The 11th edition of the Defence Services Asia occurred on 21-24 April, 2008 at the Putra World Trade Centre in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (people experienced in Southeast Asia generally say “KL” instead of the whole city name). SAR tries to never miss this show, as it is every two years and the direction of the Asian marketplace is evident in all the requirements and new small arms presentations for the region. Business dress is customary at this show; the military will be in Dress Greens or their respective countries’ variants of this. Many vendors choose to wear lighter clothing due to the humidity and weather, but this is not putting on the best appearances in the eyes of the customers. Malaysia is a Muslim country but is not generally requiring dress codes other than some modesty.

On the second day of the show, there was quite a furor and the rumors were flying – the Iranian exhibitions were walled off completely and speculation was that they had not settled their invoices for the exhibit space. This was quickly proven false. Since Iran was under UN sanctions against arms dealing due to the international view of its nuclear program, the United States, the United Kingdom, and others had protested their presence and threatened to pull out of the exhibition entirely. Management succumbed to this protest and completely walled off the Iranian exhibits. This writer, among others, has always counted on the DSA show to be a place to observe and interface with the Iranian small arms developers to see what their newest offerings are: this is where the short “RPG-7K” was first observed.

There were 27 country group pavilions including 6 new ones; Romania, Portugal, Brazil, Bulgaria, Australia and The Netherlands.

The others include Austria, China, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, India, Iran, Italy, South Korea, Malaysia, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, UK and USA.

The top 5 country groups were: Turkey (largest), Germany, Italy, UK and Pakistan.

Defence Services Asia Statistics:

• Number of Participating Companies: 718 companies from 49 countries – a 22% increase from DSA 2006.
• Size of Exhibition: 42,000 square meters (gross) – 25% larger than DSA 2006.
• Number of Trade Visitors: 26,990 trade visitors from 63 countries/nations – a 15% increase from DSA 2006.
• Number of VIP Delegations: 225 delegations from 32 countries/nations – a 46% increase from DSA 2006

The K-Ships:

In 1942 and 1943, German U-Boats lurked off the east coast of the United States and the Florida Straits; a particularly fertile hunting ground for Nazi submarines. As America was caught relatively unprepared for war in December 1941, there were few resources available to defend America’s coastlines.

During this time the U.S. Navy employed lighter-than-air, non-rigid airships or “Blimps” to serve as hovering observation platforms for maritime reconnaissance and also to provide escorts for the vital convoys and coastal shipping. The silvery Blimps, called “K-ships” by the Navy, were very stable platforms but they were also quite slow and presented a huge target. They were not considered to be combat aircraft per se, but for their duties of convoy escort and anti-submarine warfare, they were armed with depth bombs and a .50 caliber machine gun mounted in the nose of the gondola car.

Blimp patrols were generally long and uneventful, but there was one remarkable incident that may have influenced the idea to create BAR mounts specially devised for blimps.

On the night of July 18, 1943, the U.S. Navy Blimp K-74 (from Blimp Squadron ZP-21 based at NAS Richmond, Florida) was engaged in convoy escort duties over the Florida Straits and with her onboard radar located a German U-Boat running on the surface. As no American surface units were available to engage the enemy and the U-Boat was proceeding directly towards the convoy she was escorting, K-74 attacked U-134.

K-74’s depth bombs failed to release, and the crew engaged the sub with their .50 caliber machine gun as well as small arms. Return fire from the U-Boat’s 20mm AA guns knocked out one of K-74’s engines, punctured the gasbag in several places and wounded one crewman.

In return, K-74’s fire damaged the submarine and it was not able to submerge. U-134 left the area, and was recalled to its base in France due to its need for repairs. The sub never made it home and was sunk by British bombers in the Bay of Biscay.

As for K-74, the damaged blimp crashed into the sea. While the crew was in the water waiting to be rescued by the U.S. Navy destroyer Dahlgren, tragedy struck when a wounded crewman was attacked by sharks and disappeared. The rest of the crew were rescued, and thus ended the only known gun battle involving a U.S. Navy Blimp.

Although the photos of the BAR blimp-mounted gun found in U.S. Navy files were dated October 1943 (unfortunately they were uncaptioned and offered no details about the project), there is no way to know for sure if this experimental mounting was conceived before or after the incident with K-74. It is possible that the blimp-mounted BAR concept came prior to K-74’s gunfight with U-134, but testing was accelerated after the blimp’s combat with the sub.

The mounting of a .50 caliber Browning machine gun in the gondola car makes more sense than the BAR due to the long range and striking power of the .50 caliber rounds and the nature of the blimp’s escort missions. However, the cramped conditions of the gondola car make the BAR a better option than anything else in the Navy arsenal, particularly as supplemental firepower to the .50 caliber nose gun. If K-74 had possessed two socket-mounted BARs in addition to its .50 caliber on that fateful night, the situation might have been different, but once the Germans opened fire with their 20mm AA guns the issue was never really in doubt.

The assessment that the BAR would have likely been used aboard a blimp to engage floating sea mines, and explode (or sink) them from a safe distance from a relatively stable aerial shooting platform is entirely plausible.

From its adoption in 1917 for the use in the trenches of France to the M240 GPMG in the sands of Iraq, John M. Browning’s superb BAR action has served this country in myriad and strange ways.

What started as an automatic rifle to clear trenches in World War I, it continued to serve in World War II and Korea as a Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). In numerous and bloody battles all over the globe it has been respected and cherished by our fighting men. In the 1950s the BAR evolved into the “ideal belt fed” GPMG, the M240 Series.

It came as no surprise that the BAR could be used in an antiaircraft mode but it was also used in aircraft for defense. But, by far the most unusual use for the BAR was by the United States Navy when it was mounted in lighter than air crafts, commonly called Blimps.

The 1937 Hindenburg disaster pretty much doomed the lighter than air craft as a weapon of War. The USA avoided the problem as they used and had an unlimited supply of the inert helium gas.

After the tragic loss of the Dirigibles Akron and Shenandoah, Lakehurst, NJ began to concentrate on the non-rigid aircraft, thus the use of the Blimp as the primary lighter-than-air craft. Thus began the most successful implementation of blimps for air defense. In 1939 they developed the K-Craft blimp and it became the workhorse of World War II that could patrol and destroy the U-boats with bombs, torpedoes and machine guns. Able to fly cover for convoys, Navy blimps could patrol for weeks at a time and hover over suspected targets and were high enough for excellent radio relay and interception.

The biggest problem besides their vulnerability due to the nature of the gas bag was weight restriction. The gondola beneath the body of the aircraft was small and weight had to be kept to a minimum. The helium that kept the craft aloft was contained in air sacks so that loss of one would not be its downfall.

As for weaponry, the blimp carried a modest amount of incendiary bombs and also mines. Not much thought was given to defensive weaponry though their primary defensive weapon was the M3 Browning Aircraft .50. What was additionally needed was a light, rugged, and reliable machine gun. Someone had the bright idea that the BAR might admirably fit the bill. It was a battle proven, relatively light automatic gun that was accurate and easy to load with a limited but adequate capacity that had no belts dangling in the compact gondola. The BAR could fulfill one of the most effective roles for the blimp by tracking and destroying floating mines. It would also allow them to fire on small vessels and keep them under constant surveillance. The blimp helped provide an umbrella of protection along the coastal waters of North and South America, and across the Atlantic Ocean as far north as Greenland.

There are a few very clear and distinct photographs of an early 1918 A2 BAR mounted in a blimp. The butt stock is definitely wooden as the grain of the wood is clearly visible. The forearm has been removed so we cannot verify the vintage. There is a hinged shoulder rest so it is dated at least after October 12, 1933. One must remember that the U.S. Navy was last on the list of available technology, so it must be a very early A2 modified from a vintage 1918. The distinct wear marks on the magazine confirm that the same rifle was used in at least three of the photographs. The rear sight is of 1922 vintage and parkerized, not blued, indicating a very clear replacement to the rifle. The best time to place this BAR is between 1939 and 1942.

The foregrip has been removed for the insertion of the rifle into a robust ball-and-socket mount that is then inserted into one of the gondola windows. The operating slide is clearly visible in the photos. The flash hider is an A2 capable of taking a bipod. This rifle is mounted at the rear of the Gondola as there are much larger windows in the front and there is a latch in the door frame denoting close proximity to the exit door. One can clearly see that the selector is on F – the slow speed: perfect for accuracy and conservation of ammunition.

One picture shows the same rifle with a modified antiaircraft sight similar to one found on the Browning M3 .50 caliber. It is a collapsible ball front with a small crosshair rear. What is most interesting is how they have mounted the rear sight to the top of the BAR providing for a very sturdy mount for the sight. One wonders why it had never been done before or since.

The photographs rather speak for themselves and show a rare and unusual use of the famous Browning Automatic Rifle.

(We owe a special recognition for these rare and remarkable BAR photographs to Thomas Laemlein and to acknowledge the kind assistance of Mr. Carl Jablonski, President of the Blimp Historical Society based out of the NAS at Lakehurst, and to Ricca Zitarosa, a retired WWII veteran of the “Lighter than Aircraft Group” stationed out of NAS Lakehurst.)

Never let it be said that ordnance engineers won’t go to the most extreme measures to build a bigger, man-portable, method of destruction. The weapon presented here is the Rucini Top 20 anti-material, anti-armor rifle.

“Rucini Top, 20mm” means “Hand Cannon, 20 millimeter.” This unique beast was developed by the Croatians towards the end of the 20th century. It is manufactured in Croatia by RH-Alan and has been accepted by their army. It is also in use by Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams.

It is built around the Hispano-Suiza HS404 anti-aircraft cannon ammunition of World War II, which is still in current use for anti-aircraft work. The original cannon was also used on numerous aircraft of the United States, United Kingdom, France, and the ex-Yugoslavia. The projectile weighs 2,000 grains and leaves the muzzle at 2,900 feet per second. Effective range is 2,000 meters.

The action is single-shot with a three-lug bolt. The bolt must be removed for each shot, the empty cartridge removed and a fresh round inserted, which takes considerable time. However, the time spent reloading is about equal to the time spent in recoil recovery, so it really isn’t a factor. Optics are offset to the left to clear the reactive tube.

Due to the very heavy recoil of the 20mm x 100mm round, the RT-20 rifle design incorporates a one-of-a-kind recoil system. Generated recoil from the 20 kilogram rifle is approximately four times heavier than that from a Barrett M107, even with a large muzzle brake installed, so some sort of additional recoil system is necessary.

On top and in front of the action is mounted a large reactive tube connected to the barrel at midpoint. The rear part of the tube extends to the rear of the bolt action and the end cup forms a gas nozzle. When the gun is fired, a large portion of exhaust gasses are vented into the reactive tube and out the rear nozzle, forming a reactive force against the recoil. This type of design is similar to the Carl Gustaf Bofors m/42 20mm of World War II, and the American M67 introduced after the Korean Conflict.

This system of controlling recoil works well in larger rifled guns, but in the RT-20, it introduces some problems that are almost insurmountable.

First, and probably most important to the shooter, is the nature and position of the backblast. Care must be taken to insure that the backblast doesn’t set anything on fire, like backpacks, fellow military, or the shooter’s lower extremities.

Secondly, the RT-20, like other recoilless weapons of the type, cannot be fired in a confined area. Firing the rifle in a small room would likely kill everyone within.

Thirdly, position must be considered, as the backblast and muzzle blast combined will give away a shooter’s position to a much greater extent than most conventional weapons.

Truly a case of the old saying; “if a little is good, then a whole lot is way too much.”

RT-20 Rucini Top 20

Manufacturer: RH-Alan
Caliber: 20mm x 110mm Hispano Suiza
Service date: mid-1990s
Weight: 42.3 lbs
Length: 52.4 inches
Barrel length: 36.2 inches
Action: Bolt, single-shot
Effective Range: 2,000 meters
Sights: Optical, offset to left
Stock: Alloy/synthetic

“Navy Riverines are the Navy’s premier force for patrolling the gaps in the seams of Maritime security. We operate along inland waterways projecting combat force when necessary and providing persistent presence as part of the Navy’s support to Irregular Warfare operations and the Long War on Terror.” Captain Anthony Krueger, Commander, Riverine Group ONE

The “Brown Water Navy” is back in force and elements of Captain Kruger’s command have been conducting operations on Iraq’s waterways without a break since February 2007. Proudly carrying forward the legacy of the U.S. Navy’s famed River Patrol Force of the Vietnam War, today’s hard-charging Riverines are superbly equipped, armed and trained for a wide range of specialized missions.

Their weapons are standard issue but there is little that is ordinary in their operational environment. While extreme temperatures, dust and precipitation are familiar foes to all combatants, Riverines face special challenges in maximizing the effectiveness of their guns while underway and during landside missions.

SAR talked at length with several experienced Riverines about these challenges. Their observations, we believe, will prove useful for a variety of warfighters on land, sea and in the air. This first installment in a two-part series affords a close look into specialized Riverine watercraft, the versatile array of crew-served weapons aboard and the dedicated Sailors who man the guns.

Fast Boats and Machine Guns

SAR’s first encounter with Detachment 1 of Riverine Squadron 3 came on the morning of April 2, 2009, at Mile Hammock Bay on Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, as they were preparing for another long training day. Heavy overcast, fog and driving rain emphasized the challenges of operating in all weather conditions but the hardy Riverines were eager to get underway for long-scheduled live fire maneuvers.

Lieutenant (Junior Grade) William F. Ashley, Det 1’s Officer in Charge, explained that Lejeune’s range safety requirements necessitated a careful visual reconnaissance to make sure no watercraft had strayed into the bay’s designated firing area. Unfortunately, the weather was so bad that Range Control’s small fixed wing aircraft couldn’t fly.

But waiting for a weather change that would allow range clearance afforded a good time for the requested interviews. We climbed up into the back of one of the unit’s heavily armored trucks to meet with two Riverines who had gamely volunteered for the task; Gunners Mate 1st Class (EXW/SW) Adam John Sanchez and Gunners Mate Chief (EXW/SW) Geovarrie “Geo” M. Lopez, both well seasoned Sailors.

The 29 year old Sanchez hails from Eagle River, Alaska, where he spent some time as a fishing guide. His ten years in the Navy included service on USS Spruance Guided Missile Destroyer before volunteering for Riverine two years ago. He soon deployed to Iraq with Det 1 and earned the Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal. He has been a Boat Captain for one year and his additional skills include Range Safety Officer and Crew Served Weapons Instructor.

Lopez, 35 years old, calls Key West, Florida, his hometown. He’s had a number of different assignments during seventeen years in the Navy, notably aboard the USS Gettysburg Guided Missile Cruiser. Volunteering for Riverine, he has two years with Det 1 and its Iraq deployment, earning the Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal. Lopez is a Boat Captain and a qualified Small Arms Instructor.

It worked well to interview them together because each one’s observations tended to bring additional insights from the other.

SAR: Why did you join the Navy and then transition to Riverine?

Sanchez: I considered a career in law enforcement and knew that Navy experience would be a good start. I have military in the family and they recommended the Navy. I asked for assignment to Riverine to ‘ramp up my career’ and get some combat experience.

Lopez: It was in my blood, my father’s also in the Navy. I’d seen my father’s experiences and wanted that part of my life as well. I went from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division to Yeoman in Navy. I volunteered for Riverine, a job with action and combat experience.

SAR: Are you personally interested in firearms and shooting?

Sanchez: Oh yes, I’m a Gunners Mate (GM).

Lopez: I do like shooting, I love guns and it happens to be my job also as a GM.

SAR: What schools and training have prepared you for your current duties?

Sanchez: I have 0814 NEC (Navy Enlisted Code) for CSWI (Crew Served Weapons Instructor) through STS (Navy contractor Special Tactical Services), been through GM ‘A’ school (initial qualification) then ‘C’ school (advanced) as a Vertical Launch System Tech; also Marine Corps 0331 Machine Gunner Course. It’s outstanding training, intensive tests, very detailed. More landside shooting and then in RSO (Range Safety Officer) school we did more of the waterside shooting.

Lopez: GM ‘A’ school, 5 inch cannon, Small Arms Instructor school at Little Creek, landside shooting at Marine Corps 0331 Machine Gunner Course, and waterside starting here during this training cycle preparing for deployment.

SAR: Do you have the opportunity to train using computer simulators?

Lopez: No, we do actual training on the boats. Parked dry runs to get familiar with your stations so when you actually get on the water the only thing you have to get is your ‘sea legs’ to get your balance. No simulation, always reality with blanks then live ammo. We shoot underway against static targets.

Sanchez: Same training cycle. We all went through the 0331 Machine Gunner Course for the Marine Corps, helped a lot. They definitely pound in the information and that helps a lot. I had simulators in the 0814 CSWI school but as far as the rest of the unit, no. A couple others have had the CSWI course as well. STS did a good job in teaching, outstanding training, probably one of the better schools I’ve been to ever.

SAR: Is there enough time allocated for training?

Sanchez: Yes, time has been OK but very condensed. The gunners are learning what they need to learn. Maybe expand the time a bit for a little more proficiency but overall it’s outstanding training.

Lopez: Definitely more training is always better. As of right now its doing the job and I know it’s getting people’s proficiency up on the weapons. New gunners on their first deployment are jumpin’ right in. I know I can rely on those guys on the guns to do their job.

SAR: Night shooting?

Sanchez: Absolutely, night operations are a major mission. NVGs (night vision goggles) PVS-14 monocular we’re using right now. PEQ-15 lasers mounted to each of the crew served weapons. Good gear even in fog and rain. The weather hasn’t been fantastic lately for training and we’ve been doing pretty good.

Lopez: Definitely what we need to be doing, most of our work is at nighttime. That’s really when you find out if the gunners are comfortable with what they’re doing. Anybody can do it in the daytime. The comfort zone for those gunners at nighttime changes when they have that night vision on and one of their eyes can’t see. They start shooting that gun and the flash wipes everything out. You find out their comfort levels and proficiency at nighttime.

SAR: What do you teach to compensate for that — close one eye?

Sanchez: Yeah, that’s one technique. Another is to move the NVG away from your face and look under it. It works because of the tracers once you’re on target. You use your laser to initiate the contact through NVGs and once you’re on target you can look underneath them (using tracers) and that works as well.

SAR: Do you use parachute flares for illumination?

Sanchez: We have the capability but tactically that’s not done. We’re lighting ourselves up enough with the muzzle flashes. We’re kind of in a unique situation because we have one way in and one way out on the river. There’s no sense in illuminating us any more than we need to.

SAR: What recommendations to the chain to improve operator skill with weapons?

Sanchez: It’s already being done. Riverine Group is constantly improving through critiques of training and operations. Our situation as RIVRON 3, we’re able to get the better training product because RIVRON 1 and 2 go through before us.

Lopez: Definitely, we have the best product that has been generated through the training cycle. And because we’re the first detachment in our squadron, we’re able to help the other two dets for their training cycle. Whatever we critique in our after action reports group can make some more improvements and it keeps on evolving and they get better training.

SAR: How about the Riverine Security Teams (RSTs)?

Sanchez: They’re in a different training pipeline; then we meet to do an interoperability where we all work together.

Lopez: Each Detachment has RSTs and their training is specific to the landside. They can’t do their mission without us and we can’t do our mission without them. They’re boat riders but they’re also trained as crew served weapon gunners. If one of our guys takes a hit they know what to do and can take over as well.

(Editor’s Note: Part 2 provides a detailed look at Detachment 1’s Riverine Security Team)

SAR: Your Detachment has three RPBs (Riverine Patrol Boats) with three weapon stations and one RAB (Riverine Assault Boat) with five weapon stations. Comment on each of the Crew Served Weapons on the boats, starting with the M240’s reliability and suitability for most missions.

Sanchez: If you take care of it, it will take care of you. It’s a great weapon you can be as surgical with it as you want with it depending on the proficiency of the gunner. Absolutely reliable.

Lopez: The 240 is very accurate and it’s like a workhorse. You can take it on shore when we have to provide security on ground for our RSTs so it serves two roles on the boat.

SAR: You have experience with the M60, how about a comparison?

Sanchez: The 60 is more of a land based assault weapon but the 240 is a better mounted 7.62mm machine gun.

Lopez: My experience with the M60, I mostly shot it off of ships and on a couple of ranges on shore. I like the 240 better, once I shoot it I’m on target and it’s surgical.

SAR: What needs improvement with the M240?

Sanchez: You’ve gotta take care of the gas regulators…when we’re firing it gets dirty very quickly.

SAR: And the .50 caliber M2HB?

Sanchez: It’s been around forever for a reason. It’s a good gun if you need a hard target taken out, that’s why we have it on board. Longer range, heavier bullet, greater penetration. If you take care of it, it will take care of you. As long as you do those inspections, make sure none of those parts are worn too much – the normal inspection process – it’s a good gun as well.

Lopez: The amount of fifty caliber lead it puts down, it’s definitely something I would want on my boats at all times. Great against hard targets and when it goes off they know you got a fifty cal. – everybody can hear you out there.

SAR: Is headspace and timing tricky for the younger sailors?

Sanchez: With the training we’ve had its been pounded into their heads. We’ve never had any issues. Just part of settin’ up the gun.

Lopez: Just second nature so they get on their gun and know they have to do it.

SAR: Any recommendations for improvements to the M2HB? Maybe a quick-change barrel?

Sanchez: I’ve heard about it but it’s not needed. If you lay enough rounds downrange on target hopefully that target’s down before you need to do a barrel change.

Lopez: It’s been around so long that pretty much all the improvements have been already done on it. I’m happy with it personally; I don’t have any issues with it.

SAR: How about the 40mm Mark 19?

Sanchez: That’s a serious weapon as well. We’ve got the Mod 3 and it’s a good gun. We haven’t used it as much as we would have liked because the ammunition is a little hard to come by. But all the guys have the training needed to use the weapon properly. Some people are kinda skittish about it – it’s a very violent weapon – blowback operated with a very heavy bolt.

Lopez: I love that weapon. Ammo is harder to come by so shooting it – range time – is limited; but like all the other weapons, the guys have had training on it.

SAR: Is the MK 19 not usually mounted on the boats?

Lopez: We can take it out and it just depends on our missions, but 90% of the time we’ve got the 240 and fifty cal.

Sanchez: On our heavy mount (at the stern) we normally use the 50 cal. It’s more accurate and causes less collateral damage.

SAR: What would be the kind of mission you would need the MK 19 for?

Lopez: It depends on the threat assessment for the area of operations.

(The Detachment’s OIC has been silently observing the interview and now speaks up).

Ashley: Like the chief said, its mission dependent. If we were going to do a fire support mission we would take it out. Sometimes at least one of the four boats will have it mounted.

SAR: So your boats would be providing a kind of Naval Gunfire Support?

Ashley: I guess that’s one way of putting it. It all depends on what kind of environment we’re operating in. Unless it’s a “permissive environment” (few civilians, more open space) we tend to scale back on the MK19.

SAR: Tell us about the 7.62mm GAU-17 Minigun.

Sanchez: I’m a believer in it now. Originally not so much – probably because of lack of knowledge. Now that I’ve been through more training it’s definitely one of my favorite weapons.

Lopez: Some experience shooting it from ships but obviously totally different from this type of environment on boats. The only problems I had back then was with the batteries and battery chargers. Here we’re running them right off the electrical circuits (24 volt DC) on the boat. The weapon system itself is impressive – 3,000 rounds per minute. When you engage something or someone with that you’re gonna scare ‘em (smiles). Especially when you have four of them on board, one on each boat, going off at one time.

SAR: Have you been in a situation where you’ve needed that high volume of firepower?

Sanchez: I haven’t been in that situation but that’s what we’re training for right now. It’s one of those things that’s nice to have when you need it.

SAR: What needs improvement?

Lopez: Nothing at all. Very reliable.

Sanchez: The improvements have been made now that we’re using the Dillon Aero feeder-delinker. I guess there were some issues before but we personally haven’t had any. It shoots fine for us and we’ve put plenty of rounds through it.

SAR: What special maintenance needs to be done with them – particularly while operating in a semi-salt water environment?

Lopez: Nothing special at all, just more attention to detail. Not just with the GAU but all of our weapons. Constantly have to be on them cleaning, wiping, making sure when we squeeze that trigger we can get that end result.

SAR: How about ‘tricks of the trade,’ anything that’s not in the maintenance manuals?

Sanchez: We just use CLP (standard issue Cleaner Lubricant Preservative). It works.

Lopez: During deployment in sandy and dusty conditions just a thin coat of CLP. We try to keep it kind of dry. You don’t want too much. That sand builds up, cakes up on the weapon. Use just enough to keep it running. Obviously, when you’re out here in this kind of environment (heavy rain at Camp Lejeune) you’ll apply more CLP.

Sanchez: Probably when it’s raining, to constantly have dry rags on hand. But we bring that stuff out so I don’t have any issues. We keep everything the way it needs to be so it fires.

SAR: Any ‘wish list’ for accessories that you believe will improve the effectiveness of the detachment’s crew served weapons?

Sanchez: ‘Fifteens’ (AN/PVS-15) might be nice as far as NVGs (Night Vision Goggles). The dual viewfinders give better depth perception but we can still do the job fine with that we’ve got (PVS-14).

SAR: How about what’s mounted on the weapon itself? Like a Night Vision Sight?

Lopez: Once you start firing that scope wouldn’t work (because of muzzle flash). Our weapon mounted laser sight is good when used with NVGs.

SAR: In training do you use the 1-in-5 tracer to ball mix?

Lopez: For 7.62 yes, but not for .50 cal. We haven’t had any of that yet.

Sanchez: We adjust on impact.

SAR: How about different types of ammunition like .50 caliber APIT (Armor Piercing Incendiary Tracer)?

Lopez: For training, it’s just standard ball. The demand for APIT is greater in theater (Iraq).

SAR: Lieutenant, is there a problem getting .50 caliber tracer ammo?

Ashley: It would just be more about what the command (authorizes), what these guys get before they go on training operations. It hasn’t been an issue as far as getting it.

SAR: When you deploy in country is tracer and APIT available?

All: Yes.

SAR: The Coast Guard has some special 7.62mm short range ammunition for use in certain congested areas.

Ashley: There’s talk of us going to it because it opens up a lot of ranges that we could use. Right now it’s not in our allowance.

SAR: Any recommendations for changes to mounts? We talked about how the MK 19 really shakes that heavy weapon mount.

Sanchez: The MK 93 mount has buffers underneath the weapon that absorb a lot of it and the coxswains – the drivers of the boat – adjust however they need to while you’re firing the fifty or the MK 19 from the aft heavy weapon mount.

SAR: Both of those weapons (M2 and Mk 19) are recoil operated. Do you have to tweak the recoil buffer so that you don’t have cycling problems?

Lopez: We’ve never experienced that.

SAR: So the guys at NCWC Crane who developed the MK 93 mount must have gotten it right. How about the mounts for the 7.62mm guns?

Sanchez: They’re hard mounts with no recoil buffer. We haven’t had any issues at all with them. Also, all the mounts have adjustable traversing safety stops so you can’t shoot your own boat.

SAR: Would you recommend any changes to how the ammunition is carried on the mounts? Or add a rain shield or splash shield? Anything?

Sanchez: I’m happy with the way we’re running. I like it personally.

Lopez: It just depends on what mission you have and where you’re operating. Is it going to hamper you when you’re going to reload, what happens when the gun gets hot from shooting? It brings up more questions. Keep it simple.

SAR: What’s the next level of maintenance and repair for your weapons when they break down?

Lopez: We’re self-sufficient on a lot of things but we know when we have to send a weapon outside the command because we just can’t fabricate those parts. The knowledge they (specially trained armorers in the detachment) have keeps our weapons going.

SAR: But the turn-around time doesn’t leave you with an empty gun station?

Sanchez: No, we have plenty to fill in with. If we have to we can pull from another detachment but it’s not really an issue, ever.

SAR: Describe your most recent foreign deployment.

Sanchez: We did a seven month deployment (to Iraq) out of Lake Thar Thar and the Thar Thar River. Support missions for just about every unit out there. Inserting and extracting RSTs, sweeping villages and gathering intel. Stopping boats, looking for contraband, any illegal activities.

Ashley: We were focused a lot on ‘atmospheric collection,’ census type data to get a feel for who was operating on the water, living on the water, kind of the cultural aspects of it. Less intrusive and more to let the Iraqi people know we’re here to provide security. ‘Help us help you.’

SAR: Any firefights?

Sanchez: We were nearby a few of them but we didn’t actually have any direct support to those.

SAR: What lessons did you learn about yourself as a result of your deployment?

Sanchez: I can withstand mass amounts of heat (laughs). You’d think it was 200 degrees on some of those days.

Lopez: We weren’t really prepared for 120 degree plus heat but once we got there we knew what to do; hydration, how to take care of your body, hygiene. All those things that people take for granted when they’re stateside come into play when your resources are limited. With adequate training you can overcome anything. Then there’s patience, dealing with people, language barriers, plus you have to deal with civilians, the Iraqi Army and Police Forces. You have to have patience for that, taking your time in dealing with them.

SAR: How about your boatmates?

Sanchez: Same thing for them; I’m sure I can speak for them. They did an outstanding job over there. Got the job done.

SAR: Your body armor is heavy, hot and bulky and more so at 120 degrees. Do you wear it at all times on missions?

Sanchez: All the time. When you’re underway there’s a little bit of breeze (but) only when you’re moving and then it’s like a hair dryer blowin’ in your face.

SAR: Spend the night on the boats?

Lopez: When you go out on a mission and you get caught out there however long you stayed out there. We operated out in the field close to where our base was.

SAR: How cold does it get in the wintertime over there?

Lopez: Rainy and cold about like this (Camp Lejeune).

SAR: Where’s the next deployment?

Sanchez: They’re telling us anywhere at this point.

Ashley: Right now it’s up in the air. The way the rotation works there are successive squadrons in Iraq (1, 2 and 3). The mission in Iraq is ramping down so we could be possibly sent anywhere there are rivers.

SAR: Afghanistan have rivers?

Ashley: They do. I believe it’s one river that floods pretty regularly, with rapids and rocks (smiles). I’d be really surprised if they sent us up there

SAR: What advice do you have for Riverines, GMs in particular, preparing for their first deployment?

Lopez: Project what you need, supply-wise. We could be going somewhere way out of the supply system. Take what you think you’ll need and that way you’ll have a stockpile; oils, rags, cleaning materials, solvents. Everything you need for your weapons. Prepare yourself to an excess and you’ll be good to go.

SAR: How about mental preparation?

Sanchez: A pretty standard thing. In the military you do what you gotta do and get the job done.

SAR: Is there much turnover in personnel? How many new guys since last deployment?

Sanchez: We’ve got about three guys (laughs). They catch on fast and they’re caught up now. No issues, a very smooth process.

SAR: What’s the hardest thing for the younger sailors, the ones on their first deployment?

Lopez: I guess they get frustrated. Not having that contact with family.

Sanchez: I think they’ve got it good (laughs), real good.

Lopez: You take what you need. You can get ‘care packages’, stuff like that. You bring your snacks and basically take care of your own comforts.

SAR: How about the brotherhood of a boat crew, do you tend to stay together or do they mix and match?

Lopez: Initially that’s how it was but now we’re starting to operate by mixing the boat crews and I think that’s better. You get to know other people but the training is more standardized. That way it’s not ‘this is how my boat crew does it’ (but) there’s a standard format. For example if someone was gone, taken out, injured, I can take another person from another crew. He’s got to know exactly what to do. I know he can operate exactly like the previous member.

SAR: Help us understand this from an Army or Marine Corps perspective. If you’re in a combat arms unit it’s your squad, fire team, tank or gun crew. It’s going to be pretty much the same men the whole time.

Lopez: Yes, but people transfer, people get injured or go on leave. So you have to supplement your crew sometimes with other personnel. Also, now that we have the RAB (Riverine Assault Boat) in our detachment there are two more gunner stations. An RPB crew is generally five people but on the RAB you have five weapon stations so you have more people on that one boat crew. You have to supplement them from other boat crews. It’s generally a mixture of boat teams. Instances like that happen regularly.

SAR: But for the most part individual boat crews stay together?

Both: Yes.

Sanchez: We’ve already been on deployment with the majority of these guys – everybody’s pretty tight.

SAR: Have you had to throw anybody overboard?

Lopez: (laughs) No, not yet.

SAR: What would you like to say to young men about joining the Navy and why they should choose Riverine Forces? Fast boats and guns?

Sanchez: If you’re dedicated and you’ve got good motivation and you want to get into a combat environment I recommend Riverine to anybody who has all those three things.

Lopez: A young man coming into this environment fresh out of Boot Camp; it’s a totally different environment than ‘Big Blue Navy.’ You’re going to have to be – first thing – self sufficient, a lot of initiative, someone to rely on, dependable. This is a small unit, we do things by ourselves; we’re away from headquarters, away from ‘Big Navy.’ Wherever we’re deployed we’re always operating by ourselves.

SAR: What have we missed?

Lopez: You’ve covered it. The training is even better than when we initially started this command, the squadron. On the crew served weapons, everything. It’s evolving and I think it’s going in the right direction.

Coming Soon

Join the Riverines of Detachment 1 as they maneuver their boats in the tight confines of a brown water range, then lay down a torrent of suppressive fire to support a “hot extraction” of their Riverine Security Teams.

Find Out More:

Navy Expeditionary Combat Command: www.necc.navy.mil.

(SAR extends special thanks to Captain Anthony Krueger, Commander, Riverine Group One, and Lieutenant (JG) William Ashley, Officer-in-Charge of Detachment 1, Riverine Squadron Three, for giving us the opportunity to observe and report on the intensive weapons training being conducted in preparation for RIVRON THREE’s second operational deployment.)

The XM148 was a revolutionary weapon that allowed infantry soldiers to engage the enemy beyond the range of hand grenades without the weight and complexity of light mortars. Rifle grenades were employed as early as World War I and efforts to launch rifle grenades from the semiautomatic M1 Garand succeeded in 1943 with the introduction of the M7 system. Used with a specially manufactured blank cartridge, the semiautomatic feature of the rifle was temporarily disabled to allow all of the energy of the blank cartridge to be transferred into launching the rifle grenade. Although the M7 rifle grenade system proved to be combat effective, the system was time consuming and potentially life threatening, given that the semiautomatic feature of the M1 Garand was disabled to fire the rifle grenade. A simpler system was needed that resulted in the development of the M79 grenade launcher: a system dedicated solely to the firing of 40mm low-pressure grenades.

Prior to the XM148, a U.S. Army grenadier was issued an M79 grenade launcher as a primary weapon, and an M1911 pistol as a secondary weapon. While the M79 allowed for a dedicated grenadier within the infantry squad, each M79 grenadier necessarily removed a rifleman from the unit due to the weight constraints of carrying both an M16 and an M79. Following in the footsteps of the M79 grenade launching system, the XM148 was a complex and fragile weapon system when compared to the robust M79. Nevertheless, the XM148 effectively allowed the infantry soldier to retain the primary battle rifle in combat readiness while also permitting the use of the newly developed 40mm low-pressure grenade system.

Following adoption of the M79 it became evident that the 40mm grenade system was an effective intermediate weapon that should be pursued and developed for use on the battlefield. Nevertheless, grenadiers were forced to make sacrifices in exchange for the ability to launch grenades at targets 350 meters away. The fuse within the 40x46mm grenade required 30 meters to arm, thus firing a 40mm grenade at a target closer than 30 meters was ineffective. Armed with an M1911 pistol as a secondary weapon, grenadiers in Vietnam were also provided the M576 40mm buckshot round and experimental flechette rounds of dubious effectiveness. A better solution was needed.

In 1963, the Army Operations Research Office requested the adaptation of a grenade launcher to the existing M16 rifle. The Colt CGL-4 (which would later be type-classified as the XM148) was first displayed publically in May 1964, with an initial distribution of 1,764 weapons being delivered to all U.S. Army brigades deployed to Vietnam in mid-January, 1967. The XM148 was delivered to each maneuver battalion within Vietnam on the basis of two weapons per rifle squad. All other grenade launchers were also traded on a one-to-one basis, resulting in approximately 84 XM148 units being employed per battalion.

What can only be described as remarkably pro-active, in November 1966 (and prior to issuing the weapons to combat units) the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Force Development, U.S. Army, informally requested the assistance of command elements from U.S. Army, Vietnam (USARV) in collecting information about the performance of the XM148 in combat conditions. On December 25, 1966, USARV requested that an evaluation of the XM148 as employed with the 199th Light Infantry Brigade Operating (operating within the Rung Sat Special Zone within Vietnam) be conducted.

Data collection began on April 11, 1967, with five critical inquiries:

1. The effect the weapon had upon small unit tactics;
2. The performance of the weapon as intended under combat conditions;
3. A determination of failure and maintenance issues, with an emphasis on failure rates for specific parts;
4. A determination of whether the XM148 was desired by infantrymen as a replacement for the M79 grenade launcher; and
5. If adopted, a determination of what basic load would be appropriate for individual soldiers assigned to combat support and combat service support units.

The survey ultimately grew to include 12 units from seven brigades, in four separate divisions. From an analytical view, the units interviewed and their area of operations bears some import due to the varying terrain and fighting conditions encountered by each unit. The 12 units involved included:

1. 1st Infantry Division, located in Di An;
2. 4th Infantry Division, located in Pleiku;
3. 9th Infantry Division, located at Camp Bearcat;
4. 25th Infantry Division, located at Cu Chi;
5. 3rd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, located at Pleiku;
6. 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, located at Kontum;
7. 173rd Airborne Brigade, located at Bien Hoa;
8. 196th Light Infantry Brigade, located at Tay Ninh;
9. 199th Light Infantry Brigade, located at Long Binh;
10. 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, located in Dau Tieng;
11. 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, located at Long Giao; and
12. 1st Air Cavalry Division, located in Binh Dinh.

Questionnaires received from the 1st Air Cavalry Division were received too late to be used within the official U.S. Army report, however interviews and data collected from the 1st Air Cavalry Division were used to validate and support the findings of the report.

The report found that M79 grenadiers used the weapons for an average of 8.9 weeks at the time of the survey, with some units using the weapon for only 3 weeks, while other units had used the weapons for nearly 16 weeks. Regardless, the amount of time the XM148 had been in active use and service at the time of the survey was extremely short.

The survey found that M79 grenadiers welcomed the combined rifle and grenade launcher concept, and lauded the XM148 in its ability to provide the dual capability of point and area fire within the same weapons system. Nevertheless, former M79 grenadiers found the system to be difficult to use with four central themes:

1. A decreased rate and quantity of fire;
2. Slower grenadier reaction time to firing at the target;
3. Hampered movement of the grenadier in dense vegetation; and
4. A need to devote an extraordinary care in keeping the weapon clean and functional.

In terms of small unit tactics, most respondents reported that employment of the XM148 did not change small unit tactics.

In recognition of the different types of terrains and situations encountered by the respective group, the targets most frequently engaged were concealed (or suspected) enemy positions and enemy combatants in the open. Nevertheless, respondents also reported engaging bunkers, sampans, foxholes, and huts. Sixty-seven percent of respondents reported the range at which most targets were engaged was 50 to 150 meters, with 11% reporting engagements under 50 meters, 20% reporting engagements between 150-300 meters, and 1% of respondents reporting engagements over 300 meters. (Due to rounding, the percentages do not total 100%) The majority of respondents (53%) reported that the rate of fire was unsatisfactory.

In terms of maintenance issues, users complained about a number of issues and perceived deficiencies within the system. Soldiers reported that removing the unit for routine maintenance was difficult and the small Allen screws and locking pins used to secure the XM148 to the M16E1 were easily lost. In addition, the small parts of the systems were hard to clean, screws would rust easily, and the pistol grip was easily broken.

Out in the field, the quadrant sight was prone to snagging in brush, and worse, the sight was difficult to use with any accuracy. Also listed as snag prone were the extended cocking and trigger bars. Users found that under combat conditions, these two external bars could be bent or broken when field stripping the M16E1. The cocking lever was unpopular due to the 30 pound (14kg) force required to cock the weapon.

There are two design factors that appear to be critical contributors to the failure of the XM148. The first design element is the exposed sear lever and fire control parts at the rear of the receiver. During the 1967 investigation, soldiers reported that the trigger could bind the sear lever, and prevent the weapon from being cocked. In addition, the trigger could be immobilized by objects caught, or inserted between the receiver of the M16E1 and the trigger of the XM148. While this may seem like a foreign concept, recall that the trigger of the XM148 is an external bar measuring several inches in length, running along the right side of the weapon system. Apparently, it was not uncommon for a weapon sling, twigs, or fingers from slipping between the receiver of the XM148 and the receiver of the M16 rifle, thereby preventing the weapon from functioning. The exposed sear lever had the unique distinction of being both unsafe, yet favored by soldiers. If the weapon is cocked and pressure is applied to the sear lever by an external force, the weapon will fire. It was reported that soldiers would fire the XM148 by using their left thumb to depress the sear lever rather than use the weapon’s trigger bar.

The second contributing design flaw appears in the construction of the barrel and receiver interface. Unlike the M203, the receiver of the XM148 is a tube. The barrel fits inside the receiver, and pushes forward to expose the breech of the weapon. To operate the XM148, the rear of the pistol grip is pushed forward, which unlocks the barrel from the receiver. The barrel then slides forward within the receiver to allow the loading and unloading of the weapon. Recall that soldiers complained that the pistol grip was prone to breakage. In the event that the pistol grip failed, it would be difficult for soldiers to load and unload the weapon. In addition, due to the large contact area between the receiver and the barrel, dirt, mud, and other sludge caught between the receiver and barrel would make the weapon system difficult to operate. Within a few months, units with the XM148 were clamoring to have their M79 reissued.

In July 1967, the Army launched the Grenade Launcher Attachment Development (GLAD) program with the intent to solicit interest in the development of an alternative grenade launcher to the XM148. Recall that the XM148 was initially issued just 6 months prior, in January 1967. For the Army to launch a new program and solicit new designs for an existing weapon system within 6 months is nothing short of remarkable. Seven companies expressed interest in the GLAD program, of which three companies were awarded contracts. The three companies – Philco-Ford, Aero Jet General, and AAI each proposed a radically different solution to the 40mm grenade launcher. Aero Jet submitted an SPIW-type semiautomatic grenade launcher. Nothing similar to the original Aero Jet design has since surfaced or been developed for use. Similar to the modern Heckler and Koch M320 system, Philco-Ford offered a design that featured a barrel that swung open to either side of the receiver. AAI offered a single shot weapon with a simple single shot, single action trigger, pump action design.

Surprisingly, Colt was absent from the competition. By July 1967, Colt had already delivered 27,400 XM148 units to the U.S. Department of Defense. In an attempt to retain the contract, Colt attempted to redesign the XM148 at no cost to the U.S. Government, but the offer was rejected. Nevertheless, Colt’s redesigned XM148 was deemed the CGL-5. (Recall that the original name for the XM148 was the CGL-4.) Drawings of the CGL-5 grenade launcher proposed by Colt can be seen in U.S. Patent 3507067. The CGL-5 grenade launcher appears to be a reworked XM148, with similar features, including the tubular receiver and use of the pistol grip as a means to lock and unlock the breach. In terms of design attributes, the CGL-5 would likely have suffered from the same malfunctions and failures as the XM148 as there appears to have been no attempt to rework the tubular receiver, nor the exposed trigger mechanism. In defense of the CGL-5, the trigger and cocking bar were replaced by a simple knob at the rear of the receiver.

In August 1968, the prototype submitted by AAI was selected and type-classified as the XM203. Authorization to build 600 XM203s was granted in December 1968, with initial units assembled and sent to Vietnam for fielding and additional testing. AAI built the first 600 XM203 weapon systems, only to have all future production contracts for the M203 be awarded to Colt.

The XM148 project was dead, and was being replaced by what would become the M203 weapon system. Nevertheless, the concept of the secondary weapon mounted to the infantry soldier’s primary battle rifle survived, with the XM148 serving as the model for present day 40mm low-pressure grenade systems. As a weapon system, it can be argued that the XM148 was a failure. In terms of demonstrating a viable concept, the XM148 proved that a grenade launcher and battle rifle could be an effective weapon system – a concept that continues today as demonstrated by the use of mounted 40mm grenade weapon systems by nearly every modern Army.

The Blyskawica (‘Lightning’, pronounced bwiskavitsa, with ‘wi’ to be read like in ‘wisdom’) was designed and manufactured fully clandestine, for the Home Army (Armia Krajowa, AK), the mainstream Polish underground movement during the German occupation of Poland during the WWII. It was the first Polish-designed submachine gun ever to be really mass-produced – and that under the most difficult conditions imaginable.

Compared with their French counterparts enjoying generous arms airdrops from Britain, Polish resistance fighters were poorly armed. Airdropped weapons were scarce and scant prior to the autumn of 1943, when airfields gained in Italy enabled a (slight at best, judging by French standards) surge in the airdropping campaign. Submachine guns were virtually non-existent in the Polish Army prior to the war. After the defeat in the 1939 September Campaign, a resistance movement called the Home Army (Armia Krajowa, or AK) was created as early as October 1939; at first under the name of the Union For Armed Struggle (Zwiazek Walki Zbrojnej, ZWZ), with the aim of preparation for the general national uprising to win the independence in front of the Allied troops, rather than idly waiting for them to come and liberate Poland. The submachine gun soon proved to be a very useful guerilla weapon, and with an agenda like that, the AK simply had to devise some source of SMG supply more dependable than incidental disarming of German patrols, usually provoking bloody retributions.

Let’s Roll Our Own

In September 1942, Waclaw Zawrotny and Seweryn Wielanier, two mechanical engineers with no prior small arms designing experience, proposed to the Home Army’s Warsaw Area Command an idea of designing and manufacturing a 9mm submachine gun of their own. They studied foreign models, the MP 40 and the Sten, and found both unsuitable for copying. Although the Sten was simple enough to manufacture under the most difficult conditions (later on to be amply confirmed by a conservative estimation of 2,000 Sten copies and look-alikes made in Poland during the war), but awkward to handle and hardly concealable with its fixed stock and side-sticking magazine. On the other hand, the MP 40 handled like a dream, and was highly concealable with the folding stock, but the manufacturing technology (making extensive use of die-stamping and spot-welding methods) was far too complicated to replicate with what little machinery and tools were available for the job.

The designers agreed that the new submachine gun should combine the best features of the two, while keeping the manufacturing technology as low-tech as possible. They decided to use plumbing micro-groove threads and machine screws for most of the joints – bayonet couplings and latches of the factory-made weapons were far too advanced to replicate with the available hardware.

Gradually, by April 1943 the Blyskawica took shape and prototype drawings were being prepared. After the design work was done, it was a time to find subcontractors and organize an underground manufacturing network, supplying the parts to the clandestine assembly shop. In the harsh conditions of German-occupied Warsaw, with tight control held over all machine shops’ activity, shortages and rationing of the cutting tools, with all suitable materials put on the ‘restricted supplies’ list and sold only with a permit from the German administration, this was a very hard task, indeed. Nevertheless, bribing and stealing their way, working in Wielanier’s private flat, by September 1943 they managed to manufacture and assemble the first working model minus a barrel and a magazine – which they chose to borrow from the British Sten to overcome the unsurpassable production bottlenecks.

Official Acceptance

The gun was submitted for approval to the Home Army Ordnance Command, for test-firing in the woods around Warsaw’s suburb of Zielonka, and approval. Formal acceptance into the inventory of the clandestine army meant, among others, that the designers would be refunded their private money spent so far on the gun. The acceptance test was the first opportunity for the Blyskawica to really shoot after a Sten barrel and magazine borrowed for the occasion were installed. Problems were therefore inevitable. At first the prototype refused to fire at all, and then suffered numerous malfunctions. But Wielanier was able to rectify the situation with what simple tools were available – and jams decreased. Finally, the gun fired an entire magazine in a single burst, and the project was given a green light to start.

The Home Army HQ Diversionary Directorate’s commander, Colonel Emil ‘Nil’ Fieldorf (a brave and intelligent man, a pre-war career officer parachuted to Poland as early as 1940; after the war murdered in a courthouse farce by the Soviet-backed Polish Communist regime), was briefed of the new invention and demanded an additional live-firing demonstration. This was held in the most daring – if a little cavalier – way. At high noon on September 27, 1943, right on the painful fourth anniversary of Warsaw’s surrender in 1939, right smack in the middle of the enemy-occupied city, a party of three raincoat-clad men stepped out to the center of the crowded Theatrical Square, in front of the Warsaw City Hall. One of them reached under his coat, raised a shiny silvery prototype submachine gun and performed a classic ‘magazine dump’ into the air, to the delight of the cheering crowd around and to the horror of the two bodyguards flanking the Colonel; himself grinning like a child on a Christmas morning.

After going through all the trials with flying colors, the gun was accepted for serial production, which meant that the designers had to prepare a complete set of drawings for the gun. These were ready in October, 1943. While en route to the Home Army Command with this complete set of drawings in his briefcase, Mr. Zawodny narrowly avoided being arrested in one of the frequent German Police raids, when a section of the street was cordoned-off, and all people rounded-up to be later sorted out by the Gestapo. Most of the people caught up in these manhunts were then deported to Auschwitz even if they weren’t suspected of anything – just to spread terror to the others. One can only imagine what would happen if he was caught with a briefcase full of clandestine submachine gun blueprints.

The name Blyskawica (Lightning) came from the three lightning bolts carved in the aluminum butt-plate. These were designed to prevent slipping of the plate but also served as a camouflage – the butt-plate’s blueprints were labeled ‘electric oven handles’ and the three lightning bolts were a trademark of the Electrite brand. The name was made official in November, when a first pilot batch of five was accepted by the Home Army Ordnance Command. To mark the unusual occasion, key personnel connected with the design and manufacturing of the first batch were presented with petrol lighters – which Wielanier was making as a business before he turned to gun manufacturing. Each lighter was engraved with two legends: ‘Polish Industry, November 1943’ on one side and ‘Christening of Blyskawica on the other.

A Lightning for the Failed Tempest

In order to avoid compromising the entire program should the Germans discover one manufacturing plant, and to speed up the delivery, parts were contracted from over twenty various manufacturers scattered throughout the entire city. A chicken-wire factory, Franciszek Makowiecki & Co., located at 20 Grzybowski Square in Warsaw, was tasked with the final assembly and test-firing of the submachine guns. The clandestine SMG plant was situated under the workshop, in the cellars of a nearby Roman-Catholic Church of All Saints. An additional concrete-lined tunnel acted as an underground shooting range for functioning tests. The walls of the tunnel were doubled, with space left between the two layers of concrete walls to suppress the report of the firing guns, and a sandpit was installed behind a wall of wooden railway ties as a bullet stop. Five people were assembling and test-firing the guns: the testing being performed strictly during the rush hours to use the street noise as means of additional sound camouflage. All through this time where people were present in the clandestine plant, there was a special look-out on duty in the official workshop tasked with switching the warning light to alarm the assembly workers if anything suspicious was going on topside. The facilities were mined with explosive charges to blow the workshop up should Gestapo raid the premises and find the camouflaged entrance.

The first pilot order was for five prototype weapons to test the cooperation network and for additional function and troop testing. Upon the trial batch acceptance, the Diversionary Directorate of the Home Army’s HQ placed the main order for an unprecedented 1,000 domestic submachine guns to be manufactured and assembled at the clandestine workshop. Close on the heels of this first order, a second one for 300 more was placed. Until July, 1944, most part kits for the 1,000 SMG order were manufactured, and as much as 600 Blyskawicas were taken over and accepted by the Home Army Ordnance Command with an additional 100 assembled in July in preparation for the uprising in Warsaw. After the uprising started, the assembling shop with most of the component stocks were evacuated to a larger armorer’s workshop, no longer secret and located in the city center. As many as 40 weapons were completed there, the main limiting factor being – ironically – the shortage of Sten barrels, which had to be left in Teofil Czajkowski’s shop at Leszno Street, in the now German-held part of the city.

Production numbers are the subject of a heated debate. The approximately 755 completed SMGs number has been based on the actual Home Army units’ materiel reports, some of which might be missing. There could have been instances wherein the assembly shop workers, devoted people as they were, may have had various favors to pay for and could have stashed several guns for their own use, or hand over some of the Blyskawicas to friends in the other factions of the Polish underground, thus making the overall number slightly higher. But even if these reports are inflated (which is highly unlikely) and the number was, say 655 instead of 755, this is still a fantastic achievement. To invent, design, series-manufacture in clandestine shops of the occupied city and then assemble in several hundred units, test-fire and issue an entirely original model of a submachine gun to the underground army is still a marvel of organization. Only Sten look-alikes manufactured all over Europe could compete in numbers with the Blyskawica, but none of them was of original design. The relatively high number of the surviving Blyskawicas, some of which even got abroad (at least one as far as Prague in the Czech Republic, where for decades it was mislabeled as a German Sten copy, and another reported as far as Italy) coupled with a multitude of photographs, and even movie footage showing this little gun in action, supports the high production number. The Uprising newsreel had a feature showing the assembly workshop at Boduena Street during the insurrection with row upon row of receivers in various stages of completion. Unfortunately, the majority of the guns assembled prior to July were transferred to the Eastern provinces, where units were readied to stage the aborted Operation Tempest in front of the Red Army, and subsequently lost.

Ready weapons were smuggled out of the factory, 10 guns at a time, inside hollowed wire-mesh rolls. Initially, the new weapon was restricted for the general uprising mobilization storage only, and any use of them closer than 100 km from Warsaw was strictly forbidden in order to camouflage the manufacturing area. The overall Burza (Tempest) plan written in the winter of 1943/44 called for a general uprising rolling gradually throughout the country in front of the Soviet offensive, to disrupt German transport and defenses by tying up German forces away from the front thus helping the Soviet push – while at the same time showing the Soviets that the Polish Underground State led by the London-based Polish government-in-exile is a force to reckon with. These plans generally came to naught, because the Soviets were unwilling to make any use of the proposed help, and treated all non-communist armed outfits in their front zone as hostiles.

The Home Army’s zeal to help the Soviet offensive petered out after the Vilnius liberation on July 13, 1944. It was the first major pre-war Polish city in the path of the Red Army, and it was liberated by the joint Home Army and Soviet forces. The liberation festivities lasted no longer than three days, after which the Soviet front troops were replaced by the NKVD who arrested all AK soldiers and deported them to Siberian prison camps.

Plans were also drawn up to liberate the capital of Poland, Warsaw, in front of the Soviet offensive, as part of the Burza. The Blyskawica production was thus intensified in June and July 1944, with a daily output in the last days of July, reaching up to 25 submachine guns assembled, checked, and shipped to mobilization storage. After the Vilnius fiasco, the issue of the Warsaw uprising was temporarily put on hold, but on July 22, 1944, the Soviets installed a puppet government in Lublin, the first major Polish city behind the 1939 Soviet-German demarcation line, thus clearly signifying, that they intended on permanently severing all the Eastern provinces (54% of the pre-war territory) from Poland. This was a major threat to the survival of the nation, and a symbol was needed to mark the presence of the Underground State and boost the nation’s morale. The uprising plans were reinstated and thus on August 1, 1944, the Warsaw Uprising broke out.

On the evening of the first day of the Uprising, parts and unfinished guns remaining at the plant were transferred to a reserve workshop, due to the heavy fighting around the original site, which became a no-man’s-land for weeks to come. The production recommenced on August 4, and lasted till August 20, when the assembly workshop was bombed. The last Blyskawicas made there were often lacking the aluminum barrel jacket, replaced with a simple steel threaded plug securing the barrel.

Blyskawica from Muzzle to Stock Plate

The Blyskawica is a straight blowback submachine gun firing from an open bolt. It has a folding stock, a vertical magazine well and is chambered for the 9×19 mm Luger round.

The Blyskawica SMG’s main component groups are: upper receiver, barrel, lower receiver, magazine well group, breechblock group, return springs group and the magazine. The design kept complicated machining to a bare minimum with most component parts turned rather than milled and most connections made by fine-threads and machine screws, to avoid troublesome welding.

The manufacturing technology, governed by availability of the tooling and production methods, was very primitive and crude even by 1940s standards. The guns were made mostly of the machined tubing with as few soldered sheet-metal parts or aluminum castings as possible. Components were connected mostly by means of threads and screws, which made field-stripping a time-consuming procedure.

The upper receiver is made of the length of seamless plumbing tube, with retracting handle slot, ejection, magazine well and sear openings. The barrel supporting plug is bolted inside the front end, while the rear one is threaded for the end cap.

The lower receiver group includes a folding stock pivot, trigger mechanism, trigger guard and a wooden grip. The trigger mechanism is a self-contained entity, inserted as a whole into the lower receiver – exactly like in HK weapons.

The magazine well is welded of the two halves, with a magazine catch assembly screwed to the back of the housing. A projection of the magazine catch external frame extends inside the receiver to serve as an ejector. The magazine well is fastened to the receiver with two bolts.

The barrel is 197 mm long, patterned after the Sten and made fully interchangeable, having six lands and grooves with a right hand twist. It is inserted into the barrel plug and then secured by screwing an aluminum barrel jacket on top of the barrel retaining collar. The Sten type barrels were mass-produced by the Teofil Czajkowski’s workshop in Warsaw, along with other 9mm barrels. The quality of Czajkowski-made Sten barrels was dependant on available steel grade, but manufacturing standards were usually better than the original – especially the two-groove Mk 3 barrel.

Blyskawica has a heavy (720 gram), massive breechblock with the feed/extractor channel and sear notch cut in the underside, and a hollowed-out rear, where a driving spring with its guiding/dividing tube fits. The firing pin is rigidly installed in the bolt-face, as in the Sten. A dove-tailed channel for the retracting handle base is cut on the outside of the bolt. The breechblock is machined out of solid steel rod with driving ribs machined along it to ease friction and channel the dirt, much like in post-war George Patchett’s Sterling SMG. The ribbed bolt is in fact a reversal of the MP 40 layout, whereas the bolt is cylindrical, and the receiver tube is corrugated to form the ribs for the bolt to glide along. This feature was very highly rated by the Polish designers examining the captured German SMG, but limited production resources prevented copying that. With no sheet metal die-pressing technology at their disposal, Polish designers had to devise something ingenious to retain the useful feature, while at the same time keeping the technology as simple as possible. Blyskawica receivers were made out of length of seamless tubing, much stouter than sheet-metal, so the pressing of the ribs was out of question. Wielanier then proposed a logical alternative: if we can’t groove the tube for bolt interface, let’s groove the bolt for tube interface. And so the designers reversed the procedure. After turning the breechblocks on the lathe, these were moved to a milling machine and ribs were machined along it, resulting in a ribbed breechblock and a smooth inner receiver.

There is another feature also strikingly resembling the Sterling: a dual concentric return spring dubbing as a buffer. The longer (320 mm) outer spring of 22 mm diameter acts as a main driving spring, while the much shorter (110 mm) bumper spring of 15 mm diameter cushions the bolt in the rearmost position and helps it gain initial momentum for the next cycle. The bumper spring is inserted inside the guiding tube of the receiver plug, dividing it from the return spring resting on the outside of it. As with the bolt ribs, the dual springs arrangement was also a part of the MP 40 legacy rather than having anything in common with the Patchett, whose development was completely unknown to the Polish designers at that time. The spring telescope of the MP 40 contains two springs – a longer mainspring, and a much shorter bumper spring installed into the front portion of the telescoping mainspring cover, with a bumper casing incorporated into the firing pin base. Reproduction of the spring telescope was out of question due to the complexity, and the general redundancy of it. Again, something simpler was needed, and again, the answer was to reverse the MP 40 idea. Both springs were installed in the rear part of the receiver, with the outer return spring fitted around the receiver end cap/spring guide, and the inner bumper spring inserted into it.

Making the rear surface of the barrel plug and bolt’s front facing surfaces convex is another interesting feature of Blyskawica, enabling the dirt to accumulate there without hindering the action. Both surfaces scarcely made contact except for dry-firing, as the Blyskawica employed an advanced primer ignition scheme, common for submachine guns firing from an open bolt. In connection with the bolt ribs, it proved especially useful in urban warfare during the Warsaw Uprising when there was plenty of rubble and tons of brick dust in the air, enough to jam most other, more renowned submachine guns. Breechblock cylinders were turned on a lathe in pairs, disguised as shafts. Then ribs were machined into these, and spring channels drilled into either end. After these operations, the ribbed hollowed ‘shafts’ were cut in two on a lathe, using a triangular-shaped cutter tool, then all other openings (for the extractor claw, dovetailed cocking handle slot, bolt face with a firing pin shaft) were executed.

The trigger mechanism is of very simple, bordering on crude, design but nevertheless fitted with an advanced automatic trigger safety. The spring-loaded safety forms a part of the trigger linkage. The safety lever extends into the trigger guard, while the nose of the safety is inserted into a notch in the trigger mechanism casing, thus immobilizing the trigger. To operate the sear, the shooter has to insert his finger between the safety lever and the trigger to unblock the latter. There is no means to make the gun safe with the bolt closed or retracted – in fact, apart from the automatic trigger safety; there are no further safeties at all. This was infamous as a very failure-prone safety, though, and many accidental discharges were noted after bumping the stock on the rubbles in a ruined city. There is no fire-selector either, but the heavy bolt kept the rate of fire low enough to make squeezing-off single shots relatively easy.

The stock is folding, twin-strut, with struts made of steel flats with a cast aluminum stock plate. The stock is folding underneath the receiver, and its length of pull is governed by the measurements of the receiver, which makes it a little short for the average shooter. A different butt-plate, hollowed to clear the magazine (like in AKS-47) would have helped to lengthen the stock. Here again the influence of the MP 40 is obvious – it folds under the receiver, even though a top-folder like the Soviet PPS 42/43 or a side-folder, like Reising 55 or Sten Mk IV, would enable to use a longer, more comfortable, stock.

The sights were rudimentary, with a peep rear sight and an inverted V, very low front post, difficult to shoot precisely at anything more than possibly 30 yards away. These are clearly patterned after the Sten sights, but reveal precious little experience with the peep sights on part of the designers. This is hardly surprising, as these were a novel feature for the Polish military weapon – in fact Blyskawica was the first and only Polish peep-sighted martial firearm until the advent of the PM-84P of 1990s. The peep itself was much too wide, of almost ghost ring proportions, while the pyramid front post was way too small, making it almost impossible to aim precisely. The peep is located on the receiver plug stop, on top of a dovetailed projection of the lower receiver, while the post is situated on the barrel plug, bolted to the receiver. The placement of sights on separate parts with a degree of play between them made precise aiming difficult, because it was possible to assemble the SMG with sights out of the line.

The magazine is of typical Schmeisser staggered-row, single-position system, widely employed for the German (MP 28, 38/40/41), as well as the British (Sten, Lanchester), the American (M3 Grease Gun) and the Soviet (PPSh 41) SMGs of the era. It has a wide body, containing a staggered row of rounds, culminating with a conical upper part, channeling the two rows into a single position feed. Inside the body runs a sheet-metal follower, actuated by a follower spring. The magazine is closed with a magazine bottom plate, locked by a projection of the spring pressure plate inserted into the bottom plate opening. Most reliable and coveted were the airdropped originals, as the Polish copy thereof often lacked in quality, mostly because of the follower springs made of improper – but readily available – wire.

Elementary Disassembly Procedure

1. Unload, clear, check and double check the weapon.
2. Unscrew receiver end plug bolt.
3. Unscrew the lower receiver retaining screw, then slide down the lower receiver until it separates from the upper. NOTE: the actual Blyskawica in the photos was shrapnel-damaged and the field-repair includes replacing of the torn-off retaining screw bracket with a curved brace held by two side screws. Check the cross-section drawing for correct shape and position of the retaining screw.
4. Unscrew the upper receiver end plug and withdraw the springs.
5. Unscrew the cocking handle retaining screw, separate the handle from the bolt and remove, then withdrew the breechblock.
6. Unscrew the barrel jacket and pull the barrel out of the receiver.
7. If necessary, unscrew the trigger pack retaining screws from the lower receiver and take the mechanism casing out.
8. No further stripping is needed or recommended. To assemble, reverse the above procedure.

Imperfect, But Genuine

For years the Blyskawica has often been mistaken for a German gun, which it never was. Even if authors do recognize the Polish pedigree of the gun, they most often mistakenly label it as a Sten copy (see World’s SMGs and Machine Pistols Vol.2a) – which is simply not true. The only Sten parts were magazine and barrel incorporated into the design only because these parts were already being series-manufactured by the underground factories in huge quantities, and their choice was governed by logistical factors, not a need, or desire, to copy them.

The chief disadvantage, especially in the dusty urban warfare conditions, was a time-consuming and complicated field-stripping procedure, calling for driving out numerous, small, easy to loose screws. The micro-grooved threads were vulnerable to dust, often jammed and got torn-off during field-stripping or reassembly by use of the excessive force. The worst idea of it all was the aluminum barrel jacket. In theory, it was designed to transfer and dissipate the heat from the barrel, but in practice no one in the underground had enough ammunition to make the barrel glow. The downsides of the aluminum barrel jackets were many, but two should be enough to get rid of it. First, it was left “in the white” and shined on, prematurely warning the enemy of the shooter’s position. This is confirmed by the original Warsaw Uprising photos – in most cases a shining barrel jacket is the first thing enabling us to recognize the Blyskawica submachine gun held by an Uprising soldier. Second, it was held by the same micro-grooved thread that secured all other components, and thus – if the dirt was enough to jam and damage the threads cut into steel components, then steel thread was sure to wear and tear the aluminum barrel jacket. These were frequently damaged, and after the threads were obliterated, the gun could be thrown away as well since it was the barrel jacket that held the barrel inside the receiver and took the hammering from the heavy bolt if dry-fired. Some late September and early October 1944 photos show at least one Blyskawica fitted with an exposed barrel and a short steel plug screwed into the receiver instead of the aluminum barrel shroud.

The abysmal sights could have been easily rectified by placing both sights onto the upper receiver. The sighting radius would be shorter by no more than an inch, and both would be finally placed in line. With a smaller peep and higher, pillar-contour, shrouded front sight, the Blyskawica would be very nice to shoot and a lot more accurate gun. When I fired a rare shootable survivor (held at the Police HQ Forensic Lab, unfortunately not allowing any photography) I found it a real pleasure to shoot, well balanced, and grouping nicely – even if a foot up and to the right off the aiming mark at 15 meters.

For no obvious reason the cocking handle of the Blyskawica was a very complicated affair, set into a dovetailed machined channel on the outer surface of the bolt and screw-retained there, with no provisions for securing the cocking handle in front or retracted position to preclude accidental discharge (AD) incidents. This is unreasonable at best, especially as the Sten with its rod-like cocking handle was one of the ‘organ donors’ – by copying of the Mk 5 push-thru handle with its projection inserted into the receiver hole, many later accidents could have been avoided.

But generally speaking, for the first gun ever designed by the two men never even remotely connected with the firearms industry, this is a remarkably original and successful design feat. Despite the primitive technology, surviving examples seem to be of exceptionally good workmanship and standard of fit and finish.

These guns were not enough to win the victory for the insurgents, who fought a 63-day long gallant and deadly battle after being left to their own devices by the approaching Soviets, who were watching idly the city’s ordeal from the other side of the Vistula River. Stalin ordered his huge summer 1944 offensive to a screeching halt, in order to let the Nazis sort out the Poles before he occupied their capital. Betrayed insurgents paid a tremendous price for their audacity, as the Germans pummeled the city with shells, bombs, arson, and controlled demolition (often on top of the inhabitants herded into cellars prior to explosion). Around 200,000 people died, 90% of them civilian non-combatants, caught between the rock and the hard place. The Western Allies were unable – or unwilling – to make Uncle Joe change his mind and save Warsaw. About 700 submachine guns, be it even of the most technically advanced mode, were not enough to secure the victory against such tremendous odds.

Specifications

Weapon designation: Blyskawica
Country of origin: Poland
Caliber: 9×19 Luger
Type of operation: Blowback
Type of fire: Fully automatic
Length w/stock retracted: 556 mm (21.89 in)
Barrel length: 197 mm (British Sten barrel)
Weight, unloaded: 3.22 kg (7.1 lbs)
Cyclic rate of fire: 450-500 rpm
Length w/stock extended: 730 mm (28.74 in)
Weight, loaded: 3.83 kg (8.44 lbs)
Type of feed mechanism: Stamped sheet metal box magazine, staggered row, single position feed
Magazine capacity: 32 rd (British Sten magazine)
Weight of loaded magazine: 0.615 kg (1.355 lbs)
Number of lands and grooves: 6
Rifling twist direction: RHS
Approx. muzzle velocity: 360 mps (2067 fps)
Sight, front: Blade, inverted V
Sight, rear: Fixed aperture, set for 100 m (110 yd)
Safety arrangements: The spring loaded safety lever blocks the trigger unless rotated forward by a finger reaching for the trigger. No other safety arrangements.
Means of controlling operation: The retracting handle is located on the right side of the receiver.

As with all nations involved in World War II, propaganda on the home front was essential and instilled a sense of camaraderie, loyalty, pride and hope by the use of posters, articles, speeches, films and song.

The Russian Model 1910 Maxim machine gun was the standard heavy machine gun used by Russia in World War II. Produced in the hundreds of thousands, it is the iconic heavy automatic weapon of the Soviet army and is revered for the role it played in helping turn the tide of battle of German aggression on the eastern front.

Recently discovered is an old Russian World War II song from a scratched and muffled monophonic recording entitled Tale of the Two Maxims. Recorded in 1943, the music was by Salomon Katz and the lyrics by Vladimir Dykhovichnyi. It tells the heroic story of a machine gunner named Maxim and his Maxim machine gun. Inseparable, the two Maxims fight for the glory of the Mother Land. And though Maxim the gunner is wounded and the Maxim gun damaged by a grenade, one is healed and the other repaired to both return to service to once again fight the Germans.

Both the Russian lyrics and the (rough) English translation are provided for your enjoyment. Additionally, the original Russian recording is available for your listening pleasure and may be heard by visiting the Small Arms Review website at www.smallarmsreview.com.

(Thanks to Leszek Erenfeicht in Poland for uncovering this rare bit of history and passing it on to us.)

Tale of the Two Maxims

The beech-trees are rustling out on the border.
There, were we now had to fight,
Once two good friends were serving together,
And both by the name of Maxim.

One of them was a
machine gunner,
Folks, please greet my
friend, Maxim,
And the other was a
medium machine gun,
Also by the name of Maxim.

Joined fast by the friendly bonds,
They both took part in the fray,
Inseparable comrades-at-arms,
Both my friends, both Maxims.

Very precisely aims the gunner,
And the Maxim unleashes a thunderous hail,
“Tak-tak-tak” –
says the machine gunner,
“Taka-taka-tak” –
agrees his machine gun.

Once, when they both
failed to duck
from the shrapnel of
the German grenade,
The machine gunner was wounded, boys,
And the machine gun
also got damaged.

The days of therapy
happily passed by,
And his little friend
was also repaired,
So they both return to
the front now,
And as inseparable
as ever before.

Fighting there is getting
hot and bitter,
Hails of bullets are
ripping the soil,
But both friends are
still serving together,
And they both are
known as Maxims.

Once again the gunner is
aiming very precisely,
And the Maxim just
thunders away,
“Tak-tak-tak” –
says the machine gunner,
“Taka-taka-tak” –
agrees his machine gun.

There are few people intimately involved with the gun industry who have not had a favorite 1911 or two. Testing the latest .45 ACP offering from DoubleStar Arms started as a familiar exercise but quickly turned into a new and exciting experience.

When the Starnes family of J&T Distributing and DoubleStar Arms decided to make the leap from their signature black rifle line and jump into the .45 ACP 1911 business, they had a specific goal in mind. Their business plan was to combine the quality and performance of the “old school” 1911s that were made one at a time, and offer them at a price much closer to the “production line” guns offered today.

With no attention to detail overlooked, the shooter is greeted to an upgraded experience before even opening the packaging. Each DoubleStar 1911 is shipped in a quality 5.11 pistol case, custom embroidered with DoubleStar’s trademark winged dragon. The 8.5×11 padded soft case is made of 1050D Nylon and incorporates 5 magazine/accessory loops and lockable YKK zippers. The pistol is stored inside, in a separate compartment to prevent marring.

When the case is opened and the pistol is removed there are several obvious upgrades indicating at first glance that “this is not your father’s Colt .45.” One of the most pronounced features is the 1.5-inch Mil-Std 1913 Picatinny rail incorporated in the receiver in front of the trigger guard. This rail adds a wide range of mounted accessories not usually available for simple use on this particular pistol line. You then notice the deep front and rear serrations on the slide. When pulling the slide to the rear to charge or clear the action, the serrations increase the grip strength several-fold making it safer and easier to use under any conditions. The next visual sensation is the addition of Simonich Gunner Grips from Strider Knives, Inc. Originally manufactured for MCSOCOM DET1, these deeply scalloped grips provide a safe and comfortable no-slip surface that seems to magically adhere to your shooting hand and is naturally complemented by a lightly stippled surface on the front of the magazine well and the stippled mainspring housing. As exciting as these initially obvious upgrades are, they are just the beginning of the DoubleStar 1911 package.

The frame is forged from 4140 steel and meticulously finished to exacting tolerances. The frame and slide is matte finished with a Black Manganese Phosphate (Parkerized) for optimal protection and wear reduction.

The trigger is a Greider Precision match trigger; CNC machined from top-quality aluminum billet and includes a stop screw to prevent over travel. We measured the trigger pull with a Lyman Electronic Pull Gauge and it broke consistently between 3 pounds 1 ounce and 3 pounds 14 ounces.

The “delivery system” is a Storm Lake 5-inch barrel made from solid 416 stainless steel and hardened to 40-42 HRC. It is cut broach rifled with a 6-groove, 1 in 16 inch right hand twist.

The barrel is guided by the Caspian Arms slide and topped with Novak Low Mount White Dot sights.

Rounds are fed from an 8-round Novak ACT-MAG giving the DoubleStar 1911 Combat Pistol an impressive 9-round capacity. It slides smoothly into the lightly beveled magazine well and locks securely into place with ease.

Also deserving mention is the extended beavertail grip safety, skeletonized combat hammer and arched mainspring. The thumb safety is large enough to find and employ with ease without being large enough to be cumbersome.

Range Time

The gun was examined and readied for shooting. 100 rounds of Wolf 230-grain FMJ was used during the testing. The firing points ranged from 10 yards to 25 yards with the practical distance of 10-yards being determined the most realistic distance for test firing. After shooting an entire box of ammo to check for little more than feel and function, a new target was utilized with 6 orange dots for separate points of aim. Since the magazine capacity is 8 rounds it was decided that 6 groups of 8 shots would be fired and recorded for accuracy. All shooting was standing and off-hand, in a weaver stance. Every group measured under 4 inches with many under 3 inches. The shooting was so consistent that no two groups could be confused with each other. Since it was common for 2 or 3 rounds to cloverleaf the same hole it looks like some groups are less than 8 rounds until closely inspected. That is fantastic performance for a new out-of-the-box gun, with plinking grade ammunition and fired at a fast pace.

Conclusions

The fit, finish and function of the DoubleStar 1911 Combat Pistol left nothing to be desired. The deeply serrated slide was effortless to charge to the rear. The Strider grip panels combined with the stippled mag-well and back-strap provided for a comfortable and positive grip. The trigger break was smooth, clean and crisp allowing the shooter to focus more on the other essentials of pistol shooting instead of wondering where the break would be. It was consistent and predictable. The Novak sights are large enough to pick up easily but small enough to carry without getting caught on clothing and holster material. The Picatinny rail is useful and rigid since it is part of the frame, and will open all kinds of possibilities not previously available to standard 1911-style pistol shooters. The performance was excellent for any pistol and quite amazing for one fired as pulled out of the factory packaging with plinking ammo. The bottom line is it looks nice, feels great, goes BANG every time you squeeze the trigger and places the round in its intended location. The large caliber and higher magazine capacity is just a little ballistic icing on the cake.

DoubleStar Corporation
Kentucky, USA
Ph: (859) 745-1757
Fax: (859) 745-4638
www.star15.com

DoubleStar 1911 Specifications

Manufacturer: DoubleStar Arms
Model: 1911 Combat
Caliber: .45 ACP
Action: Semiautomatic, recoil operated
Magazine capacity: 8 rounds
Overall width: 1.3 inches
Overall length 8.375 inches
Barrel length: 5 inches
Rifling: 6-groove right hand twist
Weight, empty: 2.5 pounds
Finish: Parkerized
MSRP $1,199

By John Brown

A lot has been written about an amnesty and all of the issues surrounding the potential to have another amnesty as soon as possible. The plain truth of the matter is that isn’t going to happen, not anytime in the near future. In this article the NFATCA will to tell you why it won’t and the reasons supporting our logic.

Nearly two years ago the hope of a new amnesty was started by now retired Assistant Deputy Director Carson Carroll at the SHOT Show in Miami. During a brief meeting with the industry Carson stated that he knew a lot of people supported having another amnesty period and that ATF would be assigning special personnel to perform the research necessary to investigate the requirements allowing the industry and ATF to move forward with some form of amnesty. After the Miami show, Ernie Lintner with the NFA Branch was assigned the task of researching thousands of criminal cases to ascertain if any of the potential weapons that would be eligible for an amnesty have ever been used in the commission of a crime. That research took months to complete and the final results were never revealed for obvious reasons of confidentiality. If only one case involved the use of a weapon that would be eligible for an amnesty program, that case would likely kill the potential for such a program.

In addition to the potential for a criminal case ruining the chances for an amnesty we faced a much bigger problem: the current political environment. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that, even with a clean slate in the criminal case arena, someone had to take all of the evidence forward to Attorney General Eric Holder. At this stage let your common sense take over and figure out why this would not be such a bright idea. Take into consideration that most of our congressional representatives are not aware of the many latitudes we are afforded in the NFA world and this one action could very well jeopardize the freedoms we currently have.

Now we could act like a bull in a china closet and push everything forward and take our chances; but personally, I think that would be a suicide mission for an effort that could and should be tabled for a friendlier political environment. Remember: “Patience is a virtue.” Although we can never know the final results of the criminal cases, and whether or not any of the proposed amnesty weapons have ever been used in the commission of a crime, the timing for moving forward with an amnesty is all wrong. That is the plain and simple truth about having another amnesty today. The current realm of politics in power in Washington today does not support any of us carrying the amnesty torch forward with the Attorney General.

I want to make certain that everyone knows that we owe a huge debt of gratitude to ATF for taking the amnesty ball and running with it on everyone’s behalf. We should all be thankful that they worked so closely with the industry and we all agreed that the timing is all wrong.

In the right political environment, with the right administration, we could and we should move forward with such a worthwhile endeavor. The truth is the timing couldn’t be worse and no one wants to take the risk of losing more ground than we have jointly gained in the last several years. So with an ounce of patience we, the industry and ATF, will continue to track this action and the correct timing for all of us.

This is the right organization that can keep you tuned in and fairly represent you in all matters of NFA concern, whether it’s an amnesty program, or any one of fourteen programs the NFATCA has advanced with ATF in the last twelve months. The NFATCA is truly the only organization that can and is representing your best interests in the worst storm we have ever seen on the political front. What amazes me is the simple fact that many of you today still have not joined us and supported our efforts. I would only say it is time for you to take a good hard look at where you are going to get the best bang for your NFA buck when it comes to protecting your interests.

Time to join the ranks of the NFATCA if for no other reason but to keep informed on who and what is happening with your NFA interests. Log on today at www.nfatca.org and join us today.

US Night Vision Introduces the ATAC 360° Camera

US Night Vision Corporation has announced the launch of its new mobile/marine based pan/tilt Thermal Imaging Camera. Built for both law enforcement and commercial markets the ATAC 360° offers visual clarity in any lighting condition. US Night Vision has chosen FLIR Systems, Inc., and Golight, Inc. as its core component providers based on strengths in their respective industries. The ATAC 360° is a low cost, high resolution thermal imaging system that is controlled by the touch of a button. Utilizing a 320×240 resolution FLIR (Forward Looking Infra-Red) camera, the system can see man sized targets from over 1,500 feet. The thermal core uses long-wave infrared sensor technology and can easily see through smoke, fog, rain and many other atmospheric conditions that could not typically be penetrated with other technologies. The ATAC 360° offers full 360° rotation and 135° tilt for complete situational awareness. Models include either a hard wired toggle control or wireless hand-held or dash mounted remote controls. The ATAC 360° is offered as a turnkey package that includes all items necessary for installation and use. At only $6,995 the ATAC 360° is currently the lowest priced system on the market to date. For more information please contact US Night Vision, Dept. SAR, 3845 Atherton Road, Suite 9, Rocklin, CA 95786. Phone: (800) 500-4020. Fax: (916) 663-5986. Their website is www.usnightvision.com.

New Redfield Value Priced Revolution Riflescope

Redfield’s new line of Revolution riflescopes offers an unmatched array of optical, mechanical and functional features in the commonly affordable $130 retail price range. The Revolution comes in 2-7x33mm, 3-9x40mm, 3-9x50mm and 4-12x40mm models, each with a black matte finish and either a 4-Plex or Accu-Range reticle. Key features of the new scope include the Illuminator Lens System with premium lenses and vapor-deposition multi-coatings for a bright, crisp sight picture. The system is designed to provide superior light transmission in the critical low-light/blue wavelength conditions. Also, the Accu-Trac windage and elevation adjustment system with resettable precision stainless steel 1/4-MOA finger click adjustments for superior repeatability and reliability. The scopes Rapid Target Acquisition (RTA) lockable eyepiece helps the hunter quickly find the “sweet spot” behind the scope and shoot with greater accuracy. The Accu-Range reticle option provides hold points to 500 yards for simple, long-range shooting precision. The new scope also comes with a coupon for a free Scopecoat neoprene scope cover ($20 retail value) with the purchase of Leupold rings. Best of all is the fact that Revolution riflescopes are built in their Oregon facility by American workers. Revolution riflescopes have a one-inch maintube machined from lightweight aircraft-grade aluminum, and are nitrogen filled to make them waterproof, fog proof and shock proof. Exhaustive testing in the factory and field ensures the scopes’ durability. They are covered by the Redfield Full Lifetime Warranty. For more information on the value priced scopes please contact Redfield in care of Leupold & Stevens, Inc., Dept. SAR, 14400 Northwest Greenbriar Parkway 9700, P.O. Box 688, Beaverton, OR 97006. Phone: (877) 798-9686. Website: www.redfield.com.

KNS Precision Introduces AK-47, SKS and Variant Front Sights

KNS Precision, Inc. is proud to announce the release of its new AK-47, SKS and variants front sights. KNS Precision has produced six new sights for the AK-47 family in the following sizes: Standard Post .034, .052 and .072 diameter and the Ball Post in diameters .034, .052 and .072. The sights are precision machined from high quality steel and then finished with black oxide. The new sights are available as individual sights or as a six-sight package. The KNS Precision AK-47, SKS and Variants Sights use the standard AK-47/SKS front sight adjustment tool for installation and sight adjustment. As with all KNS Precision manufactured products, the sights come with a lifetime guarantee against defects, breakage and loss. For more information or to place an order please contact them at KNS Precision, Inc., Dept. SAR, 112 Marschall Creek Road, Fredericksburg, TX 78624. Phone: (830) 997-0000. Fax: (830) 997-1443. Visit their website at: www.knsprecisioninc.com.

BLACKHAWK! Ergonomic Duty Belt Harness for Law Enforcement

BLACKHAWK! Products Group, the world leader in manufacturing tactical gear for the military, law enforcement, industrial security and outdoor markets has responded to the growing concern in the law enforcement community related to discomfort and injuries from long-term use of duty belts and related gear. In the past several decades, officers have been required to carry more and more items on their duty belts. As a result there has been an increase in chronic neuro-muscular injuries to the hips and lower back. Several studies and articles have been published on methods to relieve the discomfort faced by officers wearing heavy duty belts. With a grant funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), BLACKHAWK! developed and tested an Ergonomic Duty Belt Harness that shifts the weight of the equipment-laden duty belt from the hip structure of the officer to the shoulders. This harness fits under the duty shirt and with a minor modification to the duty shirt, attaches to the duty belt. The Ergonomic Duty Belt Harness fits a broad range of body types and body armor packages. There is no need to purchase a specific type of body armor to accommodate the Ergonomic Duty Belt Harness. There are no moving parts to fail which means officers can wear the Ergonomic Duty Belt Harness in confidence and health every day on the job. They are available in two sizes that are adjustable to fit almost every officer for an MSRP of $79.99. For more information contact BLACKHAWK!, Dept. SAR, 6160 Commander Parkway, Norfolk, VA 23502. Phone: (800) 694-5263. Fax: (888) 830-2013. Their website is www.blackhawk.com.

Winchester Announces New Shotshell Personal Defense Ammo

Winchester Ammunition launches the most innovative line of personal defense shotshell ammunition in 2010 with two new products: the Supreme Elite PDX1 shotshells in 410 and 12 gauge. Both loads deliver threat-stopping power and offer customers more ammunition choices for personal defense. Highly effective in both shotguns and 410 compatible handguns, the PDX1 in 410 gauge features a distinctive black hull and black oxide high-base head and combines three plated Defense Disc projectiles and 12 pellets of plated BB shot. The result is the ideal personal protection load for short range engagement with the performance needed to stop threats. This load is also suitable for varmint hunting and pest control. Designed for use in the Taurus Judge, this new personal defense round provides maximum protection at close range. This ammo is available in 10-round boxes. The 12-gauge Supreme Elite PDX1 features a distinctive black hull, black oxide high-base head and 3 pellets of Grex buffered 00 plated buckshot nested on top of a 1 oz. rifled slug. The result is the ideal, tight patterning personal defense load. The slug/buckshot combination provides optimum performance at short and longer ranges while compensating for aim error. Both loads will be available in February of 2010. For more information you can contact them at Winchester Ammunition, Division Olin Corp., Dept. SAR, 427 North Shamrock Street, East Alton, IL 62024. Phone: (618) 258-2365. Fax: (618) 258-3609. Website: www.winchester.com.

New 10/22 Accessories from Shooters Ridge

Shooters Ridge, a leader in shooting supports and accessories, expands their line of 10/22 accessories with several items designed for the popular Ruger 10/22 Long Rifle. Each of these products is currently available to consumers looking to upgrade or customize their 10/22. Based on last year’s response to their 10/22 thumbhole stocks and .920 barrels, Shooters Ridge now combines them into one convenient offering with the new 10/22 Stock & Barrel Combo (MSRP: $242.49 – $377.49). Ergonomically designed to be natural pointers, the Shooters Ridge .920” thumbhole stocks feature: synthetic construction for weather proof performance, steel pillar for repeatable accuracy, high cheek piece and a soft recoil pad for shooting comfort.

Combo Pack stocks are available in either standard black or Wild Web patterns. The .920” barrels are offered in stainless steel fluted or blue and feature 1/16 inch right-hand twist, recessed target crowns with 45 degree break and the ability to achieve MOA 1/2 inch groups at 50 yards when using matchgrade ammunition. Shooters Ridge also expands their 10/22 stock lineup with four new camo patterns scheduled for release in 2009 (MSRP: $154.49 – $172.49). Shooters can choose between pink and blue Realtree Hardwoods HD, white Mothwing or Digital Woodland Camo. Each stock features the same qualities as the existing line but with distinctive new looks. Whether shooting the factory magazine or a Shooters Ridge high-capacity magazine, the new 10/22 Magazine Release (MSRP: $5.95) allows shooters to quickly and cleanly insert a fresh, loaded magazine for continuous action. Easy to install, this new release tab incorporates a pull action that is easy to operate even when wearing gloves. For more information contact Shooters Ridge, Dept. SAR, N5549 County Trunk Z, Onalaska, WI 54650. Their website is www.shootersridge.com.