competition often grinds to a halt with frustrated organizations seeking providers who already have the samples they are looking for or settling for a weapon based on availability rather than optimal capability based on their specific needs. After the time, effort, and expenditure necessary in the current regulatory system, all in the name of commercial gun control, it is rather remarkable that the present state of affairs could be just the tip of the iceberg.

Even the wording of legislation can have unintended consequences on the user in harms way. 18 U.S.C. 925(d)(3) addresses importation of non-sporting firearms and reads, “In any case where the Attorney General has not authorized the importation of the firearm pursuant to this paragraph, it shall be unlawful to import any frame, receiver, or barrel of such firearms which would be prohibited if assembled.” With no clause for military and law enforcement included, the provision produced a mountain of frustration for select U.S. units using commercially available foreign alternatives to U.S. legacy systems. Despite the ongoing Global War on Terrorism, warfighters found they were unable to replace barrels on weapons currently in battlefield service, import barreled upper receivers for use with current issue lowers, or even import spare barrels for use with machine guns as per common practice. This lead to unwarranted logistical challenges placing some units in the awkward predicament of arranging critical parts shipments overseas to avoid importation. Ironically, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, to include the BATFE, found themselves in the same situation when attempting to import barrels for foreign weapons in common domestic use like the MP5 submachine gun. To the credit of the Federal Government, after three years of frustration and quagmire, the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the BATFE have made the changes needed and will now approve import applications for barrels and barreled upper receivers from military and law enforcement agencies. Despite the recent change, this is just a sampling of legal roadblocks that manage to hinder even the top tiers of our military and law enforcement agencies due to enforcement of short-sighted civil regulation.

The Rise and Potential Fall of Innovation

In November of 2008, the U.S. Army, after a year long controversy surrounding the M4 carbine, hosted an Industry Day based on a Request for Information concerning current small arms technology. In an unprecedented and historic turnout nineteen vendors responded with an overwhelming collection of products mostly developed since the sunset of the 1994 AWB in 2004. There were the usual large contractors that are part of the small-arms industrial base, but they accounted for a mere fraction of the vendors and technologies represented. Innovation from young companies, and some older ones with new focus, dominated the floor thanks largely to a healthy commercial firearms market. Since the expiration of the AWB, the number of companies manufacturing AR-15s and similar rifles has avalanched to a conservative estimate of thirty four, with even more producing accessories. Of these, a large number have active R&D programs offering unique products to the defense and LE markets.

The reason for such a historical pouring out of innovation can arguably be traced back to a decision based on the premise that the firearms industry could respond to any military requirements, to move away from the federal arsenal system and place more of the burden of designing and manufacturing military weaponry on firearms manufacturers “Historically, almost all of the major improvements in firearms since the closure of Springfield Armory have come from the Commercial/Military weapon manufacturers” points out John DeSantis, President of Bushmaster Firearms International. Bushmaster started life in the commercial firearms market and now offers a wide range of defense and LE related small arms from top quality production facilities. In the few short years since 2004, Bushmaster has expanded their product line well beyond the standard AR-15 type rifle to include calibers ranging from 5.56mm NATO to .50 BMG while maintaining an R&D and production capability that has made the company quite a competitor for major contracts. Even so, the flexibility when dealing with defense and LE products possessed by companies like Bushmaster is the benefit of a healthy commercial base which is currently thriving and allows for mutual gains to each market. According to DeSantis, “Many of the improvements and innovative designs were developed through their (Commercial/Military Small Arms Manufacturers) R&D efforts, which for the most part are fueled by the commercial market.” One of the more anticipated small arms present at the aforementioned Army Industry Day was the Adaptive Combat Rifle (ACR), which is moving towards commercial production with Bushmaster. Though offered by a large and prosperous company, the ACR began life at a smaller company, MAGPUL Industries, which has made a rapid rise otherwise unfeasible under AWB conditions.

MAGPUL is an impressive, but not uncommon, example of the importance of the interrelationship between the commercial and defense markets as it influences young expanding manufacturers. Though not officially at the Industry Day, the ACR presented by Bushmaster/Remington is clearly an evolution of the original MAGPUL Masada. Masada is the name referring to the location of a mass suicide of Jewish fighters defiantly facing the Romans and meant to convey the potential risk the small company was taking when embarking on the Masada project. In retrospect, the Masada has come to fruition and a little company that began by making plastic pull tabs for magazines has now pushed forward one of the most anticipated small arms designs on the market today.

But what makes this possible? What allows a young company like MAGPUL to rise from obscurity to be a real contender in the defense/LE industry offering new and innovative products without tapping tax payer money to do it? Interestingly, MAGPUL sources confirm that it is their highly successful commercial market based on collapsible butt stocks and hi-capacity magazines that provides them the flexibility to undertake projects like Masada and its 7.62mm counterpart Masood. Drake Clark of MAGPUL was quick to make the connection between innovation in the defense market and the expansion of the commercial market. “Everyone I’ve talked to on high levels agree with the assessment that innovation skyrocketed overnight” he said referring to the sunset of the 1994 AWB. “The refueling of the black rifle market has dumped money into those products and answers a thirst that allows companies like us to develop and innovate. The PMag (a hi-capacity magazine for the AR-15/M16 type rifle) is our flagship product and certainly contributes to funding the military side. It allows revenue for new products to include rifles.” When asked about the affects on their defense product development and production if faced with the resurrection of a ban on manufacturing weapons with collapsible stocks and hi-capacity magazines for commercial consumption, the answer was clear: “Impact on funding as it goes toward defense products would be immense.”

VLTOR Weapons Systems, which offers a similar line of enhanced accessories for commercial “black” rifles, expressed similar concerns regarding the affect a ban may have on the company’s ability to develop products for military and law enforcement agencies. According to General Manager Eric Kincel, “Collapsible stocks are our flagship product line… A surprisingly large amount of R&D comes from commercial sales, nearly all to be honest.” VLTOR emerged during the years of the last ban and though successful, the company understands the difficulties such an environment brings to the table and Kincel gave some insight on other challenges faced under ban-type conditions. “Our collapsible stock system is one of our cash cows. We adapted to the ban by offering fixed stock alternatives. By having no ban we are able to focus more on product that would better suit the military market, which can be sold to the civilian market as well. By focusing on pre-ban weapons only, our R&D budget is concentrated on one market, which is easier to plan for future weapons development.”

Other factors influence the defense market for smaller companies besides the influx of commercial cash. For instance the MAGPUL PMag has had significant law enforcement and military success, with some 500,000 in circulation in those roles, due in large part to their availability on the commercial market. Private purchases by warfighters and LEOs serve as a great T&E tool and often a product’s successful exposure commercially is what ushers it in to consideration for use by the military services or an agency. Further complicating matters is the trickle down effect on production seen when suppliers dry up due to banning of their products. MAGPUL and VLTOR both have seen significant use of their enhancements on factory weapons coming from other manufacturers, a condition that would surely suffer in the face of new legislation. Keep in mind that these companies are but a sampling of a larger body of similar interrelated companies that offer a world of enhanced weapons and accessories facing the same circumstances.

Facing the Challenge

Certainly the landscape that faces the small arms industry in today’s political climate is much rockier than that of the past eight years. The gun control agenda of some is so fervent that it has lead to some creative methods of attacking the small arms industry to include proposed bans on common types of ammunition to heavy taxation that would reduce demand through expense and cripple production. As a whole, the 1994 AWB had one saving grace about it; the provisions allowed compliant versions of weapons like the AR-15 to continue in commercial production. Even before the sunset of the AWB in 2004, groups like the Violence Policy Center began the process of collecting data and informing politicians just how to avoid “post ban” weapons in the future. As a result of these efforts, bills like H.R. 2038 (May 03), H.R. 1022 (Feb 07), and H.R. 6257 were introduced to incorporate increased restrictions aimed at eliminating the post ban concept all together. Some of the worst provisions have gone as far as to present language that would in effect eliminate any firearm or copy of a firearm, regardless of configuration, in use by the military or law enforcement for commercial consumption while others have sought to eliminate manufacture of commercial frames/receivers for banned weapons. Either stipulation if incorporated into law would virtually shut down U.S. production for any supplier who did not have contracts in place. Today, legislative bills that have stalled in the past face new prospects for passage and support from powerful and zealous anti-gun supporters. Those small arms manufacturers and suppliers that survived the last ban by American ingenuity may find it much more difficult to keep afloat if new legislation is implemented. One insider from a major manufacturer summed up the potential result for the defense community rather candidly when he noted referring to small-arms, “If these things go forward we might as well look to the Europeans for our needs.” John Desantis on the other hand brought a comment to the table that cuts to the very heart of the issue and revisits the main point, “I am not sure the American public or the people in the House and the Senate really understands the full implications of a total assault weapons ban.”

So what can be done about the issues we face concerning our civil firearms legislation and its relationship to our country’s defense? Identifying the problem, that there is a wall erected between the two markets in the eyes of those outside of the industry, is the first step. Breaching that wall without fear of reprisal is certainly a more difficult but highly important follow-on task. The gap has to be bridged so that when new legislation is introduced it is done with the full picture of our national interest, not simple and narrow social agendas. Perhaps associations will emerge that are unafraid of a little backlash for delivering the truth no matter how harsh it shakes political ambitions. Perhaps more people will speak out as LTG (Ret) Farrell did when he stated NDIA’s intentions in his article, “Our goal is just to make sure that the industry remains viable so it can supply our military forces with the needed weapons.” Certainly, at a minimum, manufacturers of defense firearms, whether they have major contracts or not, with a unified and authoritative voice should make known the major decline in industry capability and innovation our country will face if we commit national suicide with our own small-arms industry. If there is a failure to react to the very legitimate concerns of regulatory excess, we may be faced with a firearms industry that can not produce the MAGPUL/Bushmaster/Remington partnerships to bring an innovative new rifle into the market. We may even find a decline in R&D and production that may stagnate and defeat U.S. small arms producers in the face of foreign competitors as seen in the auto industry. Even today, as this article prepares for press, the interviews and research this writer has performed make one hopeful that these ideas are starting to take root. Awareness is spreading, and those who have the ability to make these concerns known have committed to the effort of disseminating this information not for the good of our own pockets and gun safes, but for our brave men and women who utilize small arms as a primary tool to defend our nation and uphold the rule of law across the free world.

After World War II, the French Army wanted to adopt a new submachine gun to replace the various British, German and American guns that their troops were then equipped with. The request had a sense of emergency as a new war was brewing in Indochina. Both the state factories in Châtellerault, Saint-Etienne, Tulle and the private arms manufacturer of Hotchkiss began work on this project.

The Hotchkiss Company, established by Benjamin B. Hotchkiss in 1867, was initially devoted to the production of solid cased ammunition during the 1870-71 war. Later, he developed the Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon that was used by many countries at the end of 19th century. The most successful gun the company ever produced was the Hotchkiss machine gun developed by Laurence Benét and Henri Mercié at the turn of the 20th century and used to great effect during World War I.

During the 1920-30s, Hotchkiss developed light machine guns, infantry machine guns, aircraft machine guns, large-bore weapons and anti-tanks guns for armies throughout the world. After 1945, the Hotchkiss firm produced submachine guns for the French Army and others.

General Information on Hotchkiss Submachine Guns

The general appearance and operation of the Hotchkiss submachine guns is the same for all their models. They have a cylindrical frame with the cocking lever and ejection port both located on the right side. Depending on the model, they may have a fixed or folding stock made of wood or metal. Some models have a short telescoped barrel that can be pushed to the rear inside the frame, while others have a fixed barrel with a cylindrical cooling jacket. The magazine is derived from the MP 40 magazine and is located in a folding magazine holder. The guns works with a blowback bolt with a delayed firing pin. The guns are relatively complicated being made with many parts. Firing devices are complicated and are made of many parts with numerous parts being made of stamped sheet metal.

Model 011

The Model 011 has a rigid wooden stock, is very simple in its manufacture and is as crude as the Sten submachine gun. The triangular stock has a vertical bar on the left side for attaching a sling. The stock is assembled with an end cap that closes the frame at the rear. The sear mechanism is located in a triangular shaped box under the receiver frame. The magazine well is also a front grip that can be folded permitting the gun to be carried with a loaded magazine under the barrel. The ejection port has a cover that can lock the bolt in the opened or closed position and is used as a secondary safety. The barrel is located in a socket that can move to the rear for carrying thus reducing the length of the gun. The rear sight is located on top of the stock end cap and the front sight can be folded.

This model was developed in 1948 and was used by local units in Indochina, such as Phat-Diem Bishop Suppletive Guard.

Model 010 or “Type Universal”

The Model 010 is probably one of the most curious submachine guns ever made. Most of the components can be moved to reduce the volume of the gun for carrying:

• The metallic tubular stock can be folded under the frame,
• The pistol grip can be folded forward enclosing the trigger guard,
• The magazine housing can be folded forward under the barrel,
• The barrel can also be moved rearward.

The receiver frame is of a tubular shape with a flap to cover the ejection port that is located on the right side. The cocking handle is spherical and is also located on the right side. It holds a sheet strip to cover the grove upon which it moves. The bolt has a separate firing pin and the recoil spring is helicoidal. Ignition of the primer is delayed until just after the bolt is closed and is actuated by a lever. The trigger housing is a triangular box located under the receiver and contains a push-through button selector. The magazine is located in a forward folding housing. The stock is made of an assembly of tubes with a wooden shoulder rest. The pistol grip is equipped with brown plastic grips. The folding rear sight has two apertures and the front sight is protected by a hood.

Disassembly the Hotchkiss Model 010 is straight forward:

• Remove the magazine and clear the gun,
• fold the stock,
• remove the rear plug,
• extract the recoil spring and bolt.
• Reassemble in reverse order.

The Model 010 is a very complicated gun and is not easy to use; particularly during handling as it is easy for fingers to get caught and/or pinched in any one of the many folding parts.

The gun was manufactured between 1949 and 1952. It was tested by the French Army in Indochina by paratroops and the Foreign Legion. Some countries did buy a few of these guns such as Venezuela and Morroco. The last Hotchkiss Model 010 at war were found in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Model 017

The Model 017 is designed like the Model 010 except it has a fixed wooden stock, a longer barrel, a perforated cooling jacket and the pistol grip cannot be folded. An additional safety device is installed near the trigger and when it is in place the use of the trigger is not possible. The Model 017 was designed for police use and was tested by the French police; but the MAT 49-54 was chosen instead. The Hotchkiss Model 017 was also tested by Morocco.

Model 304

The Model 304 is an evolution of the former models. It has a fixed wooden stock and several variations exist:

• tubular receiver frame, short barrel that can be retracted in the frame and a rectangular trigger box mechanism;
• tubular receiver frame, long barrel with a perforated cooling jacket, rectangular box trigger mechanism and a reversible spike bayonet like the MAS 36 rifle;
• sheet metal frame with dust cover on the ejection port, long barrel with a perforated cooling jacket, triangular trigger box mechanism and a reversible spike bayonet like the MAS 36 rifle.

Specifications

Family Planning

Designed by John M. Browning, the .30 caliber M37 machine gun evolved as a variant of his M1919 to be used in tanks and ground applications. In spite of the added solenoid trigger, new capability to feed from right or left, and its high reliability, the future of the M37 as a tank weapon became tenuous at the end of World War II. The M37 was not chambered for the new NATO caliber and lacked important features desired in an under-armor weapon.

In 1951 the Ordnance Corps convened a conference at Ft. Knox to discuss the military characteristics (MC’s) desired in a new machine gun. The new gun must fire the recently adopted 7.62mm NATO cartridge to be common with the M14 rifle, the M60 machine gun, and other NATO country small arms. It would be required to use the M13 link, the same forward stripping metal link used by the M60. It all made sense; simplified logistics with common ammo and link.

A new gun was to be designed specifically for armored vehicle applications with emphasis on the desired features outlined in the Ordnance Corp MC’s. The most important of these was the length from the front of the feed way to the aft of the weapon. This distance is important in tank design because it determines the amount the machine gun must intrude into the tank’s turret. The longer this distance, the larger and heavier the turret must be. As long as the weapon’s feed is inboard, it can be fed and maintained while the rest of the machine gun can protrude outside the turret. (In the Army photograph comparing receiver lengths between the M37 and M73, the aft rather than the front of the feedway was selected as the forward most measurement. This is presumably because the two machine guns fire rounds that are different lengths so using the aft of the feedway in this case might be better for this comparison.)

Four guns were considered for the armor role with a shoot-off and comparison test considered, but never conducted. The leading candidate was a Springfield Armory design, the T197. Some design work had been started on the T197 but money ran out when the Korean War ended. Weapon development money remained tight and funds did not become available until January 1956. As development had started on the M60 main battle tank and the new weapon was to be the coaxial weapon, the gun design team was challenged to have the gun ready for user testing by 31 May 1958.

The Birth

Leading the Springfield Armory design team for the T197 was Mr. Richard (Dick) Colby, noted inventor and weapon designer. Colby is better known in small arms history for his later development work on the SPIW (Special Purpose Individual Weapon) program. Dick was an innovative designer and challenged his team to not only develop a machine gun that would meet every one of the Ordnance Corps MC’s but to have these guns ready by the May deadline.

Initially the T197 was to be a gas operated weapon but both military and industry did not favor gas operated guns. Past experience had shown that gas residue was a huge cleaning and fouling problem. The gas port in gas operated guns would continually erode, increasing the firing rate with continued use. What also could not be ignored was the durability and high reliability of the .50 cal. M2 Browning. And who could argue with that logic? Today at almost 100 years old, the short recoil cycle M2 is still in use.

Colby selected the Browning short recoil cycle for the T197 but soon found that the recoiling components were too heavy for reliable cycling. So, it was back to gun gas to get the added power – but this time in the form of a recoil booster. A pocket was formed at the end of the barrel so when gun gas reached this point the gas gave the barrel a rearward push to help complete the cycle. Unfortunately, there is nothing gentle about gun gas inside a barrel; it is very high pressure gas that acts over an extremely short period of time. The T197 muzzle booster gave the end of the barrel such a smack that it caused the firing rate to soar; upwards over 1,000 rounds per minute (rpm), far above the desired rate of 450-550 rpm.

To fix this, Colby’s team developed a rate reducing mechanical delay mechanism. This was a series of sear trips and springs that delayed the fall of the hammer. The rate reduce slowed the overall firing rate but the recoil and counter recoil strokes of the barrel extension were as fast as ever. Only when the barrel extension came forward and stopped would the rate reducer spring into action, releasing compressed springs and sear trips until the hammer was allowed to fall. The ultra high speed feed extraction and ejection motions (and the problems associated with them) were still there.

The nice feature of Browning’s short recoil cycle was that the barrel, bolt, and barrel extension recoiled as a unit within the barrel jacket and receiver. The breech remained locked for a long time, allowing chamber pressure to drop to a safe level when the breech was opened. This limited the amount of toxic gun gas expelled into the turret.

To their credit, the internal workings of the T197 were designed so the receiver of Colby’s gun was about 8 inches shorter (aft of feedway to end of receiver) than the M37. The T197 could be switched from right hand to left hand feed without additional parts. Even the charger could be swapped from either side of the receiver easily and with onboard parts. The barrel was designed for quick and easy replacement and no headspace adjustment was required. To minimize barrel wear, the hottest part of the barrel was lined with a high cobalt material, called Stellite. There was no shortage of design innovation in the T197.

While most vehicle mounted weapons are secured by their receivers, the T197 was mounted in the tank by its barrel jacket, with the receiver cantilevered in mid air behind it. This arrangement made for easy barrel replacement as the receiver could quickly be detached from the barrel jacket by pulling one of the two quick release pin plungers connecting them. To change barrels the gunner pulled one of the pins and the receiver pivoted away exposing the end of the barrel. An insulated mitt was to be kept on board for removing hot barrels.

The bolt and feed rammer were a huge departure from conventional design. In most weapons the bolt is a one-piece affair designed to feed and extract ammunition plus provide locking means to react firing loads. In the T197, part of the bolt was a rammer with two long fingers; the upper one was rigid, designed to push cartridges forward out of the link while the lower finger could pivot in order to snap under the cartridge rim for fired case extraction. Locking the breech was achieved by a second component as the rammer wasn’t designed to take the breech loads. The two rammer fingers were made long and skinny so a cross bolt could pass between them, engaging both sides of the barrel extension in order to react against the firing loads.

When the breech was locked, the bolt was behind the case and the feed rammer was behind the bolt. This meant that the T197 design required two firing pins – one in the bolt and a second in the feed rammer body. The hammer could not be located on the weapon centerline as it would interfere with case ejection, so it was mounted on the left inside wall of the barrel extension. This meant that the firing pin in the feed rammer had to be mounted on an angle to the bore centerline. To fire, the hammer hit the off-centerline pin in the rammer that in turn hit the on-centerline pin in the lock block, which in turn hit the primer.

Colby’s team used a cam on each side of the receiver to accelerate the feed rammer in relation to the barrel extension so feed and ejection could occur. Two rollers on arms served as right and left side cam followers and worked with extraordinary efficiency to move the feed rammer at high speed, stripping and feeding cartridges on the forward stroke and ejecting fired cases on the recoil stroke.

Fired case ejection began with two spring-loaded gripping pads at the end of an arm connected to the cam follower arms. The arm rotated upwards to meet the fired case, which was being held at the end of the rammer fingers. The two gripping pads were then supposed to take control of the case and transport it to the bottom of the receiver where it would strike a fixed ejector surface to send the case flying out the bottom of the receiver.

The feeder was more conventional with two spring loaded plungers in the barrel extension engaging the feeder to pull the belt a full link pitch on the recoil stroke.

The Adoption

Designing a gun with as many unique features as the T197, proving out the design and building production weapons in just over two years was a huge challenge. But on 16 June, 1958, just over two weeks beyond the deadline, four test guns were delivered to the Army Armor Board.

Soon after tests began, the Army realized the muzzle booster would not be acceptable. After 2,000 rounds it became so fouled that the rate of fire slowed until the gun quit working. There were other problems too. The closely toleranced parts in the rate reducer seized in the cold weather testing, and part life was dismal. Accuracy and general performance were considered acceptable, but durability was more than lacking.

Meetings and progress reviews were held with great regularity as there were concerns this weapon and the T175 .50 caliber weapon, later to be designated M85, would not be ready for the M60 tank. Adding urgency to problem resolution was interest from the U.K and Canada, with agreements from both to adopt the T197 whenever it was ready. The U.S. Marine Corps advised their intention to purchase 600 of the new coaxials during the 1960 Fiscal Year. There were other users asking about variants. U.S. Army ground forces expressed an interest in a flex version for tripod firing and a helicopter version was on the drawing boards.

Finally, part life was increased and muzzle booster cleaning intervals were raised to 3,500 rounds thanks to a joint effort between Frankford and Springfield Armories. Much progress had been made but functioning problems continued. These were considered insufficient to bar adoption so the T197 was type classified STD-A on 14 May 1959 and designated M73. She was now officially adopted by the Army. Mama had a new baby!

Childhood Illnesses or Fatal Disease?

In retrospect, those functioning and durability problems should have been looked at more closely as they were indicative of a number of inherent design flaws. The most serious of these were:

• The quick release plungers that separated the receiver from the barrel jacket were too loose in their mounting. This allowed the receiver to shake and bounce during firing and affected the headspace causing case separations and other malfunctions. The resultant “spongy breech” plagued the design to its end.
• The feed rammer fingers couldn’t hold the round or fired case reliably, especially with the receiver shaking madly during firing. This resulted in round or fired case control being lost, causing jams.
• The spring-loaded gripping pads on the ejector were not reliable, resulting in failures to eject. The fixed ejector at the bottom of the receiver would not allow the weapon to function upside down or on either side as ejected cases would not clear the receiver. Functioning in all orientations is a standard requirement for all U.S. Small Arms.
• The use of two firing pins that were not on the same axis invited light strikes and other reliability problems.
• There were too many parts in the weapon – a total of 305. Simple designs generally have 200 parts or less.

In 1963 a new booster was sent out into the field for installation on all weapons. The stated purpose was to “…provide increased gun recoil velocity for improved ammunition compatibility.” With this we are led to believe that the problem with the gun was the ammunition, all along. The new muzzle booster would push the recoiling parts even harder, making the gun run even faster. This was hardly the recipe for increased reliability. Mama had an ugly baby, but nobody wanted to tell her.

Life in the Army; Daddy Leaves Her

Unlike other well-managed weapon programs, the M73 was never examined for producibility, nor were formal engineering drawings made or tolerance studies conducted. Rather, the Army chose to go into production using the R&D drawings, amending them as needed to make the parts producible. Design changes were made based on limited R&D tests. Springfield Armory was placed in charge of production.

Amazingly, M73 weapon production and fielding proceeded normally and for a period of three years. There were no field reports, either positive or negative, received by the program manager. Suddenly in 1964, a unit in Europe reported a high incidence of malfunctions – more specifically: short recoils and damaged cartridge cases. Attention turned to the ammunition, where a particular run of 7.62mm ammunition, designated Army DODAC (Department of Defense Ammunition Code) A-127, would not work with the M73.

A technical team was sent to assess the problem with three action items initiated:
1. Inspect and rebuild all of the guns in Europe.
2. Emphasize training, maintenance, and operational procedures.
3. Review ammunition production with a critical look at inspection procedures and acceptance practices. There was every indication that it would be necessary to establish a case hardness specification.

Guns with very little use now had to be inspected and rebuilt. Training was emphasized because the technical team couldn’t bring themselves to blame the gun; it had to be the fault of the gunner. Nor would the Army’s weapon community overlook the ammunition. Ammunition production procedures were to be closely scrutinized because every one who has ever designed a gun knows when they can’t figure out why it doesn’t work it’s generally the fault of the ammunition. (The converse is true with ammunition manufacturers.) There was nothing in their report about faults with the weapon, but finally the Army did recognize there was a price to be paid for their rush to build the weapon along with their failure to address serious design flaws and producibility issues early in the development phase.

At long last, production engineers set upon the weapon to simplify its manufacture, while product engineers addressed functioning and other problems. The modified M73 became the M73E1 with the major differences being the replacement of the old ejector by a fixed ejector mounted to the feed tray.

An impressive “fire to destruction” test was organized with three weapons firing 64,000+, 74,000, and 92,500 rounds until the receivers failed. New DODAC A-131 ammunition was specified for all machine guns with the older A-127 set aside for use only on the M60. A blind eye was turned to the ammunition commonality issue – one of the primary reasons the T197/M73 was designed in the first place.

Functioning problems scared off other potential users. The Marines decided to use a variant of the M60 for their coax while Canada modified M1919’s to fire 7.62 mm NATO. Wisely, the Brits decided on a coaxial version of the Belgian MAG-58.

At some point in the program and it is not clear where, Dick Colby left the M73 design team. In later years he admitted to designing it but swore it worked well until other engineers and production teams changed the design. Mama’s baby had lost her daddy and life was going to get tougher.

Life in the Orphanage

In 1968, Robert McNamara, then Secretary of Defense, closed Springfield Armory forcing the Army to walk away from a multimillion dollar design and production facility. At the time of its closing, two machine guns were being built there, the M73E1 and the .50 cal. M85. In an effort to save area jobs and to continue production, the Army contracted weapon production and part of the facility to be taken over by the General Electric Company, Armament Systems Department in Burlington, Vermont. Who better to take over this manufacturing than the designer and builder of the world’s most reliable machine guns and aircraft cannons?

There was a mixed bag of personnel at the General Electric Company Springfield Operation consisting of a few Arsenal people, some GE folks from other operations, along with a few new hires. The engineering department was joined weekdays by their new boss, Robert (Bob) Chiabrandy, and me, George Kontis. Bob and I worked all week in Springfield and returned home to Vermont for the weekends.

With new armored personnel carriers and tanks on the drawing boards, GE saw a market for single barrel vehicle weapons and set up an engineering group at the Springfield facility to develop them. Leading the design effort to develop a new family of single barrel weapons was none other than Dick Colby.

Month after month Springfield Armory had produced the M85 and the M73E1 with few problems. It was only after GE took over that problems mysteriously started. In spite of the fact that parts were made on the same fixtures with the same machines by many of the same people, neither gun would function properly in the firing acceptance tests. The M85 was bad, the M73E1 was worse.

At times the rate of fire of the M73E1 was too fast, causing an entire weapon lot to be rejected. Other lots fired too slowly – again reason for rejection. Since the guns were built to print and the prints were supposed to be correct, we engineers had little maneuvering room with the design. Even the slightest change that deviated from the dimensions specified on the drawings had to be submitted for review and approval by the Army design control, now situated at Rock Island Arsenal. Sometimes enlarging the bullet exit hole in the muzzle booster to its maximum allowable diameter would relieve the high pressure and was the cure for fast shooting weapons, but what to do with the slow ones? These guns were all supposed to have interchangeable and interoperable parts so guns with swapped parts were required to meet the same specifications. These were not the only malfunctions. The rammer fingers often lost control of the fired case after extraction, and a loose case in the receiver was certain to induce a jam.

Many at the Springfield Operation who were not former Armory employees felt cheated since both of these gun were supposed to be mature designs. Both were successfully built by the world-famous Springfield Armory. We from GE expected we would only have to build the parts of these two weapons to the Government prints, and follow the assembly instructions to lead to a successful acceptance test. But rare was the month that the production lot of these guns passed the final testing.

George Harris, GE Springfield Operation’s General Manager, was a capable manager and a fine gentleman. George had made his career at GE and was understandably concerned with the poor production line performance of the two guns. Accepted lots of monthly production were the only source of income for the Springfield Operation.

One might expect that Dick Colby’s previous design experience with the M73 would have been an asset in figuring out these problems. But Dick would have nothing to do with the M73, staying with his claim that the gun had worked in the past, but other engineers had made major changes that “ruined” the gun. There may have been some truth in Dick’s assessment.

Really fast firing weapons induced a spectacular failure: a stoppage that began with the ejector. Now that the M73E1 featured fixed ejectors, it was seemingly impossible that the fired case would not eject at high velocity when it hit the fixed ejectors mounted to the feed tray. But the fast moving recoiling components slammed the fired case into the ejectors so hard that two triangular punch marks ripped into the case head, sometimes cutting completely through the case rim. When this happened, so much energy was drained from the recoiling parts that the gun function ceased.

When this malfunction occurred, George Harris was briefed on the situation by Bob Chiabrandy who had organized the test crew and engineers in a study to determine the cause and potential fix. When testing began, George remained in the test cell, pacing back and forth, eagerly awaiting the results.

Although he could easily pass for one of Greek descent, with his looks and maybe even his name, George Harris professed no such heritage. In his youth he worked in a Greek-owned vegetable market and had many Greek friends. One of these local Greeks owned a coffee house which he often frequented after work. When George described these problems to his Greek buddies, one of them presented him with a set of Greek worry beads. The idea was that he could use this string of smooth round beads to keep his fingers occupied as he paced the firing range floor. Now he could look like a Greek and worry like one too.

The range crew, the test engineers, and particularly the Quality Engineer, Paul Hamilakis and myself (both of us from Greek immigrant families) were greatly amused by George’s new acquisition. Paul and I explained the history of the beads and coached him in the characteristic stance of a true Greek worrier. Every day we could count on several range visits from George, only now with his body hunched forward, hands behind his back, nervously flipping a string of beads.

One day, Bill Frigon, our engineering technician, came into work with a gift for George. He had configured some of the “punched through” case heads into a set of custom M73E1 worry beads. George was much impressed and asked for a second set to be sent up to Burlington’s top management. The beads were a hit with the Burlington big wigs too, who fired back the message: “If we can’t make machine guns, maybe there’s a market for these worry beads.”

With a poor financial report resulting from losses at the Springfield Operation, by 1970 GE closed the facility and gave production responsibility of both gun designs back to the Army. GE had come to realize that: Mama had a really ugly baby, but they were too polite to tell her so.

Back with family and a new identity

With new production M60 tanks still in need of machine guns and existing guns requiring spare parts, Rock Island Arsenal was the logical choice to continue M73E1 manufacture. This was a good choice not only because Rock Island had machines and machinists, but because many of the old Springfield Armory personnel ended up there after the Armory closed.

Soon after taking over, Rock Island Arsenal began receiving complaints from Ft. Knox that the weapon was performing poorly. In 1971, small arms management – all old Springfield Armory veterans – decided to send a new hire to Ft. Knox to hear their concerns. He was a young engineer named Neil Burchell. Neil’s job was to evaluate complaints and find fixes to their problems. Given the nature of the problems and the importance of the application, Neil was surprised when he learned that he was the only person from his office working on them.

Like many before him, Neil did his best to fix the problems. The “spongy breech” problem he addressed by using quick release pins that expanded when closed to take up tolerance in the joint between the receiver and barrel jacket. This worked until the expanding pin handles shook apart and had to be safety wired to the barrel jacket. Another approach was to make parts that were “zero tolerance” by precise machining of the joint components to remove as much of the free play as possible. What worked to some extent in the vehicle mount was a “tanker’s fix” that involved securing the back end of the receiver to a point above in the turret using a bungee cord. The gun often shot well when constrained this way, but there was no way to change the barrel quickly so the idea wasn’t practical.

The ejector surfaces were beefed up to eliminate the punched through case rims. Neil used what was then a new welding technique called “electron beam welding” to solve strength and positioning problems with the ejectors, the rails the barrel extension rode on, and the rammer-extractor assembly. Neil found that he could simplify the design by removing the pin through the top of the barrel jacket that oriented the barrel. The gun worked equally well with or without it. With all the changes to the M73E1 and possibly to allay the stigma of the old problems, Rock Island decided to change the designation. Guns with the new features were now called the M219. The rumor at Rock Island was that this number was selected because the new gun was “three times better than the old M73” (do the math). Neil disputes this saying it was just a coincidence that the numbers worked out that way.

The M219 did look a bit more promising. At one point Neil put the gun in a hard stand and was able to fire 10,000 rounds without a stoppage. He was really excited about this until he put the same gun in a tank mount. Just as before, the gun vibrated and shook in its mount, introducing a large number of stoppages. In later testing, Neil found that if the spring rate of the mount exceeded 60,000 pounds/inch, the weapon would have a low incidence of malfunctions. Unfortunately this was stiffer than the tank mount. As M219 problems continued, Neil was joined by another engineer, Jack Plambeck, who assisted in developing fixes for each of the problems: every time firing multiple 10,000 round tests to verify the integrity and success of design changes.

Neil continued his role as the principal interface with Ft. Knox confiding that in the beginning he went there to convince them that there were really no problems with the M73E1 but ultimately they convinced him to the contrary.

Search For Cinderella

By 1971 some in the Army Arsenal system recognized the M219 design left much to be desired and decided to fund a few R&D contracts to see what might be the successor. Eight R&D contracts were let for new and unique 7.62mm coaxial weapons including:

• Two entries from Philco Ford – one externally powered and one self powered.
• A self powered, dual feed, machine gun from Maremont designed by John Rocha.
• A self powered machine gun from Pacific Car and Foundry.
• A compact, short-receiver, Browning short recoil cycle machine gun from General Electric Company (coincidentally, based on a design originally conceived by Dick Colby).
• An externally powered machine gun from Cadillac Gage designed by M16 inventor Gene Stoner.
• An externally powered machine gun from Hughes that became the predecessor of the M242 Chain Gun.
• An entry from Rock Island Arsenal’s own Rodman Labs.

All of these weapons were designed, built, and tested, with many of them showing great promise in the coaxial role. The eight candidates were down-selected to five and evaluation testing of these continued with the intent to find the best one to replace the M219. One day in the fall of 1973, a major world event changed everything.

Oy Vey is your child UGLY

It was October 6, 1973, the day of the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur, when a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria attacked Israel. Egypt and Syria crossed the cease-fire lines in the Sinai and Golan Heights and were met by Israeli M60 tanks. The Israeli’s were victorious, but with little help from their M219 machine guns. The guns had performed miserably and the Israeli’s were not at all happy about it. Israel demanded someone the U.S. Army send over a representative to look at guns and listen to their complaints.

Neil Burchell was the most likely candidate for this task but his supervisor, Bob Henry, refused to let Neil go. Neil had a reputation as a collector of military memorabilia and Bob was sure Neil would either kill himself or become badly injured while out on the battlefield picking up souvenirs. Today Neil admits that Bob was probably right.

The Israeli’s displeasure with the M219 was vented on the U.S. Congress. How could it happen that a world power would develop such a weapon and sell it to their ally? By early 1974, a replacement was mandated and the search for a new coaxial machine gun was on.

By now, Rock Island Arsenal had also given up on the M219. Wilmont Gibson, branch chief, and Dennis Ash, head of crew served weapons, concluded that in spite of their best efforts, the M219 simply could not be fixed.

On the Israeli-inspired replacement project, eight U.S. and foreign machine guns, six 7.62mm and two .50 caliber, were evaluated alongside the M219. The Belgian MAG-58, another 1950s vintage weapon based on one of John Browning’s gas operation concepts, emerged as the clear winner. The MAG demonstrated the highest reliability of any self powered machine gun in U.S. testing history and was give the designation M240.

In retrospect, the design of the M73/M219 was an accumulation of novel concepts that should have been thoroughly tested in the application before finalizing the design. The off and on development program challenged the ever-changing design teams with a new learning curve every time the project was restarted. It was a costly program in time, assets, money and loss of face. She was an ugly little baby and somebody should have told her Mama so.

(The Author extends appreciation to the following for their contributions to this article: Neil Burchell for information and insight into the Rock Island Armory days of the M73/M219; Robert Chiabrandy for the gift of the “one of a kind” M73 worry beads; Tom Cosgrove who supplied some early information on the birth of the M73 plus the gun model, and Ms. Jodie Wessemann of the Rock Island Arsenal Museum for providing photos and other pertinent technical information.)

19-21 August, 2008, Shrivenham, UK

There are two small arms conferences in the West that this author considers to be the most important in the world for the serious small arms community to attend: the NDIA Small Arms Symposium held every May in the United States, and the Small Arms and Cannon Symposium at Shrivenham held every August in the UK. While there are many excellent, larger trade shows that have some educational aspects to them, these two conferences stand out as events that encourage the dialogue between the shakers and movers in small arms design and end use.

There are differences between the two events, and how they are focused. NDIA is the larger of the two, but the sister event at Shrivenham has a very personal quality to it that keeps it popular with attendees, and important to the community.

The Defence Academy of the United Kingdom sponsors many defence related scholarly events every year. The Symposia at Shrivenham had its 22nd annual Small Arms event in August of 2008. The normal schedule was followed: three days of short lectures on various subjects, interspersed with breaks in the trade show exhibit area to share coffee, snacks, luncheon and tea with the exhibitors. This format has worked quite well in the past, allowing breaks from the lectures, and close interaction with the exhibitors.

There were approximately 15 seminars in the lecture program; here are some examples of the seminars attended by the participants:

• Less-Lethal Ammunition presented by Anthony Williams
• Nammo’s 50 Caliber Ammunition Family by Jorn Amundsen
• New Extended Range Shoulder Fired 40mm Grenade Systems by Danie Els
• Aimpoint BR8 by Lennart Ljungfelt
• Incremental Excellence; Tomorrow’s State-of-the-Art Assault Rifle Today by Jim Schatz
• NATO Infantry Weapons Standardization by Per Arvidsson
• Current and Future UK Small Arms Capability by Lieutenant Colonel James Daniel, MBE
• UK Soldier Modernization Update by Colonel Peter Rafferty, MBE

The “Shrivenham” Small Arms & Cannon Symposium is located at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, UK. This is to the west of London off the M4 motorway. Contact

Mrs. Lynn Anderson,
Symposia Organiser
Symposia at Shrivenham,
MH23, DA-CMT
Cranfield University,
Defence Academy of the
United Kingdom, Shrivenham,
Swindon, SN6 8LA.
Tel: +44 1793 785648
E-mail: Lynn@symposiaatshrivenham.com
Website: www.symposiaatshrivenham.com
SAR would like to encourage the small arms community to lend their support to the 23rd Small Arms & Cannon Symposium on August 25-27 of 2009. Hope to see you there.

The Colt Thompson submachine gun has become the icon of organized crime and the gangsters of the 20s and 30s. Indeed, its use by criminals who made the twenties roar was a leading cause of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Not surprisingly, many of the Thompsons used by gangsters had their serial numbers obliterated. This article examines the practice of serial number removal by criminals and their recovery by forensic firearm examiners. Gangsters of that period did not know it, but there is a hidden number on all early Thompsons. We will describe how to reveal these numbers using an amnesty-registered gangster Thompson and why even today, these techniques can shed new information about the history of these nearly century-old submachine guns.

Crime: Some Things Never Change

Law enforcement organizations are extremely interested in weapons’ serial numbers for obvious reasons. The numbers may link criminals to other crimes and specifically to robberies that may have been the source of the weapons in the first place. Of growing significance is that their identification may lead to patterns involving criminal activities such as straw purchases and dealers who may be supplying guns to organized crime networks. The mere presence of an obliterated serial number on a crime gun is a good indicator of trafficking because it shows that someone in the chain of possession presumed that the gun will be used in a future crime, may have to be discarded and might be recovered by the police.

Tracing of crime gun serial numbers has been around since serial numbers first appeared on guns. With respect to Thompsons, two of the more famous cases involved the tracking of Thompsons supplied to the Irish Republican Army in 1921 and the forensic examination of the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre weapons.

Fast forwarding to this century, a report by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that analyzed 88,570 trace requests made by law enforcement officials in 44 communities found that crime guns are now predominantly handguns (77 percent) and, among handguns, mostly semiautomatic pistols which alone account for half (50 percent) of all crime guns traced. Almost 10 percent of the traces involved handguns with obliterated or partially obliterated serial numbers. The proportion of handguns with obliterated serial numbers is nearly twice as large for semiautomatic pistols (11.3 percent) as for revolvers (6.3 percent). Obliteration is more common on guns used in crimes committed by individuals under 24.

Although obliterated serial numbers on guns are relatively common, prosecutions are infrequent. One 2003 study found that between 2000 and 2002, Federal prosecutors throughout the nation filed only 259 cases against individuals in possession of a gun with an obliterated serial number. Marc Dupre of FoCoSS Forensics states, “The lack of follow-through is probably due to the difficulty prosecutors have in proving that the individual knowingly obliterated the numbers and/or understood its illegality (a Federal felony punishable by five years). Another factor may be that the prosecutors typically have a robust shopping list of other crimes which would send these individuals to prison.”

Obliteration Methods and Recovery Techniques

The techniques outlined here are commonly known and documented in publicly available books and articles. This information was reviewed by practicing firearms examiners and certain facts not commonly known are not revealed.

The most common form of serial number removal is surface grinding or filing. Over the past 13 years, Marc Dupre has rarely seen other techniques such as peening, chiseling, center punching, drilling or welding. Sometimes specific numbers will be altered by over stamping such as changing a 6 to an 8 or a 1 to a 4. A lot of 8s and 4s are a red flag.

Even though the numbers have been totally removed, at least visually, the crystalline structure of the metal underneath remains unaltered. The serial numbers can sometimes be recovered by techniques that differentiate between the unaltered and altered crystalline structure directly beneath the original numbers. The most common method is to first polish the area and then etch the prepared surface. The altered crystalline areas etch at a different rate than the surrounding metal, revealing the original numbers.

There are a dozen different etching reagents, depending on the type of metal (e.g., steel, aluminum, brass). There are also electrochemical, ultrasonic, magnetic and heat techniques to name a few, and because this is a visual examination, the right type of lighting and photographic enhancements help tremendously. Needless to say, there is as much art as science involved in successful serial number recovery.

Marc Dupre states, “Success rates as high as 80 percent have been reported in the literature. Much depends on the method used to obliterate the number in the first place; some are more effective that others and this is an area we keep within the profession, for obvious reasons.”

Overlooking the Obvious

Modern weapons typically have the serial number in more than one place. A state police firearms examiner who wished to remain anonymous for this article states, “Criminals can be incredibly stupid. I have seen guns such as Glocks with the stamped metal serial number strip removed from the frame, but the matching numbers on the barrel and slide unaltered.”

His oddest case of “What were they thinking?” involved Smith & Wesson Model 66 stainless steel revolvers. “When this model first came out about 20 years ago, they were extremely popular and many were stolen. Someone was professionally welding up the serial numbers visible on the frame and re-stamping new numbers. It was difficult even for forensic examiners to tell that these were not the original numbers, except for one glaring mistake – the secondary had not been altered near the cylinder yoke.”

But even century-old guns can have multiple serial number locations. German manufacturers in particular seemed to be obsessed with adding the last few digits of the complete number to every little part. The classic example is the Luger P08. In fact, all matching numbers is a major factor for collectable guns.

Some of this numbering is to maintain hand-fitted components or parts matched for cosmetic reasons, but in the case of rifle bolts, for example, it is absolutely critical to match the correct bolt to the gun to ensure proper headspace. Sometimes assembly numbers that have no relationship to the serial number are also used because a number had yet to be assigned.

In the case of Thompsons, all of these factors came into play. Early Colt guns were marked on the left side of the receiver and on the underside of the of the trigger frame. Model 1928 and 1928A1 Thompsons were also so marked. Some M1 and M1A1 Thompsons had trigger frame serial numbers, but that practice was terminated later in World War II. Specifications after 1943 specified “receiver-only markings.” The reason is obvious for military guns: guns sent back for repair soon were mismatched.

The first thousand Thompsons had the number on the ramp face of the chamber on the barrel. It is sometimes possible to see this from the extractor cutout in the receiver. Some specially-ordered guns had serial numbers placed in visible locations such as on the Cutts Compensator so that the numbers could be observed when stored in a gun rack.

There are also matching assembly numbers placed under both the butt plate and butt stock. Gordon Herigstad, author of Colt Thompson Serial Numbers, is aware of at least one occasion where these numbers were also removed even though they were just assembly numbers. Its accompanying C drum’s serial number was obliterated as well.

But the only guaranteed way to uncover the original serial number was through barrel removal and examination of the flat area on the receiver under the forearm. Not only were gangsters oblivious to this hidden number, they did not have the tools or knowledge to reveal it. Indeed, special tools are required to complete this operation without marring, or in any way damaging, these valuable guns.

Douglas W. Richardson of Malibu, California, manufactures the required barrel wrench and receiver vice. The process is straightforward as shown by gunsmith Nelson Ford of Phoenix, Arizona, on an amnesty-registered gun with an IRS-issued number 6377-D. The original receiver markings on this gun are peened off and the trigger frame numbers both peened and ground off. Gordon Herigstad correctly predicted beforehand that the serial number would be under 3,000 because of its “early markings” (i.e., “Full Automatic” and “Semi Automatic” spelled out on the trigger frame).

Like many Thompsons of that period, Auto-Ordnance had no specific information on what is now known to be serial number 2976. Colt manufactured the gun but they were a subcontractor to Auto-Ordnance and did not maintain detailed records on the guns that they did not own and, of course, the original Auto-Ordnance is out of business.

The current owner, Charles Olsen jokes, “I was hoping it was sold to a hardware store outside Chicago.” Indeed, a few of these stores were the source of many of the crime guns of that era. With the number revealed, maybe someday the truth will be known.

History to be Uncovered

Pulling the barrel on a Thompson and discovering the original serial number is more than just an exercise in curiosity. Obviously, the criminals are long since dead, as are the cases that may have involved these guns. Discovering the original serial number is not about putting people in jail: it is about uncovering lost history. These guns represent the very symbol of a bygone terror that still stirs the imagination today.

Gordon Herigstad states, “There were approximately 200 of the 495 Thompsons – known as the Rorke guns – that were destined for the Irish Republican Army. You can usually identify them since a chisel was used to obliterate the serial numbers. In addition, Peter Von Frantzius was an armorer who supplied Thompsons with ground-off serial numbers to gangsters in the Chicago area. Overall, however, there are relatively few – possibly a dozen or less – Thompsons in museums or in private collections with obliterated numbers.”

Some of these still hold secrets yet to be uncovered. For example, Herigstad describes two that he is aware of, “There is one in the New York City Police Museum reported to have been used on July 1, 1928 by Fred “Killer” Burke to murder Frankie (Uale) Yale who ran afoul of Al Capone. It was the first time a Thompson was used in New York gangland warfare and it is assumed to be directly linked to Al Capone. The visible serial numbers are ground off and the only real proof is that key bit of information which the museum does not have. I have the numbers of all the guns bought by Capone and can make the definite link.”

Marc Dupre examined several close-up photographs of this submachine gun and believes that the number could be restored, “You never know until you give it a try.” Ironically, its value as a piece of gangster history would actually decrease if such a restoration were to be attempted. The only way to both preserve its significance and trace its origin is to remove the barrel, document the number and re-attach the barrel.

Herigstad continues, “Another interesting gun is in the Rock Island Arsenal Museum in Illinois. One of the 17 Thompsons in their collection has obliterated numbers, and if I pulled the barrel, I could immediately tell if it is also one of the famous Chicago gangster guns. It was acquired locally in 1955 and without any descriptive history, but since Chicago is only 160 miles away, one can easily speculate there may be a connection. Hopefully someday history will be uncovered on these two Thompsons.”

(Thank you to Chuck Olsen, Gordon Herigstad, Marc Dupre and Nelson Ford for their assistance in the preparation of this article.)

Every shooter is certainly aware of the recent increase in the price of ammunition; this substantial increase affects the machine gun owner far more than the average revolver or bolt-action rifle shooter. One way of saving a few dollars is by purchasing surplus corrosive ammunition, which is usually less expensive than its non-corrosive counterpart. In the past, the primary consumers of corrosive ammunition have been the belt-fed machine gunners, due in part to the enormous amounts of ammunition consumed by such guns.

Many transferable assault rifle and submachine guns owners have largely avoided shooting corrosive ammunition for fear of the corrosion damaging their expensive firearms; particularly gas operated assault rifles with difficult to clean gas systems. However economics are forcing many to take a second look at the corrosive, but cheaper ammo.

What makes ammunition corrosive is the type of primers used to ignite the powder charge. The suspect component is potassium chlorate (KC1O3), which is used as an oxidizer, providing oxygen to the primer compound. When ignition takes place the oxygen is removed from the molecule leaving potassium chloride (KCI). Potassium chloride is a salt and therefore hygroscopic (attracts moisture). When the residue from potassium chloride is left in a gun barrel it results in the formation of corrosion. Potassium chlorate is soluble in water; making water an ideal liquid to remove the corrosive salts, however, water if not completely dried out, can also cause corrosion.

Most U.S. military cartridge contractors made the transition to non-corrosive primers during the 1950 era. While most modern commercial ammunition is assembled with non-corrosive primers, the same is not always true for foreign ammunition, particularly surplus military cartridges and blanks. Reportedly, the advantage to using corrosive primers is that it extends the shelf life of cartridges, and it’s more reliable in extremely cold temperatures.

If you do an Internet search you will soon discover there are many conflicting “best” ways to clean your firearm after firing corrosive ammunition. After reading many of these, we decided to run a test of the many methods suggested; one piece of advice that I noted that was missing was regarding the removal of black carbon build up (e.g. AK gas pistons).

Purchasing Ammunition

Read ads carefully, if it doesn’t state that the ammunition is non-corrosive it probably is. Occasionally advertisers leave out this bit of crucial information.

Be wary of ALL foreign ammunition even if the seller or the box states that is non-corrosive.

If left unchecked, corrosive ammunition will cause a lot of irreparable damage to barrels and gas systems.

Check your firearm a few days after cleaning when shooting suspect ammunition.

Now that you have been warned about the pitfalls of corrosive ammunition, it really isn’t all that bad, as long as you are aware that the ammunition you are shooting is corrosive, and take the proper steps to clean your firearm as soon as possible after firing. The test pieces began to rust after 24 hours after being exposed, 72 hours later the metal began to pit.

Prevention Method Theories

Some of the more popular corrosion prevention methods out there include; 1. Firing several rounds of known non-corrosive ammunition before shooting the corrosive stuff. This will “coat” the components with carbon that will protect them from the ravages of corrosive ammo.

2. Firing known non-corrosive ammunition after firing corrosive ammunition to “blow out” the salt deposits left by the corrosive ammunition.

While the aforementioned methods sound logical and may help prevent or slow down the corrosion process, personal experience has proven that they don’t work very effectively. Corrosion will still rear its ugly head a day or so after shooting. (See photograph of test rod number 7.)

Disclaimer

The following testing was NOT performed in a laboratory under laboratory conditions. The tests were conducted by and for the amusement of the author only.

Be advised that there is no guarantee suggested or implied that the methods tested herein are 100 percent effective in the prevention of corrosion in firearms. The following tests were performed on steel rod stock, not actual firearms.

The Test

For the test, several mild steel rods .25 inches in diameter were used. The ends of the rods were polished on a wire wheel and cleaned with alcohol to remove any traces of oil. Each rod was placed vertically and secured in a bench mounted vice.

To prevent any potential injury, a piece of wood was prepared by drilling a hole for the insertion of a small nail that served as a “firing pin.” The tip of the nail was ground slightly so that it would not pierce the primers. A second hole the size of the cartridge case’s base was drilled approximately .125-inches into the wood to center the case under the “firing pin.” Eye and ear protection and gloves were worn during the test as when the primers are ignited they can fly out of their pocket in the case at sufficient velocity to inflict injury. Proper ventilation was also required.

Surplus Romanian 7.62x25mm corrosive ammunition was used for the test. The bullets were pulled from several of the cartridges, the powder dumped from the cases and discarded. Each of the empty cases was placed over one of the steel rods. One primer was discharged on each rod. A time period of four hours was allowed to pass before the next cleaning step to simulate the shooters average time from firing until cleaning. After cleaning with each product, a period of 48 more hours was allowed before checking each rod for corrosion. The cleaning products used were; nothing (control piece), Break Free, Windex, hot water, Hoppes #9, and WD 40. One rod had a non-corrosive primer ignited on it followed by a corrosive primer.

The Results

Each rod was wiped clean with a rag coated with the product listed.

• Rod #1 not cleaned: Corroded
• Rod #2 Break Free: Corroded
• Rod #3 Windex: Rod did not corrode, but did develop light surface rust from the water in the Windex after a few days.
• Rod #4 Hot water: Rod did not corrode, but did develop light surface rust from the water after several days.
• Rod #5 Hoppes #9: No corrosion
• Rod #6 WD-40: No corrosion
• Rod #7 Non corrosive primer, followed by corrosive primer: Corroded

Note: The label on the Break Free container makes no claim for being effective against corrosive ammunition. The label on the Hoppes #9 bottle states “removes corrosive primer fouling and residue.”

Observations

To prevent damage from firing corrosive ammunition the parts must have any carbon deposits removed by a mechanical means; bronze bore brush, toothbrush or even a rag.

If left untreated the corrosive primers will result in the formation of rust on the metal within 24 to 48 hours. If cleaning is delayed until after the corrosion process has started, there usually will be pitting and black discoloration of the steel visible.

The humidity in the air has a great effect on how fast the steel corrodes. In other words, shooters in Florida have a smaller window of time to clean their firearms before corrosion starts than a shooter in Arizona.

Cleaning of the steel with petroleum based Hoppes #9 and WD-40 did not “trap” the salts underneath and corrode the steel. Both of the rods were examined daily for three weeks after the initial cleaning with no formation of corrosion.

Boiling water worked very well and evaporated quickly.

Any parts exposed to the cartridge gases should be cleaned, particularly on blowback, open-bolt guns; the bolt face, inside of the receiver and feed lips of the magazines should all be thoroughly cleaned of powder residue.

After neutralizing the corrosive salts from the ammunition, the firearm should be cleaned and lubed using standard procedures.

Recheck the firearm several days after initial cleaning for signs of corrosion.

“The PLA (People’s Liberation Army of Communist China) is also exploring satellite jammers, kinetic energy weapons, high-powered lasers, high-powered microwave weapons, particle beam weapons, and electromagnetic pulse weapons for counterspace application.” US Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, 2008. The Chinese have already demonstrated their mastery of directed energy weapons (DEW) as a strategic spacewar capability by killing spy satellites in orbit. The PLA, aided by cynically mercenary experts from a catalog of nations including some US “allies,” is accelerating its program to develop and field ever more powerful and versatile DEW that are suitable for both strategic and tactical employment.

Same for the Russians – said by the Defense Intelligence Agency to have used vehicle mounted lethal power lasers in their Afghanistan debacle – who have been vigorously pushing the frontiers of science for decades in building efficient particle beam, laser and microwave weapons.

Serious discussion and planning throughout the US Department of Defense points to an official certainty that a range of advanced weapons beyond traditional kinetic energy types (hard projectile pushers) will be used by all combatant forces on the battlefields of the near future.

“Death Rays” Revealed

A useful introduction to the three major classes of DEW is provided here, courtesy of the Chinese themselves, who are clearly watching what’s being done in the West to parallel their own efforts.

“Directed energy weapons are new-generation weapons developed on the basis of the new concept of replacing conventional bullets with high-energy beams. Technically, directed energy weapons can be divided into three branches, namely (1) laser weapons, which can destroy or destabilize targets by using electromagnetic radiation energy beams with a wavelength of less than 1 millimeter; (2) radio-frequency weapons, which can destroy or destabilize targets with electromagnetic energy within the radio spectrum range (wavelength is more than 1 millimeter and radio frequency less than 300 gigahertz); (3) particle beam weapons, which are capable of destroying or destabilizing targets with neutral high-energy atomic particle beams (usually hydrogen, deuterium and tritium) or charged high-energy atomic or subatomic particle beams.” Zhang Yaping, Peoples Republic of China Astronautics and Missilery

As laser and microwave systems are most prominent among presently workable DEWs, it is essential to understand that both types are electromagnetic radiation but are different in their wavelength.

We’ll dispense with the scientific explanations and just say that many types of laser emissions are visible to the human eye but microwaves are not. Lasers begin burning the outside of an object while microwaves “cook” from the inside. More detailed information may be found in the resources listed at the end of this feature.

DEW Proliferation

China and Russia are not alone among America’s likely adversaries with current or emerging DEW capabilities. Numerous US government, military and industry documents that are readily available to anyone on the internet confirm the obvious.

A case in point is the December 2007 report to the US Secretary of Defense by the Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons. Even after being carefully scrubbed of classified information, its chapter on current and emerging threats reveals a chilling likelihood. Addressing vulnerabilities recognized in sophisticated electronic command and control systems – extending from orbiting satellites to tactical team individual radios – the task force zeroes in on the threat posed by laser systems and high power microwave technologies: “They are particularly susceptible to the types of directed energy systems that are believed to be feasible for a wide range of potential adversaries … including non-state actors.” (Emphasis added)

Translated from typically overcautious bureaucratese, this means that all levels of the US-Allied “digital battlefield” can be too easily rendered blind, deaf and mute by devices available now to many countries and their terrorist surrogates (non-state actors). Just one example of this may be found in Iran, which buys high tech weapons from Russia, China and elsewhere, then funnels them to al Qaeda and other “insurgent” forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What is going to happen when the free world’s many enemies begin employing DEW not only against US and Allied C3I (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence), but its soldiers as well?

Laser Sniping

We don’t need to wait until fully lethal DE weapons become widely available. Just enough power and range to blind will work just fine for those with no regard for the so-called laws of warfare and the civilized world’s condemnation.

This fits quite well the long-standing military maxim that inflicting incapacitating wounds is more tactically useful than killing the enemy because evacuating and caring for a badly wounded soldier distracts more of his fighting comrades from their primary battlefield mission.

Frying eyes with surprisingly low-powered lasers is a capability that is real and right now, a sobering thought for anyone whose job includes peering through weapon scopes, binoculars, AFV periscopes, and other optical devices.

The ZM-87, China’s Portable Laser Disturber, is a tripod-mounted weapon that can be carried and used by a crew of two. Its utility as a blinding weapon has been demonstrated in documented attacks.

Similarly, a laser “range finder” aboard the Russian spy ship Kapitan Man is known to have caused retina burns on a US Navy officer aboard an allied maritime surveillance helicopter in 1997.

The Federation of American Scientists reports that, “during the Iran-Iraq War, Iranian soldiers suffered over 4,000 documented eye casualties from Iraqi laser systems….” The injuries were described as retinal burns and hemorrhages, most of which were likely caused by deliberate antipersonnel use of the laser rangefinders in Saddam Hussein’s Communist-bloc tanks.

But that’s just the beginning. Ever popped corn in a microwave? Or used a magnifying glass to start a fire? Directed energy weapons are poppers and burners on a massive scale.

Uncle Sam’s DEW Programs

We are relieved to note that the United States and a few allies are well along the way in energy beam weapons programs, some dating back to the 1970s. Countering the very real threat of the Soviet Union’s massive arsenal of thermonuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles drove both high power laser and particle beam development. These reached a degree of practicality that readily transitioned in the 1980s to the Strategic Defense Initiative, popularly known as “Star Wars.”

In the decades that have followed, the strategic and tactical capabilities of these and other DE technologies have accelerated in work by a veritable alphabet soup of government and military programs. Just a sampling of these includes DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), SMDC (Space and Missile Defense Command), AFRL (Air Force Research Laboratory), and ONR (Office of Naval Research). Their many partners in the defense industry and academic institutions extend the roster of DEW players to virtually every state in the union.

Astronomical funding levels have paid off with astonishing capabilities. DEW in various forms are tracking and killing not only massive intercontinental ballistic missiles, but also multiple mortar rounds in flight. They’re melting electronic brains in the smartest of “smart weapons.” Shipborne DE systems can zap sea-skimming missiles. Airborne lasers can instantaneously fry individual terrorists with surgical precision that eliminates the usual “collateral damage” imagery that Al Jazeera and others delight in broadcasting.

Lasers

There are several different ways that the photon beams of lasers are generated in DEW, with major categories being chemical, free electron, bundled optical fiber, and solid state. This last is the simplest, typified by the battery powered pointer-illuminators now clamped to just about every M4 carbine in Uncle Sam’s military and extending to some experimental vehicle-mounted anti-materiel systems.

Included in the grouping of relatively low powered lasers are “dazzlers,” so called for their ability to distract and disorient their human targets using carefully controlled beam intensity that won’t cause lasting eye damage.

AFRL’s ScorpWorks has built a particularly novel dazzler with a name that invokes memories of the science fiction television series Star Trek. Their PHaSR (Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response) is a rifle-sized, non-lethal device in a futuristic housing. It projects two laser wavelengths with an effect “temporarily impairing individuals and their ability to see the laser source.”

Ground vehicle mounted systems are the next step up, quickly gaining in power and tactical potential. ZEUS, SMDC’s high energy solid state laser riding on a HMMWV, has been successfully field tested as a killer of IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) in Afghanistan. Effectiveness of this and similar pilot program systems has spurred development of more powerful and tactically mobile High Energy Laser Technology Demonstrators. These are already showing the ability to counter a wide variety of battlefield threats including rockets, artillery shells and mortar rounds.

A Bolt from the Blue

There is plenty of evidence that the demand for DEW is increasing throughout the US Armed Forces, driven in particular by current operational realities in the Global War on Terror. A compelling example of this may be found in US Special Operations Command’s (USSOCOM) Technology Development Objectives, briefed at NDIA’s Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict symposium in 2008.

Among other eyebrow-raising requirements is their intention to “pursue a greater variety of integrated, tunable weapons – non-lethal weapons with a tunable destructive potential – to accommodate a broad variety of missions while limiting collateral damage and casualties.”

Keep your eye on that part about “tunable destructive potential” because that’s the most exciting possibility for DEW of the near future. And some possibilities are already flying.

When vastly more power is needed for destructive lasing to greater range and effect, scientists have devised some supremely clever ways to create and hurl man-made “lightning bolts.” Particularly dramatic evidence of the progress of this weaponry may be found in the US Air Force’s Airborne Laser, flying now in a modified 747. Its megawatt-class Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) has repeatedly demonstrated the air-to-air capability of destroying ballistic missiles in flight.

This success has inspired US Special Operations Command to order an air-to-ground version, called the Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL), with an eye toward eventually replacing its fleet of aging AC-130 Spectre and Spooky gunships. Their conventional kinetic-energy weapons will be supplemented at first by a COIL, then completely replaced, enabling engagement of a variety of ground and air targets with previously unattainable precision and instantaneous effect. If the project stays on track, first operational use of the new ATL may occur before the end of 2009.

An apparently authentic Coalition Forces (CF) document, widely circulated on the internet, touts the many desirable characteristics of the ATL under its USMC name Precision Airborne Standoff Directed Energy Weapon (PASDEW). These include “application of graduated effects” (tuning the beam to less-lethal or selectively aiming the full power beam) for such important tasks as stopping vehicles by flash melting the tires.

It also predicts mind-boggling PSYOPS (psychological operations) advantages of the ATL and similar beam devices in uncharacteristically graphic terms:

“In an anti-personnel mode, DEWs can be compared to long range blow torches or precision flame throwers …. A precision engagement of a PID (positively identified) insurgent by a DEW will be a highly surgical and impressively violent event. Target effects will include instantaneous burst-combustion of insurgent clothing, a rapid death through violent trauma, and more probably a morbid combination of both. It is estimated that the aftermath of a sub-second engagement … will also be an observable event leaving an impression of terrifyingly precise CF attribution in the minds of all witnesses.”

Microwaves

While microwaves – radio waves of extremely short length – have been around since WWII, their use in weapons has only recently emerged. Unmatched in their ability to penetrate deep inside even heavily shielded electronic devices, microwaves can melt circuits and instantly turn a multimillion dollar gadget into a great big smoking box of junk.

And just as your ordinary microwave oven heats food, a tunable military HPM (high powered microwave) emitter can readily “dial-an-effect” on various targets ranging from tingling to toasting.

The tingling end of this range is of particular interest to DoD’s Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate for applications where the objective is to disrupt and disperse hostile crowds without resorting to messy traditional means like tear gas, rubber bullets and the like.

This alternative is nicely realized in Air Force Research Laboratory’s Active Denial System (ADS), a counter-personnel, non-lethal, directed energy weapon that projects a focused beam of millimeter waves toward a designated individual or group. An invisible beam, traveling at the speed of light, penetrates clothing and reaches a skin depth of about 1/64th of an inch, the equivalent of three sheets of ordinary copy paper. Test subjects report that an intense heat sensation results, growing intolerable within seconds and forcing the targets to instinctively flee.

Although another desirable attribute is not usually listed in ADS program promotional materials, the invisible internal effects of the invisible microwave beam actively deny hostile media the inflammatory video imagery that is their stock in trade. And don’t forget its tunable/scalable capability that just might tempt the on-site commander to fry the electronic circuitry of all video equipment anywhere in range.

The first mobile configuration ADS is characterized by a large octagonal antenna mounted on a sturdy HMMWV that carries its power and microwave generating apparatus. Development has matured to the point of deployment with USAF Security Forces and prime contractor Raytheon has recently delivered ADS II, a more powerful, enhanced and ruggedized version mounted on the massive HEMETT vehicle.

DE at JSSAP?

The Joint Service Small Arms Program (JSSAP), part of the Army’s enormous Armaments Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC), identifies and develops cutting edge concepts in weapons and ammunition to the point of transition leading to large scale fielding. In other words, these are the “go to guys” to find out what’s currently on conveyor belts that run ten years or more into the future.

JSSAP recently published a solicitation that welcomes “non-traditional technology” for next generation small arms systems. The following excerpt shows that serious proposals from the DE community are apparently welcome:

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SUPPORTING FUNDED R&D EFFORTS FOR LETHALITY AND ADVANCED FIRE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CONCENTRATIONS FY 2008 – 2010 W15QKN-08-R-0449 

2.7.9. New Concepts & Applications. This research area includes non traditional technology leading to leaps in capability, such as (1) non kinetic energy lethality mechanisms or energy systems that can be scaled from lethal to less than lethal; (2) warheads or projectiles that can offer lethal and less than lethal capability; and (3) systems that automate the target acquisition and take weapon aiming out of the hands of the soldier. Unique and untried approaches to defeating targets in defilade also fit within this technology/research area.

Joel Goldman heads up JSSAP, so we asked him to let us know what’s going on there with DEW. He pointed us in two directions, first to a fascinating working group that JSSAP had recently convened and then to another component of ARDEC that is specifically involved in such things.

Before moving on we spoke at some length with Goldman, who told us he’s been closely following developments in directed energy for quite some time. And his well-informed opinion on the central question of this feature: When will the first fully scalable, hand-held DEW be fielded?

“Based on the periodic technology assessments that JSSAP has conducted,” the 63 year old, government gun guru with 38 years service declared, “not in my lifetime.”

The Fusion of Science and Science Fiction 

In part of its search for far-reaching concepts that are worthy of serious consideration, JSSAP has periodically convened meetings to survey the state of the art of a broad range of technologies that might have relevance to small arms. Beginning in the mid-1980s, JSSAP has consistently involved science fiction writers in these brainstorming and assessment activities. The latest instance of this decidedly unconventional approach occurred as the first of a two-part activity held in March and early May 2008 in support of “Future Small Arms Technology Plan Development” efforts. In the first meeting, JSSAP brought together a select group of nine prominent science fiction writers to brainstorm the frontier of scientific possibilities. Their mission was to propose “leap-ahead technologies” and – with the help of select representatives from industry, academia, the national laboratories, and government – to assess their possible practical potential. 74 concepts resulted, sorted into five categories; intelligence gathering, human factors, survivability, battlefield impact, and firepower.

Their ideas, one of which called for tapping energy from the quantum vacuum, were then given a hard, cold look by a team of science, engineering and military experts during the second meeting. While at this writing the report is still in preparation and its specifics not available for release, Goldman told us that at least twenty concepts have emerged.

“These are viable, relevant and will find a place,” Goldman explained, “in a technology investment strategy for small arms systems capable of overwhelmingly defeating any enemy combatant of the future.”

As SAR is most interested in firepower, we tracked down a couple of participants who, in our opinion, bring particular credibility based on their professional work outside of sci-fi.

John Hemry, a retired US Navy lieutenant commander, is the author of the notable STARK’S WAR series and, under the pen name Jack Campbell, the LOST FLEET series. Speaking of his working group, he reports that “no one thought there would be huge or dramatic breakthroughs in small arms in the near future.”

Instead, Hemry’s own suggestions to JSSAP centered on target recognition and engagement. “The best way to enhance weapon effectiveness in the near future,” he believes, “is to improve the ability of the shooter to identify and target the enemy.”

Doctor Arlan Andrews, Sr., another member of the group, suggests a different track. Notable not only for service in the White House Science Office, Sandia National laboratories and more, Andrews founded an eclectic group of sci-fi writers comprising the SIGMA group. Now well into its second decade of advising government agencies and the military on what the future may hold, SIGMA is most recently known for work with the Department of Homeland Security on innovative ways to combat terrorism.

Andrews enthusiastically responded to SAR’s request for input on his suggestions to JSSAP, sending us a copy of his elaborate PowerPoint presentation to the working group. Entitled “Nanotech-Enabled Weaponry and Features,” it is worthy of a full article in itself. Alas, since it concerns devilishly smart kinetic energy weapons and variable power ammo – but no beam devices in sight – we’ll defer elaboration and go right for the reply he sent us in response to the title question of this article.

The good Doctor Andrews, refreshingly unconcerned it seems with diplomatic sensitivities and likely influenced by conversations with personal contacts in the academic branches of DEW, pulls no punches in his prediction on the US military’s first full-featured ray gun for individual soldiers:

“I would estimate that it will be a pulsed-energy weapon, probably powered by a backpack power system, looking much like today’s flame throwers. After successful small-scale operational tests by special operations forces in occupied Iran (the non-radioactive areas) ca. 2011, they will be more massively deployed by our troops along the perimeter of conflict between the USA and the irregular forces of the secessionist northern Mexican provinces, which is to say between Corpus Christi and the cartel-occupied cities of Laredo and Brownsville,” Andrews replied.

AEAD

Among ARDEC’s many components is one that Goldman advised was particularly relevant to this feature. He kindly assisted our journey back through official channels to contact his counterpart Ben Lagasca, head of Advanced Energy Armaments Division (AEAD).

Because SAR is fully supportive of the cautious process that keeps classified information away from freedom’s many foes, we offered to submit our questions via email. This was accepted and replies came back in kind. Some relevant excerpts:

SAR: At NDIA’s Small Arms Conference in 2000, ARDEC’s Harry Moore gave a presentation on the impressive potential of the Pulsed Impulsive Kill Laser (PIKL). Is this being applied to current DEW projects at AEAD?

AEAD: The Army SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) program/effort started in FY05 with Stellar Photonics was intended to build from the PIKL effort. With the advancement of solid state lasers it was believed that the potential existed to improve the PIKL technology known as Laser Supported Detonation (LSD) or Dynamic Pulse Detonation (DPD). Stellar was tasked to investigate the optimal parameters for creating LSD or DPD that could be useful for military applications. The study was unsuccessful (but) did evolve into possibly using the technology as a non-lethal visual deterrent. This effort is congressionally funded at approximately $1 million per year (out) to 2010, basic research to look at the potential of Synchronized Photopulse Detonation…. Stellar has constructed a prototype device and demonstrated their technology only in a lab environment. The Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD) has shown interest in this technology as a potential part of their non-lethal weapons program; however the effectiveness of the system has yet to be determined by Government or Independent evaluators.

SAR: Applied Energetics recently announced a $4.5 million contract with ARDEC for development and advancement of its proprietary Laser Guided Energy (LGE), “a transformational weapon technology by which a controllable high voltage electric charge can be precisely guided by a laser through the atmosphere to produce a range of controllable effects against a variety of potential military and security targets.” Comment on this being used to counter improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and any other applications.

AEAD: Applied Energetics has a lab demo scheduled for March 2009 developing DE technologies to defeat anti-material targets. AE has the patent on certain aspects of this technology and much of this work is classified.

SAR: ARDEC’s official web page linked at www.pica.army.mil lists an impressive range of “advanced technologies” said to be used in its DEW work. While most are self-explanatory, please comment on work with acoustics and nanotechnology.

AEAD: ARDEC works a wide range of advanced energy weapon systems across (its) many departments. (We) can only comment on the efforts of the Advanced Energy Armaments Division (which includes the Directed Energy Branch) to say that AEAD has no ongoing efforts in nanotechnology. In addition, any acoustic work performed by AEAD is on evaluating non-lethal Commercial Off-the-Shelf devices that are considered to be “hailing and warning devices” and are not considered as “weapons.” Examples include the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), etc.

SAR: What is Mr. Lagasca’s prediction on the first fielding of a scalable non-lethal to lethal DE weapon that can be carried and used by one man?

Lagasca: “Hand held Non-Lethal Laser Dazzlers have already been fielded and are currently available. These systems are mainly used as a non-lethal means to ‘warn’ and/or get the attention of people. These lasers are not considered weapons. Weaponization of lasers for lethal applications into a ‘hand-held’ form factor are a long way away. Currently there are no laser technologies or programs that I am aware of that could be weaponized into hand held size within say 10 years. Breakthroughs in laser and power source technologies would be required to realize laser weapons in this class. It should also be noted that all lethal laser development programs are focused on counter materiel applications and not counter personnel (at least the ones that I am aware of). Any laser weapon designed for lethal and/or non-lethal counter personnel use would have to undergo considerable legal policy review to assure conformance with applicable international treaties such as prohibition on blinding weapons.”

Electric Ships

The United States Navy’s future surface warships are under development right now and they represent the nearly ideal mobile platforms for utilizing all types of directed energy weaponry. These massive, oceangoing, all-electric vessels will have plenty of room on board for complicated apparatus and vast reserves of energy from the latest generation high-yield nuclear power plants.

Office of Naval Research (ONR) has long been interested in the potential of directed energy weapons for shipboard defense at the speed of light and, among other initiatives, is well underway with perfecting the “high average power infrared free electron laser.” FEL for short, it provides particularly intense beams that can be tuned to atmosphere-penetrating wavelengths. This tuning is an essential capability in conditions of thick fog, heavy rain and snow, making FEL weapons lethal in all weather against threat aircraft, watercraft, sea skimming missiles, and more.

And the practicality of including specialized kinetic energy weaponry on these future warships hasn’t been overlooked. Because there are times when slinging steel is the best solution to specific situations, the ONR is also hard at work on EMRGs (electromagnetic railguns). These exotic projectile pushers dispense with traditional chemical propellants or rocket motors in favor an electrically generated magnetic field that “levitates” a specialized metallic slug, launching it down track-like rails at previously unattainable speed.

Successful test firings have been conducted, with one demonstrating a mind-boggling muzzle velocity of 1.56 miles per second. With anticipated fielding some 15 years away, the Navy expects its EMRGs to fire 6 to 10 internally guided projectiles per minute with astonishing precision at ranges in excess of 200 nautical miles, about the distance from New York City to Boston.

KE/DE Combo

In retrospect, it was a bit unfair to ask the experts to predict fielding of an individual weapon using only directed energy to provide fully tunable effects from dazzle to death. Most respondents were quick to point out that a combination of a standard kinetic energy (KE) assault rifle, coupled with a “scalable effects” less-lethal directed energy (DE) device, is the most practical and logical interim step.

Indeed, when one takes into account such possible couplings as XADS’ Stun Strike Close Quarters Shock Rifle clamped to an M4 carbine, we’re getting there now.

More exotic hardware is in the works that promises to extend the reach of the DE module’s less lethal but incapacitating effects to eventually approximate the effective range of the decidedly lethal KE host weapon. The AEWS/Stellar Photonics’ “Synchronized Photo-pulse Detonation” may be one of these, said to employ two synchronized lasers that project an atmospheric shock wave of superheated plasma.

Lest one be tempted to dismiss this and similar efforts as quantum quackery, their development is being fueled by millions of defense dollars, awarded only after rigorous scientific review has validated their potential. Many firms have ongoing contracts and are working on classified counter-IED and other projects under supervision of various Department of Defense entities.

Because these will certainly get smaller, lighter and more powerful in the near future, your individual-issue ray gun seems inevitable. Thus, if Doctor Andrews’ startlingly bold prediction proves right, the first of USSOCOM’s elite warriors will be combat testing their one-man-portable “non-lethal weapons with a tunable destructive potential” in about three years.

The E-Bomb

“After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge light-wave energy, the same spectrum of energy found in your microwave, or in your TV remote control. They’re called ‘directed-energy weapons’ – lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams – and they signal a revolution in weaponry, perhaps more profound than the atomic bomb.” (E-Bomb book jacket notes)

Published in 2005, this fascinating book carries the bold subtitle, “How America’s new directed energy weapons will change the way future wars are fought.” It has served quite well as our primary reference source for this feature, detailing the scientific concepts and evolving hardware of DE. While including plenty of formulas and diagrams for the more scientific-minded readers, these are accompanied by simple explanations and straightforward presentations, making it easily understood by the rest of us.

Its author, a retired USAF Colonel with a Doctorate in Physics, has particular credibility as a result of more than thirty years of experience, from conducting basic research to directing applied-science programs and formulating national policy. J. Douglas Beason’s last active duty assignment was Deputy Director for Directed Energy at the Air Force Research Laboratory.

He is currently the Associate Laboratory Director for Threat Reduction at Los Alamos National Laboratory, responsible for programs that reduce the global threat of weapons of mass destruction.

Doctor Beason graciously responded to our request for a prediction on the first fielding of a scalable non-lethal to lethal DE weapon that can be carried and used by one man. It is presented here in its entirety:

“Small arms Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) will provide the warfighter with the best of all worlds – speed of light engagement, little (if any) collateral damage, near-infinite precision, the ability to induce “graduated” effects (dial-an-effect), and best of all, not be constrained by ballistics or windage. In the near future, as technology matures and DEWs become smaller and capable of being fielded by individuals, a revolution will occur as DEWs move from strategic to tactical applications.

“The first use of small arms DEWs has been in the form of non-lethal weapons, for example dazzlers. As power supplies shrink and sub-THz (teraHertz) sources become more efficient, hand-held active denial units the size of back packs will become available.

“Because of technology limitations, it will take much longer to field a small arms lethal laser capability; but until then, the tactics and doctrine of using DEWs on the battlefield – and most importantly, the evolution of a national DEW policy – will mature.”

Find Out More

The following internet links are listed in their order of presentation in this feature:

Report: Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2007-12-Directed_Energy_Report.pdf

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: www.darpa.mil

US Army Space and Missile Defense Command: www.smdc.army.mil

US Air Force Research Laboratory: www.afrl.af.mil

US Navy Office of Naval Research: www.onr.navy.mil

Department of Defense Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate: https://www.jnlwp.com

US Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center: www.pica.army.mil

FBI Academy Advanced Weapons Subject Bibliography: http://fbilibrary.fbiacademy.edu/bibliographies/advancedweapons.htm

Book: The E-Bomb www.dougbeason.com

Little is known in the Western world of the Soviet silent pistols utilizing special silent ammunition. The package consists of the model PSS (Pistolet Sptsialnyj Samozaryadnyj) silent pistol and the special SP-4 captive piston ammunition. The testing performed consisted of evaluation of the basic handgun, the special ammunition, sound pressure measurements, muzzle velocity, and terminal performance.

In this report, a mixture of English and metric parameters are used. All linear and circular dimensions are metric (millimeters). All weights are grains simply because the convention we use are to weigh bullets and powder in grains. Velocities are English and in feet/second because those are the units of our chronograph. Sound levels are decibels (reference zero dB as 20 micropascals). Temperatures are dual units (F/C) and barometric pressure is in millimeters of mercury.

PSS Pistol

This finely crafted semiautomatic handgun is a magazine-fed weapon utilizing a single stack magazine that holds 6 rounds and a last-round slide hold-open device. The pistol is well finished, and all parts carry the pistol’s serial number. With the finish and serialization of all parts, it appears that during factory assembly on all examples seen by this author, all parts were hand fitted. It is issued with a brief instruction manual (in Russian) and a somewhat flimsy tan leather shoulder holster.

The PSS and its specialty SP-4 ammunition were specifically designed for elimination of live targets without risking discovery of the operator. Unlike predecessor captive piston handguns, the PSS is capable of semiautomatic fire. Although there is a definite advantage to rapid follow-up shots, the disadvantage for the covert operator is that it ejects (and leaves) spent cases at the scene. These spent cases are exceptionally distinctive, and almost anyone with an even passing familiarity with this weapon will be able to identify its use from the spent cases.

It is not obvious where either the PSS pistol or its SP-4 ammunition is manufactured, but other clandestine special purpose weapons have been built at Tula Arsenal, and it is suspected that Tula may well be the origin of the PSS. The weapon carries absolutely no markings other than a low four digit serial number. The PSS was developed for special personnel of the Soviet KGB and for elite elements of the Spetsnaz of the Soviet Army and was introduced around 1983. It is currently used by many elite Russian anti-terrorist teams. It is far more compact and has a quieter action than the more common Soviet PB (silenced Makarov) and Chinese Type 67 silenced pistols.

While the PSS resembles a somewhat large conventional blowback pistol, it is definitely unique. It will accept no ammunition other than the SP-4 silent cartridge. Other than the ammunition used, the most obvious is it has a two-part barrel. The separate distal rifled part is fixed to the frame. The breech portion (consisting of the chamber) is allowed to recoil inside the frame for a short length against its own return spring. This increases the mass of the moving parts at the initial stages of recoil, and also slows the slide on its final stages of movement, resulting in dampening the sound of the slide hitting the stop on the end of the recoil cycle. The slide return main spring is housed in the slide, above the barrel, and the spring guide rod is part of the slide retaining assembly. The PSS firing mechanism is single/double action with open hammer and slide-mounted safety/decocker of conventional Makarov design. Sights are fixed.

We were granted the opportunity to extensively examine (including total disassembly), photograph, and fire the PSS at a discrete Southwest Asian military arsenal. To the best of our knowledge, there are no examples of this weapon in the United States at the time of writing. There are known to be several examples in the United Kingdom. Distribution through the former Soviet satellite countries is unknown but presumed to have been issued to clandestine units in these countries. Total production is unknown.

Because all products of combustion are contained within the spent cartridge, there is no powder fouling or possibility of corrosion from powder residues. Interestingly, this also means that the operator’s hands will not be contaminated with powder residues, which may be of interest in the forensic community. Maintenance consists simply of light oiling of the weapon and wiping the external surfaces with an oily rag.

We do not have available to us at this time a factory breakdown of parts. Because of this, the names we use are based on apparent function and similarity to parts in more conventional pistols. Field stripping for basic cleaning and lubrication can be accomplished with no tools other than a section of cleaning rod. Before starting, the magazine must be removed and the hammer cocked. Although not photo detailed, the accompanying pictures show a slot cut in the front assembly locking piece, which also appears to function as the slide stop. This engages a cut in the front of the recoil spring, limiting rearward motion of the slide. To field strip, a section of cleaning rod is inserted into the recess in the top rear portion of the slide, and the recoil spring guide rod is pushed forward until the locking piece/slide stop clears the front end of the barrel. At this point, the locking piece can be slid upward to disengage from the front of the recoil spring guide rod. The slide then removes to the rear, but the forward end of the slide must be disengaged upward from the rear of the floating chamber, before it can be fully removed. Re-assembly is the reverse.

While we completely disassembled the PSS, we can most definitely recommend that the user never do more than simply field-strip the weapon for maintenance. Total disassembly is quite difficult and is by no means intuitive. It is also totally unnecessary. Re-assembly is even more difficult. We speak from experience.

SP-4 Ammunition

Captive piston ammunition is a unique, special-purpose cartridge that is designed to be intrinsically quiet as compared to conventional ammunition. Essentially, the SP-4 silent cartridge consists of a reinforced steel cartridge case containing a small powder charge enclosed in a cup-like piston in the rear of the case. This piston rests against the base of the projectile; a cylindrical bullet made of mild steel and fitted with a brass driving band at the front. The SP-4 cartridge was adopted by the Soviet KGB and Spetsnaz units in 1983 along with the PSS host pistol.

The ammunition is issued in plain white boxes of twelve cartridges each. The only markings on the box are what appear to be a lot number. This is enough to charge both magazines. There are 20 boxes in a hermetically sealed SPAM tin and two tins in a wooden crate. The tins are marked with the cartridge designation, lot number (that correlates with the number on the boxes), and some other markings of unknown meaning.

Many prior designs, such as the SP-3 and PZAM silent cartridges, utilized 2-part (or 2-stage) piston that extended beyond the end of the cartridge case. While this permitted greater acceleration of the projectile, it also was incompatible with cycling in a semiautomatic host weapon. These older silent cartridges from the late 1970s and early 1980s utilized the standard 7.62mm M43 projectile loaded in the AK 7.62×39 rifle cartridge.

When fired, the primer ignites the powder charge, and the rapidly expanding gases drive the piston forward at a high acceleration. The piston, in return, drives the projectile. When the driving piston reaches a shoulder at the end of the case, the piston is somewhat violently stopped by a shoulder on the front of the cartridge case. Having been accelerated, the projectile engages rifling in the short barrel and exits the weapon toward its target. The high pressure propelling gases are contained (and trapped) in the spent cartridge and gradually leak out over a period of several weeks. Because the propelling gases are not released into the atmosphere, there is very little sound generated.

What this means is that although the pistol is highly specialized to fire this specific round, it is the ammunition itself that is “silent.” In the United States, each individual round is considered to be a silencer subject to the registration/transfer requirements of the National Firearms Act in its various incarnations.

In addition to shooting, we had the opportunity to disassemble a loaded cartridge to examine, photograph, and measure the parts. An inertial hammer-type bullet puller easily dislodged the projectile itself. The piston has a conical projection on its front, which inserts into a hole in the base of the bullet. The purpose is to keep the projectile centered as it is being accelerated during firing.

We decided to fire the case after pulling the bullet in an attempt to drive the piston out intact. The necked-down portion of the case was quite successful in keeping the majority of the piston captured. However, the forward portion of the piston separated and was recovered from the backstop used. We estimate that the dimensions of the piston are in the vicinity of 8.91mm diameter and possibly 5-8mm length. Once some of our fired cases bleed off pressure, we will section one and get better piston length.

The rimless SP-4 case measures 41.36mm in length and has a maximum diameter of 11.88mm. The case has a short neck having a maximum diameter of 9.64mm. The primary purpose of the necked-down area is to contain the piston when fired. The case (with piston) weighs 107.3 grains. The primer is a Boxer-type, but the case cannot be reloaded.

The projectile is a mild steel cylinder (flat nose and base) measuring 28.4mm length and 7.63mm diameter. There is a 2mm brass band to engage the rifling at the forward portion of the projectile. The projectile weighs 155.4 grains, and it is estimated that the powder weighs in the vicinity of 3.5 grains.

Testing and Evaluation

Testing was performed on a military range. Weather conditions were ideal with a temperature of 83 degrees F (29 degrees C), relative humidity of 37%, and a station pressure of 676 mmHg. The altitude was 3,232 feet and there was no measurable wind.

On the range, we performed three separate tests: sound levels, velocity, and penetration of body armor and cinder blocks.

Sound Measurements

All measurements were done utilizing the protocol specified in Mil-Std-1474D. The meter, a Larson-Davis model 800B with a 1/4 inch LD-2530 pressure microphone, is a Type 1 precision sound meter in current certification. Prior to the start of measurement, calibration was checked with a recently re-certified Larson-Davis CA250 calibrator. Measurements were taken at the “reference” location of 1 meter to the left of the muzzle, 90 degrees to bore axis, and 1.6 meters above ground. Grass was not available, so measurements were made over compacted dirt.

In order, the individual shots of the 5-round string were measured at: 125.0, 124.5, 124.5, 123.8, and 125.0 dB. The overall average was 124.6 dB. First round “pop” is defined as to how much louder the first round measures compared to the average of the remaining rounds. While it was calculated, these are individual silenced cartridges, and the meaning of first round “pop” in this instance is not germane. The standard deviation was 0.44, indicating excellent shot-to-shot consistency.

Velocity Measurements

A Pact timer/chronograph was oriented with the skyscreens (spaced 24 inches) placed approximately two feet in front of the firing position. The skyscreens were approximately 1.6 meters above the ground so that we could obtain both sound and velocity measurements on the same cartridge. This was important to conserve ammunition due to its excessive cost and poor availability. In order, the velocity measurements were 625, 615, 624, 617, and 626 ft/sec for an average of 621 ft/sec. This calculates a muzzle kinetic energy of approximately 133 ft-lbs.

Terminal effects

We were unable to formulate ballistic gelatin in order to obtain information on the effectiveness on flesh. This will be the subject of a later study. However, information is available for comparable projectile weights and velocities. Based on the bullet weight of 155-grains and kinetic energy of 133 ft-lbs, the projectile certainly has enough energy to be lethal at reasonable close range. We did not shoot paper targets for accuracy. We felt that this was not necessary simply because the weapon system was intended and designed for exceptionally close ranges, probably less than 3 meters.

We did perform basic penetration tests. When fired at standard Kevlar Level-2 body armor, it just penetrated completely with the projectile being recoverable from the vest itself. While it will not be lethal through a vest, it will cause definite traumatic injury. It also penetrated a standard cinder block.

Proposed Future Tests

The performance of this cartridge in ballistic gelatin (with conventional photography as well as high speed video) will be of benefit in extrapolating and analyzing wound potential. While it is obvious that this has been used successfully operationally, we do not know of any autopsy reports.

In addition, we would like to perform high speed video analysis of the weapon cycling during firing for motion analysis of exactly how the floating chamber functions. To the best of our knowledge, this has not been performed. It is estimated that a frame rate of 3,000 frames/second should be adequate.

Summary and Conclusions

The PSS pistol and its specialized SP-4 captive piston silent cartridge is a highly specialized purpose weapon. Its suppressed sound pressure level of 124.d dB is in the vicinity of a suppressed .22 rimfire pistol and would definitely qualify as “Hollywood Quiet.” With a muzzle velocity of 621 feet/second and a 155-grain projectile, the kinetic energy of 133 foot-pounds is definitely lethal. The PSS pistol with the SP-4 captive piston silent ammunition was specifically designed for close-range covert elimination of targets. It is our opinion that this weapon/ammunition combination is well chosen for this task.

It’s said that Abraham Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal. Founded in 1836, the Colt name has long been associated with innovative and advance firearm designs. Colt Manufacturing (and later Colt Defense) first started producing the Stoner and Sullivan designed AR-15 in 1960. The basic foundation continues today as the M4 Carbine. Recently, individuals within the industry and in the press have been critical of the M4 Carbine as a legacy weapon, in need of modernization and improvement. Several representatives of Small Arms Review recently had an opportunity to discuss innovations and improvements to the AR-15 and M4 design with MG Jim Battaglini, (USMC, Retired), Chief Operating Officer; Mr. Jeff MacLeod, General Manager, and Mr. Kevin Brown, Vice President of Military Programs.

At the outset, MG Battaglini explained that despite recent tests conduced at the request of Congress, the U.S. military remains satisfied with the M4 carbine, and has not requested any major changes to the basic design. The M4 carbine performs as requested and meets current military needs. Nevertheless, Colt decided to take a proactive position and recently displayed nine new variants of the M4 carbine, demonstrating a mix of new designs and prior technology. Not all variants that were displayed will be produced. Rather, the variants are intended to demonstrate what features are available, should the U.S. military seek to upgrade the M4 carbine at a future date. Although the following upgrades have been built into specific models, MG Battaglini pointed out that all of the developments can be built into a complete system in response to the needs of the military.

The APC: Advanced Piston Carbine

Recently, it seems as though nearly every AR-15 manufacturer has introduced a piston-based recoil system to their catalog. While the benefits of a piston upper are numerous, not all manufacturers have executed a successful design. Is the APC just another piston carbine? Not at all. Outfitted with a 14.5 inch barrel, the APC weighs 6.2 pounds (empty), measures 33.5 inches in length with the stock collapsed, and features a piston recoil operating system.

Built with a monolithic upper receiver, the barrel is free floating for increased accuracy, despite the short barrel length. With nothing restraining the barrel, the barrel is free to flex during the firing sequence. Viewed under high speed photography, the barrel can be observed flexing in a wave pattern. When constrained by a gas tube or piston operating rod, the natural harmonics of the barrel are interrupted, resulting in decreased accuracy.

How did Colt respond to the issue? The APC features an articulating operating rod that flexes with the barrel during firing, rather than impeding the barrel or disturbing the rifle’s accuracy. The result: increased accuracy from a shortened weapon platform, with a stable rate of fire. Kevin Brown, Colt’s vice-president of Military Programs, pointed out that even after firing 18,000 rounds through the weapon, there was no significant increase in the rate of fire. With a traditional gas recoil system, barrel wear would result in an increased rate of fire, rapidly exceeding the original rate of fire specifications. As a testament to the effectiveness of the piston system, the rate of fire for the Advanced Piston Carbine was within 50 rounds per minute of the original specification after firing 18,000 rounds.

The AHC: Alternative Hybrid Carbine

Similar to the APC, the AHC is outfitted with a 14.5 inch barrel, weighs 6.2 pounds (empty), measures 33.5 inches in length (with the stock collapsed,) and features a piston recoil operating system. Unlike the APC, the AHC utilizes a mid-length, direct impingement, gas operated piston. Why did Colt develop two outwardly similar rifles with differing types of recoil systems? Recall that the purpose of the recent developments was to showcase and highlight the available technologies available. There are multiple methods of making an AR-15 or M4 operate effectively in semi and fully automatic mode. Rather than focusing on a single type of piston recoil system, Colt presented an alternative that allows drop in retro fitting to existing M4 carbines.

Designed as a short-stroke system, the mid-length piston is designed to eliminate accuracy issues inherent in the traditional full length piston design discussed above. As a short-stroke system, the piston is still reliant upon a short gas tube. Unlike the traditional gas recoil system, the mid-length piston system does not release combustion gas into the upper receiver of the weapon. Rather, the gas is released under the hand guard, and directed forward and away from the shooter.

The SCW and SCW-P: Subcompact Weapon (Piston)

By outward appearances, the SCW harks back to the M231 Firing Port Weapon designed for use within the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Designed to be used from within the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the M231 had a high rate of fire, was only capable of fully-automatic fire, was difficult to control, and was only intended for use from within the vehicle. Understandably, the M231 was not the most effective weapon, and added one more piece of equipment in the already confined space of an armored personnel carrier.

By all accounts, the SCW is a response to similar requirements. Designed as a personal defense weapon available as either a gas or piston operated system, the SCW can be used by soldiers to engage targets from within an armored vehicle. This is where the similarities between the SCW and M231 end. Outfitted with a 10.3-inch barrel and designed with a dual collapsible/folding stock, the weapon can be made extremely compact – just 23 inches in overall length with the stock fully collapsed.

In the event that the soldier is required to exit the vehicle to engage the enemy, the SCW stock can be extended to provide a stable firing platform that exceeds the capabilities of the M231 wire stock. Combined with a Lasermax front grip, the SCW is capable of engaging targets to 200 meters and beyond. Unlike the M231, the SCW is designed to be the soldier’s primary weapon – not a weapon to augment the M4 carbine. While the shortened maximum effective range may seem limiting when compared to the capabilities of an M4 carbine, bear in mind that the majority of military engagements take place within the 200 meter effective range of the SCW. Due to its small size, increased accuracy, and upgraded operating system, the SCW has potential to become a highly effective weapon for cavalry and mechanized infantry troops.

The ERC: Extended Range Carbines

Recent infantry doctrine has called for the inclusion of a designated marksman, allowing a designated infantry soldier the ability to engage targets beyond the limitations of the M4 carbine. Currently, the U.S. military trains soldiers and sailors to use the M4 at 300 meters. The M16 has a maximum effective range of 600 meters, while the M4 carbine is effective to 550 meters. Clearly, the platform is not being utilized to the fullest potential. Enter the ERC-16 and ERC-20. As an enhanced rifle system, the rifle uses either a 16-inch or 20-inch barrel that allows the designated marksman to engage targets to 600 meters. While outwardly similar to the legacy M4 systems, the EHC is a highly accurate platform that provides the user with the familiarity of the M-4 system.

Use of a .30 caliber rifle by the designated marksman presents several issues. Parts commonality and different ammunition can be problematic on the battle field. Engagement of targets is often within the 600 meters. More importantly, use of a different weapon immediately identifies the designated marksman as a valuable target. By using the same ammunition, using the same major parts, and using a similar weapon profile with the M4 system, the ERC is effectively integrated into an infantry platoon, while also providing the designated marksman a highly accurate weapon.

Relocation of the Charging Handle within the M4 System

The original AR-15 is an excellent design, as demonstrated by its longevity and ability to be modernized and updated as needed. One may recall that the original charging handle was located at the top of the upper receiver, and within the carrying handle of the weapon. In terms of marksmanship training, the original location of the charging handle allowed the shooter to maintain a good sight picture while reloading the weapon. The current AR-15 requires the shooter to break the sight picture and lift his head from the butt stock when operating the weapon’s charging handle. Recent developments and innovations may change the manner of operation for future iterations of the AR-15 design.

By utilizing a piston recoil system, the charging handle is no longer constrained to the traditional location on the upper receiver. By engaging the piston, the newly relocated charging handle is tasked with double duty. First, the handle is used to operate the bolt when charging and clearing the weapon. Designed with ambidextrous use in mind, the newly designed charging handle can be extended to the opposite side of the receiver, allowing for ambidextrous use of the charging handle. Second, the charging handle can now be used to engage the piston to push the bolt home into the chamber, augmenting or replacing the forward assist when trying to close the bolt.

By relocating the charging handle to the hand guard, the new design allows the ability to shoot with better technique, allows ambidextrous operation of the charging handle, and allows replacement (or elimination) of the traditional forward assist. In return, the shooter potentially loses the ability to use a small portion of the Picatinny rail. Is the exchange worthwhile? The exchange may be worthwhile, if the new design allows the shooter to more accurately engage the target. The U.S. military will ultimately decide whether the new system is worthwhile to implement. In the meantime, the new design is an excellent example of thinking outside of standard parameters to improve an otherwise proven product.

Other design innovations included the introduction of a built in suppressor, the elimination of the traditional dust cover, and self-lubricating internals. Only time will tell whether these innovations will prove effective, and whether they will be implemented into future designs of the M4 family.

As indicated earlier, the designs displayed by Colt were intended to demonstrate the combination of new designs and prior technology. Most of the variants will never be made as production models. MG Battaglini pointed out that the models were not designed for commercial, international, or law enforcement sales, nor are the models intended as a replacement for the M4. Rather, the models were built solely to demonstrate what technologies are available should the U.S. military decide to upgrade the existing specifications at a future date. Based upon the designs presented, it appears as though Colt is well equipped to modernize and update the M4 well into the 21st century.

The Gatling Gun is an iconic American firearm. Instantly recognized regardless of its configuration, it was the epitome of advanced technology of manually operated rapid fire weapons before Hiram Maxim broke the technology barrier and invented the world’s first truly automatic machine gun in 1884.

Conceived by Dr. Richard Jordan Gatling in 1861 with a working prototype that same year, he was granted a patent on November 4, 1862 for “Improvement in Revolving Battery-Guns.”

Gatling continued to perfect his gun by designing a breech system that would allow the cartridge to be inserted and withdrawn from a chamber that was an integral part of the barrel requiring the breech mechanism to have a reciprocal motion. This led to the design of the Model 1865, the precursor to all later Gatling guns. Gatling continued to refine the operation and mechanism of his gun.

The Model 1877 “Bulldog” was the first Gatling to feature a fully enclosed bronze housing over the barrels and breech. The “Bulldog” was a five-barrel .45 caliber tripod mounted weapon. A few were mounted on a light cavalry wheeled field carriage. A rear mounted hand crank permitted a very high rate of fire of up to 1,000 rounds per minute, almost twice the rate of a typical World War II machine gun.

The Bruce feed system, named after its inventor L.F. Bruce, permitted the Gatling to be loaded directly from 20-round cardboard cartons or wooden feed blocks into a two slot vertical bar. When one slot emptied, gravity forced a full slot over the feed hopper. By alternately loading the empty slot, a continuous fire could be sustained. The original Model 1877 “Bulldog” was tested for accuracy and scored an incredible 996 direct hits out of one thousand rounds at a distance of 500 yards.

U.S. Armament Corp

Incorporated in 1988, U.S. Armament Corp is a leading manufacturer of quality firearms and parts with decades of experience in the trade. After two years of research and development, U.S. Armament began production in 2007 of a museum quality reproduction of the Model 1877 “Bulldog” Gatling Gun manufactured to Dr. Gatling’s specifications and design. Using the latest CNC equipment and technology combined with their skilled hand craftsmen, the 1877 “Bulldog” is a fully functioning work of art that is at home in the field or proudly on display.

The U.S. Armament Model 1877 “Bulldog” is chambered in the original .45-70 Government Caliber and is equipped with a Bruce Feed gravity fed system (not a magazine) that holds 40 rounds in parallel and is fed with wooden feed blocks.

The “Bulldog” was the first rear crank gun that Gatling ever produced. Each turn of the rear crank produces a complete revolution of the 5 barrel unit thus firing the gun five times. Once the rounds are fired, they are automatically ejected from the gun.

The Model 1877 “Bulldog” has five fully encased 18-1/4 inch barrels with an overall length of 34 inches. The gun weighs 135 pounds and the tripod an additional 135 pounds. The tripod mount includes beautiful brass and iron components with legs of solid ash wood.

Sights include a front sight drift adjustable for windage and a rear sight graduated to 1,000 yards that moves up and down for elevation in a groove in the cascabel plate.

Included Accessories

The “Bulldog” comes with three original-type transit chests for the gun, tripod head and tripod legs; original style bolt tool used to disassemble and reassemble the firing pins from the bolts; five barrel alignment tools that help align the front barrel cluster for reassembly after a full tear-down of the gun; five 20-round wooden loading blocks used in conjunction with the Bruce Feed System for loading; a crank handle collar that locks down integral mechanisms for transportation in the transit chest; and a technical operators manual of the 1877 Gatling that includes a complete tear down and re-build of the gun, including maintenance and part numbers for re-order if needed and everything necessary to operate the gun. U.S. Armament Corp also backs up their product with a 1 year limited warranty on all parts and labor.

Additional Accessories

Other optional accessories include three tripod foot raiser pads made from solid ash that keep the tripod feet from scratching or marring flooring while cleaning or displaying; a complete custom made cleaning kit made by Kleen Bore containing all the accessories needed to maintain the 1877 “Bulldog” all contained in a suede cowhide roll; a net weight 1/2 pound (227g) of Dieco Lithium grease (recommended for use with the “Bulldog”; a tool kit that contains all the necessary components to completely tear down the “Bulldog” for cleaning and maintenance using the highest quality American made tools that include an 8 oz. Grace brass hammer, a #3 Garland rawhide hammer, a Dondus T-handle 5/32-inch hex key, a standard 5/32-inch Allen wrench, a 1/8-inch steel tool punch and three Grace straight slot screwdrivers #G2, H4 and N4; and 100 or 500 round quantity boxes of Hardcast 382-grain lead bullets sized at .458 and lubed.

Conclusion

Fully made in the USA with a limited one year warranty on all parts and labor, the quality of workmanship and smoothness of operation is evident in every gun produced. Each receiver is manually fitted, all parts meet or exceed their highest quality standards and every “Bulldog” is field tested prior to delivery. This gun will please the most ardent shooter or discerning collector. With a MSRP of $36,500, the U.S. Armament Corp Model 1877 “Bulldog” Gatling Gun is an economical solution (versus trying to obtain an original) to enjoy this class of weapon whether shooting it at the range or filling that hole in your collection. U.S. Armament Corp manufactures a certain quota of Gatling Guns each year, so please consider this when ordering. Additionally, U.S. Armament is well along in adding a Gardner Gun to their offerings.