“Spring 1941… operation makes sense only if we defeat the state in one go. Gaining of certain space is not sufficient. A stop in the winter is precarious.” General chief of staff Franz Halder noted these words after a discussion with Hitler on 31, July 1940 into his diary. When they let three million German soldiers march eastward in daybreak of 22 June 1941, Hitler and his generals believed that they could wrestle down the colossus Russia within a few months. And the first successes seemed to give them right. After the first victorious battles, Halder wrote into his diary on 3 July 1941: “It is probably not too much said, if I state that the campaign was won within 14 days.” Fears were struck into the wind. Even General Paulus found no hearing with his warnings and suffered a rebuff from Hitler: “I do no longer want to hear this prattle over troops in the winter. Feeling concerned about it is absolutely unnecessary. It will give no winter campaign.”

All of this had the consequence that the German troops trekked towards the east without the least preparations for a winter war. And so it came as it had to come: At the end of October the mud period began, followed by the onset of winter. Without winter clothing for the troop and without antifreeze for the engines, the dash of advance diminished. The victory, believed within one’s grasp, slipped into far distance. The homeland began to collect winter clothes, in great haste the technical designers tried to hold the war machine on running by technical improvements and the magazine “Of the front for the Front” got filled with words of advice and construction manuals for all kinds of aids for weapons and equipment. That way a lot interesting and little known accessories for hand-held weapons and machine guns were created.

A serious problem for shooters was carrying thick gloves. Often they couldn’t grasp and pull the trigger of their weapons without yanking the gloves off. As a remedy, the Bayerische Berg-, Hütten und Salzwerke-AG in Sonthofen had developed a winter trigger for the MG 34 early in 1941. It was a lever-construction that could simply be attached to the sling hole of the grip without changes in the weapon. Despite its usefulness, no standard manufacturing took place. Early in January 1943 a construction design of an only easily simplified version of this device appeared in an information magazine for weapon masters: They should build the necessary triggers themselves.

Early in November 1943, an industrially manufactured winter trigger of simplest design was officially introduced. This was formed out of a piece of sheet metal and could be attached to both the MG 34 and the MG 42. Only the two retaining split pins had to be put in slightly different holes. On 7 October, 1943, the instruction D.1868 was issued: “Instructions for the winter trigger machine gun 34 and 42.” The only known manufacturer is the George Sindermann works in Mallmitz/Schlesien (secret letter code “chs”).

Although the device proved well, there was still a lack of means to turn it off: It often jammed in the pressed position when shooting and the MG continued firing after releasing the trigger (a runaway gun). The firing of short bursts was hardly possible and the endangerment of their own troops not insignificant. It was therefore recommended to the weapon masters to rivet a leaf spring inside the winter trigger, which forced it away from the grip when released. Production numbers are unknown, but they were probably very low. In November 1944, the magazine “Of the front for the Front” showed guidance for building a completely simple winter trigger; consisting only of a small piece of wood and a little wire.

Other weapons were not better off. Even for the standard rifle of the German soldier, the carbine 98k, a winter-trigger wasn’t introduced until 10 October, 1944. It was a simple sheet metal product, which was put laterally into the trigger guard and secured with a counter plate. Small differences of the trigger guard dimensions rendered a use to the MP 40 submachine gun and the MP 44 assault rifle impossible. For these two weapons a slightly deviating variant had to be manufactured. In order to avoid mistakes with the similar looking devices, they were marked with respectively with “Mod 98”or “MP.”

If the soldier now had a winter trigger on his MG, he still had to ensure that his weapon was always operational even with the snow and great cold. A cover of canvas (called “Systemschützer” / system-protector), which was industrially manufactured both for the MG 34 and for the MG 42, provided a certain protection against penetrating snow. It was wound around the receiver and fastened with leather straps. In addition there was a muzzle cap from plastic, which could be shot through in case of emergency. While there was an officially introduced canvas cover for the K.98k likewise, the owner of MP 40 had to make their covers themselves following guidance in “Of the front for the Front.”

A remedy for problems caused by the great cold was more difficult. Despite advancement of the lubrication oils, weapons often froze at temperatures of -30 to -40 °C (-22 to -40 °F) and were not operational at the crucial moment. Adding gasoline or kerosene did not always help and often the soldiers had to urinate on their weapon in order to loosen the frozen parts and to prevent breakage of now brittle system parts. This problem brought an ingenious weapon technical sergeant named Karl-Heinz Raschke on the scene: He designed a preheater for the MG 34 and the invention was published in the magazine “Of the front for the Front” in May 1944. The preheater was a sheet metal box to put on the MG housing from above. Heat was generated by a small quantity of charcoal. Holes in the preheater let warm air waft to the MG housing, which was warmed up in this way. The heat was barely sufficient in order to ensure a perfect function on the one hand and to avoid an annealing of the system’s springs on the other hand. An advantage was that the MG could remain completely oiled in the emplacement. With suddenly approaching enemy the preheater could be removed quickly and only the ammunition belt had to be inserted into the weapon. When not in use, the preheater could provide good services as a shelter stove.

A further problem in winter fighting with machine guns is the sinking of the bipod in the snow. No precautions had been met before the Russian campaign. Not until October 1944, the winter combat training and experimental group of the troops made first attempts for solving the problem with bipods in the snow. A number of different constructions were tested extensively and nearly three months later, on 15 January, 1945, a solution was found: Width of materials (tents, burlap bags, etc.) proved better than an under-layer made of netting, because the latter sunk into the snow when the weapon vibrated during shooting. It was suggested to communicate this solution to the weapon masters in the field. But those had already gained their own experiences after so many years of war. Already in June 1944, a building guidance for a carrying frame that could also be used as a simple gun carriage was published in “Of the front for the Front.” The Norwegian army backpack formed the basis, which was supplemented by an MG mounting plate and two foldout snow plates. Finds in Norway and Finland prove that this construction was actually copied and used. In some cases even with some modifications of mountings for reserve belt drums.

Still in February 1945, the infantry school at Döberitz got an invention proposal for sledge skids for the heavy MG tripod. Despite the simple building method, the trials resulted in a full field serviceability without impairment of the stability. And both in the snow, and on sand or grass ground, the skids eased getting in position substantially, because the soldier could push the tripod from behind. So far by the weight of the weapon and the spikes under the tripod-legs the necessary jerky “forward-throwing” of the tripod could be avoided in such a way.

Once again it proves to be true that emergency makes for inventive action.

Evolution of the Submachine Gun
Awarded “Best Display” by NRA at the
Annual Meetings and Exhibits in St. Louis, 2012

Every spring, the National Rifle Association holds its Annual Meetings and Exhibits in a different American city. Firearm related vendors present their wares or services for 3 days of exciting 2nd Amendment celebration. This year, St. Louis hosted the event during the weekend of April 13-15, and a record 73,740 NRA members attended. NRA affiliated collector organizations are encouraged to participate, and the NRA sets aside one row of exhibit space for club displays on various firearm subjects. In 1960, a perpetual silver cup trophy was introduced for the best display, which is now a coveted award inspiring tremendous competition.

The American Thompson Association (TATA) won the best display trophy this year, for an unprecedented third year in a row. In fact, TATA has won the award 4 out of the last 6 years at NRA. This fact is well known among the competing clubs, and there is one individual who deserves most of the credit for the success trend, and his name is Tracie Hill. Mr. Hill is the author of The Ultimate Thompson Book, published in 2009 by Collector Grade Publications. He is supported by a cadre of dedicated TATA members who attend the events at their own expense, lend firearms to the display, help to transport and erect the display, provide tours, answer questions, and subsequently dismantle the display at the conclusion of the event. The amount of work required to present a top notch display is considerable, and attention to detail is closely calculated. TATA’s displays are crowd pleasers, and this year’s display theme was “Evolution of the Submachine Gun.”

The highlight of the display was an example of the first submachine gun ever produced, the Italian Villar Perosa in 9mm Glisenti caliber. Invented in 1914, and originally fielded as an aircraft machine gun that happened to be chambered for a pistol cartridge, the weapon saw little success when used during WWI. Aircraft use of the weapon proved its ineffectiveness, and several other mounting schemes were attempted for the side by side double submachine gun. One method involved mounting the weapon to a soldier’s chest, but the arrangement was cumbersome, and probably attracted immediate return fire. The Villar Perosa, and several other submachine guns, represented the first of 4 different generations of submachine guns displayed at the show.

First generation submachine guns are characterized by intricate design and high quality machining, and finishes similar to fine firearms of the era. The Bergmann MP 18 was another example on display, including some rare accessories, such as the folding mud cover for the muzzle, and a snail drum magazine end cover. The MP 18 was known as a machine pistol at the time of its invention and use during WWI. The term “submachine gun” was not coined until the Thompson was invented, which missed WWI by a few months. Two Model of 1919 Thompson submachine guns were featured, as well as a Model of 1921 Thompson, serial number 41; the first Colt Thompson manufactured out of 15,000 produced between 1921-22. Another Thompson displayed was a Model of 1928A1, produced by Savage for Lend-Lease to Britain, which featured the rare spotlight illuminator device, which attached to the horizontal foregrip, sort of like an early Picatinny rail flashlight mount.

Second generation submachine guns introduced designs for greater ease of mass manufacturing, prior to, and during WWII. Examples presented were a Suomi M31, with its unique, high capacity magazine designs, such as the coffin magazine, and the Suomi drum. During the Finnish-Russian Winter War of 1939-40, the Russians learned of the effectiveness of the M31 through significant casualties suffered from it, and mimicked the design in their own later PPSh 41 submachine gun, of which more than 6 million were produced. An example PPSh 41 was displayed, along with what many attendees recognized as the main German submachine gun of WWII, the MP 40. Four different types of Sten submachine guns were featured, including a Mk 1, Mk II, Mk III, and Mk V. The Sten set the record for the most cost effective submachine gun design, and its de-centralized manufacturing by scores of individual parts makers around Britain represented a strategic choice in order to reduce potential risks of total loss of its production capacity as the Germans continued to bomb Britain each night. Sten production eventually totaled between 3 and 4 million units. A U.S. M3 “Greasegun” rounded out the second generation examples, and several stories came forth as veterans who used the weapon during its service history into the 1990s could attest to its slower rate of fire, and .45 caliber effectiveness.

Following WWII, a return to higher quality manufacturing techniques occurred, and design became focused on better ergonomics. The first example displayed was a very nice Swedish Carl Gustaf M45 submachine gun, followed by the unique Danish Madsen M50. Several individuals mentioned seeing the M50 in 1960s and 70’s television shows, and most had never seen one in person. Many attendees recognized the Israeli designed Uzi submachine gun on display, which was unique in that it was of FN manufacture, and one of two examples specifically imported for consideration of adoption by the CIA. The Sterling submachine gun displayed showed how the earlier Sten became enhanced with a better magazine, and friendlier ergonomics and folding stock design.

The fourth generation was represented by the Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun and its use of plastic furniture and closed bolt design for much greater accuracy. It is still the standard submachine gun of most police departments, and sees continued use by many other agencies and militaries around the world. The display concluded with suppositions about future direction of the submachine gun, including incorporation of .223 caliber designs into bullpup, submachine gun sized configurations such as the FN F2000, as well as the move toward designs such as the FN P90, which uses a hybrid pistol and rifle cartridge in a personal defense weapon configuration with greater range provided by the versatile 5.7mm x 28mm caliber.

Besides the satisfaction of presenting a great display that NRA members often stand 4-deep to view, participating in the manning of the display always brings other benefits, such as the stories that are exchanged, and contacts made with others sharing similar interests. Because of a contact at the St. Louis display this year, what appears to be a transferable M1 Thompson in the possession of an Illinois police department is being fostered by a retired police officer member of TATA through the verification process with ATF for eventual sale by the department to the public, as a benefit to their constrained budget. Previously, when TATA displayed at NRA in St. Louis in 2007, a whole chapter was added to Thompson history as a key family contact came forth when they saw the incredible 40-foot wide display of Thompsons featured at that show. TATA won the “Best Display” award in 2008 in Louisville for their display theme, “Calvin Goddard: CSI – The St. Valentine’s Day Massacre,” and again in 2010 in Charlotte for “Internal Views of the Tommy Gun,” in 2011 in Pittsburgh for “The Machine Gun Designs of John Browning,” and now in St. Louis for “Evolution of the Submachine Gun.” A special thanks goes out to Allan Cors, Ken Keilholz, and Bob Landies for their support and loan of arms and accessories in the award winning St. Louis display. Next year, Houston will host the NRA, and current plans by TATA are to skip the show due to the logistical distance. Stay tuned for another great display by TATA in Indianapolis in 2014.

The instant his front and rear sights were aligned with the bull’s-eye, he squeezed off a round. Clearing the fired case, he raced to examine the target. This time he was trying a new sabot, designed to come apart immediately upon exiting the barrel, allowing the fléchette to fly on its own. His face fell when he saw the target. The elongated hole was proof positive the fléchette was tumbling end over end. Maybe it was because there were no fins. Surely a phonograph needle was not the ideal fléchette. If only he could watch the projectile in slow motion! He was sure he could easily have figured out a solution.

In spite of this failure, he was certain this would be the direction for ammunition of the future. The year was 1934, and the shooter was a fourteen year-old named Irwin Barr. Win, as he preferred to be called, was no stranger to experimentation with firearms and explosives. Only recently had he finished working off his punishment for detonating a homemade explosive charge in the basement. The force from the blast blew pieces of the linoleum away from the floor of the kitchen, located just above. Win was surprised at the magnitude of the explosion, considering he had gleaned the blasting powder formula from a well-known bomb maker’s manual, The Encyclopedia Britannica.

For much of his youth, Win’s heroes were inventors, with gun designer John M. Browning and engineer Nikola Tesla heading the list. He added Thomas Edison after visiting his laboratory, not far from Win’s home in Linden, New Jersey. Win had a creative mind, artistic talent, and a keen imagination. He spent most of his spare time drawing and building models of bombs, tanks, guns, and aircraft and his boyhood dreams included designing all of the small arms for the U.S. military. Deciding on a technical career after high school, he entered the two-year program at the Casey Jones School of Aeronautics in Newark, NJ. His choice of schools stemmed from two factors: His father, a family doctor, had died when Win was 16, leaving insufficient money for Win’s college tuition. Casey guaranteed an engineering job to anyone who completed its rigorous program. Win accepted the challenge and became one of the few attendees to succeed in that challenge.

Excelling in all of his engineering and drafting courses, Win completed the Casey program and found employment at the Glen L. Martin Company (today after multiple mergers known as Lockheed Martin). Win worked in Martin’s “bull pen” among other designers and engineers in an ocean of drafting boards. His assignments involved creating extensive layouts on huge sheets of drafting paper. Using a pencil and a drafting machine in designing aircraft gun turrets and aircraft was slow and tedious, as was using tables, charts, and slide rules in making structural and aerodynamic calculations.

In many respects Win was a traditional engineer, using tolerance analysis and engineering computations rather than “cut and try” to improve the chances of a first-time success. It was a different culture in those days. It was engineering based, innovative excellence that was the real driver for everything. Where Win differed was in his approach; it was always innovating, always pushing the technology envelope as far as it would go. Often, he didn’t solve a problem, he defined it.

In 1944, Win left Martin to serve in the Army Air Corps. Because of his experience, Private Barr was assigned to the Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to work on rockets and rocket launchers. His successful rocket launcher design was slated to be demonstrated for U.S. and British military personnel. The design had been demonstrated previously but at the last minute Win decided he could shorten the time between launches. His untested new design exploded during the demo and Win learned an important lesson that lasted a lifetime – never demo anything that hasn’t been thoroughly tested. In spite of this setback, the rocket launcher, in its original configuration, was standardized and Sgt. Barr was recognized with a commendation medal. While still in the Army, he continued his fléchette experimentation at home, using the flame from his gas range to heat the heads of sewing needles before hammering them to form one pair of the fins while fashioning the opposing pair from a piece of razor blade.

When the war ended, the Glen L. Martin Company welcomed Win back, promoted him to armament engineer, and gave him a new challenge: to work as Group Engineer on America’s first liquid fuel rocket, the Viking. Others working on this project included a German expatriate named Werner Von Braun and Robert Goddard, the inventor of inertial guidance. Von Braun must have been surprised by Win’s rejection of the rocket steering technology, which the Germans had used successfully for their V2. Instead, Win and two of his co-workers favored a gimbaled rocket engine and jet controls for roll, pitch and yaw. The three were awarded a patent for their successful design innovation, whose method is still used today as the preferred means of steering rockets.

Working for Glen L. Martin was interesting particularly after the success of the Viking rocket system, but Win and some of his fellow engineers had other ideas. They wanted to work on guns and gun-related projects, not on aircraft alone. As these interests were not on the Martin agenda, the splinter group left to form Aircraft Armaments Incorporated. This new company would focus on research and development to encourage the most advanced thinking in the defense industry.

Win and his partners invested in an 80-acre tomato farm in Cockeysville, just north of Baltimore, MD. It was an ideal location, close enough to customers in the Washington, D.C., area, yet far enough away to have firing ranges and expansive R & D facilities. Their venture almost ended in disaster when the military unexpectedly shifted its interest to arming aircraft with missiles and no longer wanted guns in turrets. Fortunately, the fledgling company secured some contracts developing tank turrets and was able to sustain the business.

At 30 years old, Win had a mind that couldn’t stop inventing, self-confidence bolstered by his success in rocketry, and the Army-adopted rocket launcher. Due in a large part to Win’s hard work and influence, Aircraft Armaments Incorporated enjoyed success after success. Win not only came up with many unique armored vehicle innovations, during this time inventing the long rod penetrator and puller sabots which increased by tenfold the ability to penetrate armor, he also invented a lightweight amphibious tank, a new vision block, and high-strength bearings for heavy-load application. Wisely, Win insisted on patenting every one of his inventions, helping to secure the future of the company he helped found.

An early challenge faced by AAI (the name now shortened after a “no brainer” naming contest) was to assist Springfield Armory in the design of a new .50 caliber machine gun. Opportunities for innovation included the call for a Browning cycle with an extremely short receiver to enable the gun to fit within the tiny cupola of the new M60 main battle tank. A new push-through link replaced the rearward end-stripping link of the M2. The customer insisted on a dual-rate weapon – low rate for tank application and high rate for short-time on-target applications – and the resulting weapon was successfully designed and designated the M85 machine gun.

At the end of WWII, military studies showed that a lightweight rifle system was desirable for use in concert with an onboard grenade launcher. In 1951, the Army initiated its SALVO program, which sought a weapon firing multiple projectiles to increase hit probability; requiring not only a lighter weight rifle but also lighter weight ammunition. Here, Win Barr thought, was the perfect opportunity to further develop his all but lifelong dream – a fléchette firing rifle. Although Win could not interest the Army in the AAI approach at that time, he remained convinced he had the best solution and pursued further development of the fléchette model with in-house money.

As pressures increased at work, tragedy struck on the home front in 1957 with the sudden death of Win’s wife. His AAI partners and their families provided sympathy and support as Win handled this loss. A widower with four children, he remarried in the fall of 1959 and, with his wife Dorothy, moved the family to Lutherville, close to AAI’s Cockeysville headquarters.

In the mid 1960’s, Win’s responsibilities grew when AAI was awarded a development contract for the M203 grenade launcher. Eliminating the stand-alone launcher, the AAI grenade launcher would give a platoon a grenadier without the expense of losing a rifleman. The military’s 1968 adoption of the M203, along with its adoption of the M85, was a great source of pride for Win and his team. During this same timeframe, Win initiated the development of an underwater pistol and the construction of an important asset for AAI, an underwater firing range.

When the SALVO project was terminated, the Army replaced it with the Special Purpose Individual Weapon program (SPIW). This time AAI did receive government funding, and the timing was perfect because now Win had the ballistic stability information he needed for the projectiles. It was no coincidence that the fléchettes fired in Win’s XM19 rifle had a strange resemblance to the Viking missile, because Win used the Viking’s wind tunnel test results in their design. AAI had competitors, of course, but the accuracy of the XM19 could not be equaled. While the burst fire effectiveness was significant, the failure to meet single shot accuracy requirements at long range was the principal reason the project ended

At the same time the XM19 was in development, AAI worked on a 22mm cannon for the new armored personnel carrier, which today is known as the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. TRW introduced a gas-operated candidate designed by Gene Stoner while General Electric offered a recoil-operated cannon. These competitors offered traditional approaches, but that was not the case for AAI. Win sought the reliability of gas operation but didn’t want the troublesome gas residue that he knew would foul the weapon. He achieved this by using a unique ammunition concept with a primer that acted as a piston to power the weapon. He had successfully deployed this system on the SPIW and adapted it to a cannon sized weapon. Other weapons used a variation on this ammunition design – a closed piston pusher so gas did not escape from the cartridge. This concept was used on underwater pistols, grenade launchers, and special weapons for clearing enemy tunnels in Vietnam.

During his tenure as Vice President for R & D, Win had fine-tuned his philosophy and his means for motivating his engineering staff. When he became AAI President in 1969, in the course of his typical 10-hour day, he would work his way through the entire plant, from the lathes and mills to the firing ranges and engineering offices. At any time, pretty much anyone could expect a visit from Win, who always was eager to discuss progress on each project, to offer encouragement, and, above all, to help infuse new ideas. He also became known as the only head of a major corporation whose office featured a well-used drawing board.

Win often worked out design solutions by sketching them on paper. He would then turn the paper over to rough out some quick calculations that verified the new approach would work. If you were gone by the time Win got to your work area, you could expect to find on top of your desk one of these sheets or a simple note with Win’s directions on how to proceed. To the credit of Win’s managerial skills, nobody recalled feeling pushed or needing to push back. They all respected Win’s abilities and wanted to be a part of these unique opportunities for technical innovation.

Win was soft-spoken – but insistent. As long-time members of the engineering staff independently reported, you could tell him anything and he would consider what you said. Then, with a quiet intensity, he’d charm you into believing his way was the best, as it so often was.

Win’s fascination with advancing the state-of-the-art in tank design was manifested in a new lightweight, low-profile, air-droppable tank. It would be hard to hit, provide maximum protection to its crew, and carry 60 rounds for a rapid firing cannon. At the outset, AAI designers of the T92, as it was eventually designated, got carried away and drew up a vehicle much larger than Win had envisioned. One evening after everyone had left; Win studied the huge pencil drawing that had taken draftsmen many hours to produce. He took out his ball point pen and, at a point about 2/3 of the way along the vehicle’s length, drew a bold vertical line through the tank, and left a note saying: “Make it this long.” Although the drawing was ruined and had to be restarted, the results were dramatic. The technical innovation of this vehicle found a home in the Israeli Merkava tank and the French AMX-13 after the T92 was beaten out by the problem-plagued M551 Sheridan.

While excellent development opportunities arose with the military, there were slow times to be dealt with. This was never a problem for Win, who was a virtual fountain of fresh ideas. Solar power, for example, was an underdeveloped energy source that warranted exploitation. Surely, with Win’s ideas and a few calculations, there could be a business opportunity or two for AAI. Win selected one of his top engineers, Tony Farinacci, and gave him a project – to design a solar and wind-powered cooling system for brine tanks used in cheese-making. Tony had plenty of experience with weaponry, but was no expert on solar or wind power, or cooling systems. Without hesitation, Win sent Tony back to school to learn what was needed. This was typical of Win, always wanting the best equipment and the best people to do the job. If they didn’t have the right preparation or the right skill set, getting it was only a matter of time and money. For Win, it was worth every penny. The solar energy endeavor eventually found success at the Reedy Company in Orlando, whose solar roof design provided electrical power for years until the mirrors succumbed to the Florida sun and lost their efficiency. A large number of patents on the roof and building design for solar energy collection were awarded to Win during this time.

In the late 1960’s Win began thinking seriously about remotely piloted vehicles. In 1958 he filed for a patent on a flying saucer that was years ahead of its time. Its unique design required sophisticated computers to manage the controls. This stands as one of the few designs in Win’s lifetime where the technology had not yet advanced far enough to allow his design to work. Little did Win know that his efforts then would be the beginning of a major product line for AAI. Today, AAI’s Shadow Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV) serves as an intelligence-gathering workhorse for coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By 1970, in business for 20 years, AAI had grown to 1,000 employees, almost a full third of whom were engineering staff. The company’s goal remained the same: boundary-pushing research and development for military and commercial markets. At this point, two thirds of AAI’s income came from non-armament projects that included hydraulics and material handling systems. Typical examples of AAI’s successful design innovations include the training systems for the Apollo space program, crew station trainer and lunar module procedures simulator, a unique cutting tool for the space station, and a destruct system for the Saturn rocket.

All AAI engineers were expected to evaluate the stress levels of components they designed while at the same time making them as lightweight as possible. Often this meant designing with a low margin of safety, which sometimes led to failure. Win was not overly disturbed when he learned of part failures because he knew his teams were staying on the technological edge, keeping weights as low as possible. It should come as no surprise, then, that Win was a big fan of maraging steel – an ultra-high-strength steel with high cobalt content. Any time a design is boxed into a corner where the part cannot be made on a larger scale, this is the steel that can save the day. At the other extreme, Win hated torsion springs. In spite of the book calculations that predict safe stress levels, these springs are famous for breaking at the retention arm and are often avoided by gun designers.

In July 2010 I arranged for a visit to AAI for the purpose of interviewing Tony Farinacci to gather firsthand knowledge about Win Barr. When I arrived, I was surprised to find that Paul Shipley, Steve Miller, Ron Christ, and Dennis Trump had heard about the interview and insisted on joining us to contribute their experiences working with Win. This eventful meeting brought out a lot of information about Win and a litany of the many small arms projects he influenced. These include the AAI 6mm Squad Automatic Weapon, 4.32mm Serial Bullet rifle, Caseless Advanced Individual Weapon System, 12 gauge Combat Assault Weapon, TriCap shotgun, 5.56mm Advanced Combat Rifle, and completion of the development of Picatinny Arsenal’s .50 caliber Dover Devil.

I asked the group to give me some insights into Win’s personality and what it was like to work with him. They all agreed that Win loved his work and valued the people who worked with him. He never asked anyone to work harder than he did and spent most of his vacation time at work, rather than play. Win loved the Bahamas, and did find some time to visit and even buy property there; planning a retirement that could include developing a small business to employ the locals. Usually his Bahamas trips were short, except for the time a water skiing accident put him in the local hospital. Win had no patience for languishing in a hospital bed, so he arranged for a steady stream of AAI engineers to fly to the Bahamas in order to review their projects and to get new marching orders.

Much of our discussion centered on Win’s humanitarian side. Before he retired in 1989, he invented a heart pump and a steerable catheter for use in heart operations. Decades earlier, Win had invented a special tear gas grenade with a dispensing method that was less likely to start fires. They told the story about Win’s young son Alan who one day heard his dad sobbing in another room and asked if he was all right. Win told him not to come in, explaining that he was testing tear gas and wanted to try it on himself rather than risk anyone else being harmed.

Win’s excitement about projects was contagious; he loved to share his observations, thoughts, knowledge, and new ideas with anyone in the company who would listen. Janitors on the second shift, often the only ones around for Win to share his ideas with, spent many an evening lending an ear, even if their understanding was sometimes minimal.

An accomplished artist and photographer as well as a visionary engineer, Win Barr distinguished himself in the development of aircraft, vertical lift aircraft, rocket launchers, guns, solar power, military tanks, spacecraft, watercraft, and space technology. He committed most of his designs to patents available to all for study, touching on fields of medicine and energy as well as aerospace and defense. A man considered ahead of his time and a tireless worker who cultivated confidence and curiosity in his workforce, Win discovered how to increase his efficiency by building a company, filling it with top-notch technical talent, and leading his teams to solve critical problems.

In a sense, Win successfully “cloned” himself through his engineers, setting an example and using his persuasive skills and managerial expertise to get ideas rapidly developed. In the 1990s, AAI formally adopted Win’s not so secret method for motivating people to do their best: Employee Recognition. Among the annual coveted honors, the Win Barr Award for Innovation recognizes the AAI engineer or engineering team demonstrating the greatest degree of innovation and creativity.

Inducted into the Ordnance Hall of Fame in 1985, Win received numerous awards throughout his thirty-eight years with AAI, including the ten years he served as President and Chief Operating Officer. To mark Win’s retirement in February, 1989, a host of AAI colleagues, personnel, clients, representatives of local government and industry, and officers of virtually all branches of the U.S. military participated in the nearly three-hour ceremony. For one, General Alfred M. Gray, then-Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, gave Win a standard-issue helmet, making him “an honorary Marine,” saluted, and presented a Certificate of Commendation which concluded, “Mr. Barr’s total service to the Defense Industry in key executive positions and industry committees exemplifies the highest traditions of distinguished service….”

Before his death in 2005, Win’s life’s work yielded more than 200 patents, the majority of which he had proven feasible, successfully built, and tested. Today, AAI continues the same quest for innovation, producing and developing small arms and new products for the military and other industries. Working under Army contract to create caseless ammunition, the company’s forward-thinking engineering teams recently distinguished themselves by designing the Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) machine gun that fires case-telescoped ammunition – a timely invention in the Barr tradition.

There at AAI, the spirit of our Renaissance man Win Barr lives on.

The magazine is the heart and soul of any weapon system. If the magazine is not functioning the weapon will not be functioning. Lord knows there are a plethora of magazine manufacturers out there in the industry. Magazines are now made of aluminum, stainless steel, translucent polymer and polymer. Of course some are blends of these materials.

C-Products, LLC has been in the business of manufacturing magazines since late 2004. Located in Newington, Connecticut they are right in the middle of Gun Valley and in the valley are many manufacturers of the Black Rifle. C-Products is co-owned by Larry Panka and Berry Bergen and is a Vietnam Veteran owned Company (Larry Panka served in Vietnam). This 30 person company has the capacity of manufacturing 125,000 magazines per week. C-Products is ISO 9001:2008 certified.

C-Products manufacture mostly stainless steel magazines. The only magazines offered in aluminum are the AR-15/M16 20- and 30- round magazines. All other models are stainless steel. These include AR-15/M16 20-, 30- and 40-round magazines, 5.45x39mm, 6.5 Grendal, 6.8 Rem SPC, 9mm, 7.62x39mm, 50 Beauwolf and 450 SOCOM AR based magazines as well as SR-25 5-, 10- and 20-round magazines, M1911 and M9 magazines. C-Products has a wide variety of customer bases including the armed forces of the Republic of Georgia, Colombia, Turkey, Philippines, Macedonia and Malaysia. Along with selling the magazines directly they also provide magazines to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) of rifles including J&T Distributing, POF, Midway, Ferfrans, Bushmaster, Barrett ,Stag Arms, Les Bear, Alexander Arms, Ruger, LWRCI and Smith & Wesson to name a few.

To look into the manufacturing process of a magazine it all begins with a two piece stamping of the magazine body. The stamping is done by an outside vendor with dies designed and owned by C-Products. After the stampings are received, they are vapor degreased. Then the two halves snap together by 4 dimples stamped into the front and rear of the bodies. The magazine is then fed to 1 of the 4 state-of-the-art robotic welding units. Each unit contains two stations. The robotic arm picks up the magazine from a conveyer belt and places it in a fixture where 8 welds are done to the front and back of the magazine. The next phase is off to heat treating. Upon return from heat treating they go out for coating. Aluminum magazines will be anodized and the stainless steel magazines will be Teflon, isonite, grey moly or black oxide finished.

The finished magazine body is then off to assembly. C-Products have designed and use their own followers and all are anti-tilt. They are manufactured by an outside vendor with molds designed and owned by C-Products. The magazine springs used by C-Products are exclusively chrome silicone springs. However if requested stainless steel springs can be provided.

Prior to assembly every magazine is placed in a go/no go gauge. This ensures the magazine will fit in a Mil-Spec magazine well. When the magazine body passes the spring is attached to the follower, placed in the magazine and the floor plate inserted. Then the follower and spring are manually compressed with a tool and released to ensure free movement of the follower. The magazine is placed again in the go/no go gauge to insure its integrity and then sealed in plastic and boxed up.

To insure quality, random magazines are selected from every lot and tested. For instance, if the magazines are for an M16/M4, the random magazines would be taken to the range and loaded and shot three times to insure reliability. Government contracts may vary depending on what that particular customer requires. Throughout each part of the manufacturing process there are quality inspections. Every magazine design is proofed by more than 2,000 rounds of firing before pre-production starts. The company maintains its own reference collection of various rifles and pistols to conduct their design and quality control testing.

C-Products work with weapons manufactures that are in the process of designing weapons and require a magazine to be designed with it. For example C-Products worked with Smith & Wesson on the development of their 5.45x39mm M&P rifle as well as designing the 6.5 Grendal magazines with Alexander Arms.

The Magazines

The AR-15/M16 families of weapon magazines are by far the most produced magazines by C-Products. Approximately 80% are manufactured of stainless steel and 20% of aluminum. They come in 10-, 20- and 30-round capacities. Newly introduced is a 40-round magazine designed for match shooters. As of this writing, C-Products is implementing an enhancement to the magazine catch slot on the magazine. To aid in engagement, the top is flared out as well as the bottom holding the magazine more steadily.

Additionally C-Products manufacture magazines for the Colt 9mm SMG/Carbines. These come in 10-, 20- and the standard 32-round capacity. Manufactured of stainless steel and utilize orange followers.

Additionally for AR-based weapons, C-Products manufacture magazines in 5.45x39mm caliber for the Smith & Wesson M&P rifle in 5-, 10-, 15- and 25-round capacity. They manufacture both 6.5 and 6.8 magazines in 5-, 10-, 20- and 25-round capacities. They manufacture SR-25 7.62x51mm magazines with a 5-, 10- and 20-round capacity. Magazines are made in 7.62x39mm caliber in 5-, 10- and 30-round capacities.

C-Products also produces stainless steel magazines for the .45 Auto caliber M1911 and soon the Beretta 9mm M9 (92FS) pistol.

As well as complete magazines, C-Products sells replacement followers and magazine springs as kits to customers so they can rebuild/enhance their existing magazines.

At The Range

The only way to find out how well a magazine is made is to simply shoot with it. I received several test and evaluation (T&E) magazines from C-Products that I picked up personally from their Connecticut manufacturing facility. The first magazines tested were their 9mm Colt SMG magazines. I obtained five magazines and shot them with a Colt 9mm SMG and a Colt AR-15 9mm Carbine. More than 1,000 rounds were fired in both semi- and fully automatic without a single malfunction. The ammunition used was American Eagle 9mm ball.

The next magazines tested were four of their 7.62x51mm SR-25 magazines. These magazines were fired in a Knight’s Armament Company SR-25 Enhanced Match Rifle and a LWRCI REPR sniper rifle. All the magazines ran flawlessly in both weapons and the magazines dropped free when the magazine release was pressed. The ammunition ranged from Silver State Armory M80 Ball to Silver State Armory 168 grain OTM.

Additionally, the 25-round 6.8mm Rem SPC magazines were tested in a Lewis Machine & Tool MRP with the 6.8 barrel assembly. More than 600 rounds were fired in 4 magazines with no malfunctions at all. Testing was conducted using an LMT MRP 6.8mm carbine.

Lastly, the 5.56mm M16/AR-15 magazines were tested. Magazines with 20-, 30- and 40-round capacities were tested in Colt LE6920, Colt M4, Colt M4 Commando, ArmaLite and Lewis Machine & Tool MRP using the 5.56mm piston barrel assembly. More than 2,000 rounds were fired between all these different models without malfunction and the magazine dropped free from every rifle when the magazine release button was depressed.

Magazines are a critical part of any weapon system. Confidence in the reliability of a weapon is largely based on the devise that feeds it. C-Products is a magazine manufacturer you can bet your life on. Military and police agencies do all over the world every day.

As the Second World War ended, large quantities of small arms became surplus material in the countries where they had been brought by the fighting armies. In the author’s native country, Norway, the number of small arms were according to the more than 350,000 German soldiers that surrendered in May of 1945. These soldiers had brought Russian, Belgian, French, Dutch, Polish, Czech and other captured weapons as well as large quantities of German infantry weapons. In addition to this came the Norwegian weapons from the pre war period, weapons air dropped or smuggled in to supply the resistance forces, as well as weapons brought from Sweden and England by the returning Norwegian soldiers when the fighting was over. As if this was not enough, the Norwegian army received quantities of British weapons in the late 40s and early 50s as well as a full scale re-arming after Norway received yet another large quantity of weapons in the U.S. weapons aid program of the 1950s.

This situation made the Norwegian army and the newly founded Home Guard a virtual circus as far as weapons types and ammunition was concerned for the first years after the war. The Home Guard would in its early years use any gun they could get their hands on, whether 2 or 200 were available seemed to matter little as long as they could arm their soldiers with it. The author’s father served in His Majesty the Kings Guard in 1950 and remembered that there was a vast selection of weapons available for shooting and plenty of ammunition.

For reasons of logistics, the Norwegian military authorities soon had to make some choices of direction for their vast arsenal, and the quantities available soon made it clear that it was the ex-German MG34 that was the most likely weapon for a good many years to come as the Norwegian Armed Forces’ LMG. Personally I used the MG34 for many years as a machine gunner in a competition team and it was an interesting experience. Many officers and soldiers in the Home Guard had good knowledge of the working parts of the MG34 and how to make the guns run.

430,000 MG34s had been manufactured between 1936 and 1945, and a large quantity of these survived the war in serviceable condition. The MG34 was used by a few countries after the war, most notably Yugoslavia, Israel (who bought the remaining stock of finished and unissued guns from the Czech BRNO factory), Romania and Norway.

Norway was not only the longest official user of the MG34, but also the only country where the MG34 was officially converted and used in other calibers. First .30-06 and later 7.62×51. Officially taken out of service in 1993, the MG34 served for almost 50 years with a mixed popularity among the soldiers. There are some rumors of Israeli conversions to 7.62×51, but the author has never seen any parts that can confirm this.

As early as 1950, the MG34 had a mixed reputation in the Norwegian army, as witnessed by a memo from the Distriktskommando Nord (Army Command North) dated March 15 1950. The Northern part of Norway was considered strategically the most important from 1945 to 1990 because of the joint borders with the Soviet Union and most of the regular army was based in this area.

The memo is three pages long and concludes that the MG34s in use are quite worn and no longer have the matching parts that were considered essential for their reliability. Also to blame is the minimal knowledge amongst the operators of these rather complicated weapons. These factors seem to be the reason for about 50% of the stoppages and malfunctions, while the rest were credited to the various stages of deterioration of the ex-German ammunition was in after years of poor storage. Another cause of problems that was pointed out was the soldiers’ seemingly careless treatment of the belts and the fact that many did not seem to care if the belts were dirty, rusty or generally in poor shape.

With the forming of NATO, of which Norway was an early member, it was decided that the standard rifle and machine gun cartridge was to be the U.S. cartridge of 1906, the .30-06, in Norway known as the 7.62×63. For a while it was still debated if the 7.92×57 should remain as the official Home Guard cartridge as vast stocks of this ammunition was in depots all over the country. In 1948-50 the Norwegian ammunition company Raufoss Ammunisjonsfabrikker (Raufoss ammunition factories) manufactured the 7.92 sS heavy ball ammo to supply the ex-German weapons. Unfortunately this ammunition is plagued by misfires, especially the 1948 vintage ammunition has slightly deep primer pockets. To successfully fire this ammunition, a long firing pin and a powerful firing pin spring is necessary.

When it was clear that the .30-06 was going to be the only serious rifle and MG cartridge in NATO, the Norwegian Chief of Ordnance and his staff decided to rebuild some of their ex-German weapons to the NATO cartridge instead of scrapping them. In theory, this should not pose much of a problem, as the .30-06 cartridge is only approximately 4mm longer than the 7.92. The K98k rifle was an easy choice for the rifle, as the numbers of these were staggering, as was the availability of bayonets (every German soldier had been issued a bayonet as part of his field equipment whether he was a rifleman, machine gunner or a chauffeur), ammunition pouches as well as spare parts. Machine guns considered for conversion were the MG34 and the MG42.

As an interesting footnote we can add that the Norwegian Police received all the available G33/40 Gebirgsjäger carbines and also a small number of MG13s. These guns were kept in their original 7.92 caliber. The G33/40 was in service until the 1970s; while the MG13s were probably never taken out of their transit cases. The MG13s were all converted to MG13k standard by shortening the barrels and barrel jackets at some point.

The first documents regarding the conversion of the ex-German machine guns to .30-06 were dated in the fall of 1952, when the quantities of 3,500 barrels for MG42 and 6,000 barrels for MG34 were ordered by the Chief of Ordnance from the State Rifle Factory, Kongsberg Våpenfabrikk, all barrels in .30-06 caliber of course. The barrels were ordered without locking pieces, as locking pieces were to be salvaged from the ex-German barrels. Later, the number of MG34 barrels were enlarged to 12,000, 3 for each of the 4,000 guns that were to be converted. It is possible that there was a shortage of locking pieces, as the majority of MG34F1 barrels found today are lacking these.

MG34F1

The conversion of the MG42 seems to have been delayed for quite some time, probably because it was not desirable to work on more than one project at a time. The conversion of the MG34 was not very complicated. The ejection port was to be lengthened slightly, and the receiver was cut slightly to accommodate the longer cartridge. Subsequently, the feed tray had to be formed for the cut in the receiver by heating and bending it. The feed tray would be weakened by this operation, and it was later found that some of the feed trays had to be hand fitted to the guns in order to make them work. The feed trays were numbered to their guns so they would not get mixed up. After the drawings for the MG34 conversion were completed at the Army Ordnance Corps, they were sent to the company Brødrene Fossum at Ski for a price estimate of the conversion of the receiver and feed tray at a rate of 200 weapons a month for a total of 4,000 weapons. Brødrene Fossum did not seem to get further involved in the conversion, and all the work seems to have been done at Kongsberg. The conversions at Kongsberg were priced at 250 nok each, approximately 35 US$, excluding ammunition for test firing and the barrels, which were priced at 72 nok each, or 10 US$.

The first test firings of the converted MG34F1 (Forandring 1 – Alteration 1) were held at Kongsberg on September 9 1953 with the results being encouraging, although a few stoppages occurred. The next recorded sessions were held in August of 1954. In the meantime, the Rustmester (Chief Armorer) of the Army Ordnance Corps, Captain Oscar Øvern had been able to locate the ex-German apparatus for tightening the connection between the receiver and barrel jacket of the MG34. His enthusiastic memo of October 26 1954 describes the apparatus and the advantages and necessities of employing it to the ongoing conversion routines for a large number of weapons that showed considerable play between the barrel jacket and the receiver. Unfortunately, only the description remains, as it has not been possible to find any specimens of the apparatus itself. This procedure was to be included in the conversion and rebuild of the MG34 to MG34F1.

Flower of Sulphur The Magic Potion

Although the Germans had discontinued the use of Flower of Sulphur as a lubrication additive for the MG34 long before the war ended. The Bakelite container was dropped from the accessory lists by the HeeresWaffenamt on April 3 1944 because better lubricants had been developed that served the purpose without the addition of Flower of Sulphur. Still, the issue of Flower of Sulphur continued in the Norwegian Army until 1993 regardless of which oils were used with the small arms. This magic potion was regarded as essential for the functioning of the MG34 and Lord have mercy on the MG34 gunner who did not use it. In the test reports from the conversion of the MG34 to .30-06, several of them mention that the guns were sluggish and did not work reliably until Flower of Sulphur was added to the lubrication and VOILA! the guns worked. It is possible that the lubricants used in the Norwegian army in the 1950s may have been sub-quality and actually needed the addition of Flower of Sulphur, but this was certainly not the case in the 1980s and 1990s.

When the MG34F1 were converted, the following procedure was to be followed for marking the guns: The receiver was to have the serial number HÆR (army) nr 0000 engraved with 5mm fonts on the left side and painted white. The barrel jacket, top cover, feed tray. buffer, buttstock and booster cone were to be marked with the –0000- serial number in 3.5mm fonts and old serial numbers were to be removed. The bolts were to be serial numbered by electric pencil on both the bolt head and the carrier, spare bolts to be marked with an A. Barrels were to be marked with HÆR nr 0000, spare barrels to be marked with 1 or 2. Bolts and barrels also to be marked with 3.5mm fonts.

Test firing was done from the MG Lafette 34, the guns lightly oiled and lubed with Flower of Sulphur. In October 1955, 10 converted MG34F1 were test fired and found to be working flawlessly with the allotted spare barrels that were to be issued with each gun. With these promising results in mind, test firings were conducted all through 1956 with relatively good results. Throughout the spring of 1956 it became clear that the success of the conversion would rely entirely of the availability of spare replacement parts for the MG34 as many guns had parts that were almost worn out. Both the Army Ordnance Corps and the Army Material Command left no stone unturned and came up with impressive numbers of spare parts that were transferred to Kongsberg so the full scale conversions could begin.

As the weapons aid program from the U.S. unfolded, Norway received 1919A4 and 1918A2 BAR machine guns that were issued to the regular army units. The MG34 was then to become the only machine gun for the Home Guard. This decision seems to have been made after it was decided to convert the ex-German machine guns to .30-06 and may had been instrumental in making the decision to sell off the stocks of MG42s that were held awaiting conversion.

Throughout 1956 it became clear that most of the MG34F1 would never achieve a reliability of 100%. One test firing session was held at the Home Guard Academy of Dombås, HVSKD. Four MG34F1s fired 2,673 rounds, with a total of 24 stoppages. Most of the stoppages were cleared by working the cocking handle, and were decided to be acceptable as they were easy to clear. The relation between the ejector and the ejector plate was pointed out as essential for reliable functioning, as was the use of Flower of Sulphur. At this test a number of what was known in the Home Guard as Czech Bren guns – ZB vz 26 LMG’s, were test fired as well. It is not known whether these were converted to .30-06 or if they were in their original 7.92 caliber.

Later test reports pointed out that as many as 75% of the stoppages were related to the belts and the joints between the belts that sometimes were too much for the MG34F1. In 1958, 20,000 belts were cleaned in acid and oiled as a refurbishing process to help cure these problems. It was noted in a memo dated March 3 1958 that the availability of spare parts would be low after the conversion was completed.

As 1956 drew to an end, the first completed series of 100 MG34F1s were being test fired and the initial tests were also held with BFAs (blank firing adapters) for the MG34F1. The BFA was patterned after the BFA for the Madsen M/1922 BFA, and replaced the booster cone internally, and had a brass wheel screwed onto it from the outside. There seems to have been no interest at all in pursuing the original German two piece blank firing barrels at this time. The Norwegian company Bakelitfabrikken were marketing their red plastic body blank ammunition, and these were the only blanks that were used with the MG34F1. The BFA and the plastic ammunition seemed to cause a few problems, and were never as successful as one would have hoped. In comparison, the original 7.92 German blank firing barrels with the wooden bullet ammunition seems to have worked quite well. It is quite possible that the locking pieces from the blank firing barrels were already destined for the new.30-06 barrels, as it would otherwise have seemed like a logical choice to make new chamber ends for the original blank firing barrels.

In early 1957, a cutaway MG34F1 was machined out at Kongsberg for study and instructional purposes. At a later stage, this MG34 was filmed in action, showing how the mechanism worked with the 3 different calibers. Not surprisingly, the 7.92 set up seemed to be the smoothest by far. Unfortunately, this weapon was sold to England in the 1990s.

An invoice dated May 16, 1958 exists for three MG34s bought from Sidem International, Brussels, Belgium at the price of $192.50 each. The guns were to represent the highest, middle and lowest quality of the guns available from Sidem. According to the accompanying paperwork, it was seriously considered to acquire 1,000 MG34s from Sidem as an alternative to converting Bren guns (Both British 7.7 and Czech ZB 26 in 7.92 cal) to .30-06. It is not known whether these guns were acquired or not. In a memo dated October 22, 1959 it is mentioned that the Bren gun will be replaced by the 1918A2 BAR, so it is likely that this made the need for more LMGs less important.

As the conversions progressed, Arsenalet på Kongsgårdsmoen, close to Kongsberg Våpenfabrikk, became the central depot for gathering MG34s from all over Norway. The units were to send in half their stock of MG34s and to keep the other half in reserve. The Cold War was very much in effect. The shipments were slow and several reminders had to be sent out before the weapons started to show up. Kongsberg Våpenfabrikk were to convert the guns in batches of 100. The bipods were to be refurbished separately, and older type bipods (MG13 style) were to be scrapped. The stud for fastening the bipod to the barrel jacket was to be replaced if it was of the older style. By March, 1958, the conversions seemed to be well on their way, but the barrels may have been a little slower to manufacture, as a memo noted that the interchangeability of barrels from gun to gun was so good that it was ok to return the guns with just one barrel and send the last two barrels later.

The total number of MG34s seem to have been 4,296, and additionally 12 MG34F (almost certainly a mistake for MG34S) and 126 MG34 tanker guns were transferred from the main Arsenal in Oslo to Kongsgårdsmoen in May, 1958. The “F” and the tanker guns were to be held in storage until it was decided whether to convert them to .30-06 or to scrap them for parts. As Norway had scrapped its ex-German Panzer III tanks, there was no immediate need for tanker guns, and we must assume that the tanker guns were indeed scrapped. The Armed Forces Museum has three specimens of the MG34S in their reference collection.

According to Rustmester Øvern, the original wooden stocks were not to be used with the MG34F1 for some unknown reason. New buttstocks were manufactured in Beech at Kongsberg and painted with the same black finish as was found on the forend of the 1918A2 BAR. Bakelite stocks were used when available.

As the .30-06 cartridge was slightly longer than the 7.92, the basket drums for the 50-round belts and their carriers were scrapped during the conversion process. Very few of these have survived, and it was not until the surplus sale of MG34s from Portugal that Norwegian collectors could obtain these. Tests were carried out where the pressure plate in the lid of the drum was removed to make room for the longer cartridge, but they seemed to have been unsuccessful.

Original ammunition cans were converted by removing the left side of the can and adding on to it to make room for the longer cartridge. 8,710 aluminium cans were converted and repainted Olive Drab. Two companies converted these, A/S Stanseprodukter and N.Blomberg A/S at a price of 8.60 nok each. The first delivery of 1,400 cans had the wrong side extended, and was accepted at a reduced price. A number of Madsen M/1922 aluminium magazine cans were also converted into belt cans for the MG34F1 as specified on a drawing of November 22, 1956. The conversion consisted of removing the dividers for the magazines and moving the carrying handle to a different spot.

Of the two belt filling machines Gurtfüller 34 and Gurtfüller 41, only the earliest type was converted to .30-06, and this conversion was undertaken by two companies, most notably Vinghøg in Nøtterøy, who later marketed their famous soft mount for the .50 M2HB. A small alteration to the lid of the MG Patronenkasten 41 was necessary to make room for the slightly enlarged hopper of the Gurtfüller 34 after the conversion. Only steel ammo cans, and as noted, mostly the MG Patr.kast.41 were used for the belt filling machines. FG Pedersen of Sandefjord also converted belt filling machines, a total of 1,166 from both companies.

Gunner’s pouches were also manufactured as almost exact reproductions of the German originals, with the exception of the holder for the AA sight, which was omitted. At some point, the AA sight holder was removed from a majority of the ex-German pouches remaining in service as well. Both the AA sights and the AA mounts for the MG34 saw no use in the 1950s and were scrapped.

Some of the tools, the angled screwdriver, the Lafette tool (issued to all gunners whether needed or not), broken shell extractor (marked with a crown over K for Kongsberg), the hot barrel pad and the Bakelite container for Flower of Sulphur were all reproduced in Norway. Locally made oil cans were used as well.

The contents of the gunners pouch as issued in Norway was as follows: spare bolt, dust cap for the spare bolt (there is no such thing – this is an incorrect nomenclature for the late type muzzle cover), container for Flower of Sulphur, angled screwdriver, broken shell extractor, hot barrel pad, oil can, MG13 wrench, MG Lafette wrench.

Transport crates for each MG34F1, mechanism covers and carrying slings were also manufactured in Norway. The ex-German mechanism covers seem to have been discarded at some point, while the original carrying slings were used until the guns were scrapped, when available. A small plastic funnel for oil, and a cleaning rod was also part of the contents of the transport crate. Spare barrel carriers were repainted ex-German, and all the various Laufbehalter 34, Laufschützer 34 and Laufschützer 43 variations have been found repainted OD in the Home Guard stocks.

As a part of the conversion, the rear sight blade was milled down 2.5 mm and given a U-notch instead of the original V-notch. The front sight was milled down if necessary during the actual test firing to ensure that the point of impact was as close to the point of aim as possible with the lighter bullet of the .30-06. A number of booster cones with a 10.5 mm opening diameter (as opposed to the German spec 11 mm) were also made at Kongsberg for the MG34F1.

The MG Lafette 34s were quite numerous. Most of the Lafettes were repainted Olive Drab, but a few did survive this process and retain their original color. It is to be assumed that all Lafettes with Gebirgsjäger hind legs were altered to “normal” legs at some point, as the Gebirgslafette is unknown in the Norwegian Home Guard. The number of issued optical sights would possibly reflect the number of MG Lafette 34s in stock, while a total of 104 MG Lafette 34s were kept in reserve.

In 1958 it was decided that the Home Guard district of Greater Oslo should use the MG Z 40 optical sight for their Lafettes, while the rest of the country should use the MG Z. This must have changed later, as the author never saw any MG Z 40 in the Home Guard at all. The Air Force used some MG Z 40 for the aiming system of their Bofors L70 40mm AA guns. All remaining MG Richtaufsatz sights originally intended for indirect fire with the MG08, but also used with the MG34 were to be scrapped at this time (March 3, 1958). A total of 700 MGZ and MG Z 40 were held in stock at this time. The ZF12 does not seem to have been considered for use at all.

The following accessories were made for the MG34F1:

• Transport crates, supplied by Bakelittfabrikken at a price of 46 nok each.
• 1,200 Transport crates also from Eilif og Sigurd Stene at a final price of 51.90 nok each after adjustments of the specifications.
• 2,000 broken shell extractors (Winkelschraubenzieher, angled screwdrivers) from A/S Stanseprodukter at 2.85 nok each.
• 2,500 MG Lafette wrenches (Zapfenschlussel zur Zweilochmutter) from A/S Stanseprodukter at 3 nok each.
• Plastic funnels from Thiis & Co. at 0.52 nok each.
• 1,000 gunners pouches from A/S Kolbjorn Knutsen & Co at 22.76 nok each. (Later deliveries from Gresshoppa)
• 5,000 one piece cleaning rods, from A/S Roja at 5.34 nok each.
• 4,500 mechanism covers from A.Bockman A/S at 11.90 nok each.
• 2,500 carrying straps from N.Blomberg A/S at 4.85 nok each. Later the price was reduced to nok 2.60 ea as the first delivery proved to be of insufficient quality.
• 3,000 plastic boxes for the Flower of Sulphur from Steinar Larsen Plastic Fabric in Brummunddal at 1.35 nok each with an additional cost of 8.50 nok for the casting dies.
• 1,200 BFAs were made at Stansecompaniet 7.20 nok each.

BREN MkII F1

While going through the vast collection of rare and unique machine guns at the Armed Forces Museum in Oslo, Norway, we found an example of an Inglis manufactured Bren MkII converted to .30-06. The conversion was relatively simple; the barrel was locally made and the magazine well was slightly modified to take the magazine, which was a ZB26 magazine converted to the longer cartridge. As evidenced by the markings and the shape of the magazine well, the gun had originally been in .303 caliber and converted by the Army Ordnance Corps. The bolt was unmodified but there is some indication that the extractors used were from 7.92 caliber ZB26 machine guns.

ZB26F1 and ZB30F1

The Armed Forces Museum also holds two examples of ZB26 and one ZB30 converted to .30-06 as well. The conversion is similar to the one undertaken on the Bren MkII. One of these converted guns is actually a ZB30J, the only specimen in the museums collection.

MG42F1

It is common knowledge among machine gun enthusiasts that the MG42 was converted to .30-06 in the U.S. during WWII. The conversion was not very successful, most likely due to a rather optimistic goal of preferably reducing the cyclic rate to 350rpm by means of an extremely heavy bolt carrier. The fact that the MG42 was converted to the same caliber in the 1950’s in Norway was unknown to this author until recently, even after researching a book on the subject. As the conversion was a post WWII adventure, it would not have been relevant for the first edition of my book anyway, but it is always nice to find these neat pieces of machine gun trivia.

The 3,500 barrels mentioned previously were ordered in 1952, but the first order of converting the guns were not placed with Kongsberg Våpenfabrikk until September 6, 1956, when ten MG42s were to be converted to MG42F1. The converted guns were to be marked as follows: A serial number and prefix HÆR_____ was to be engraved on the left side of the receiver with fonts of 5 mm height. The original serial number and the year of manufacture were to be chiseled out, while the model designation MG42 was to be kept unaltered. It was soon discovered that most of the stock of approximately 2,000 MG42s had been sold to another country, and this of course made the whole project moot. According to a memo of October 10, 1957, only 2 MG42Fs1 were finished. Most likely the MG42s held in Norway were sold to Denmark or back to Germany. The German army refurbished WW2 vintage MG42s and converted them to 7.62×51 and reissued them under the model designation MG2.

The conversion was simple, and only the feed tray and the camming piece had been slightly modified. As the conversion program was aborted, it is unlikely that heavy troubleshooting was performed on the two modified MG42s though there is no reason why these guns would not work reliably.

A total of 3,218 barrels had been finished by the time this slight “communication error” was discovered and tests and experiments were held to see if it was possible to convert these MG42F1 barrels to MG34F1 specifications. The tests seem to have been successful, but the author has not been able to find any trace of these barrels anywhere. The MG42 barrel is 53 cm long and the MG34 barrel is 60 cm long, so the conversion not only involved a re-profiling trip to the lathe, but a sleeve would have to be made and fitted to the shorter barrel as well in order to make it work. It must be assumed that the last 7 cm would have to be smooth-bored. The conversion of all the barrels was ordered in 1961, and test firings were undertaken in 1963 and 1964. No known specimens exist of these barrels today.

MG34F2

The MG34F1 was the Home Guards official machine gun until the mid 1970s, when it was decided that it was time to modernize it for the new NATO cartridge, the 7.62×51. As the years went by, the supplies of .30-06 ammunition were more and more expensive to keep up. The Home Guard Youth still used their K98k rifles until the 1990s but their ammunition expenditure was small compared to the machine gunners’ yearly allotment. At some point it was decided to equip the Home Guard in the northern part of the country with the MG3. As mentioned above, this was considered the most important part of the defence against the Soviet Union. It is also likely that the 1918A2 BAR was used in some quantity in the northern part of Norway.

Up through the years the knowledge about the complicated MG34 was passed down in the units, but a lot of the finer points were lost, as were the specialized tools to work on it and exchange parts. Manuals were issued in 1949, 1956 and 1990, but the correct use of the optics and Lafette mounts was lost along the way, although these items were used until the final changeover to the MG3 in 1994. The MG34 was a mythical weapon that had its share of followers and enthusiasts, and a large group of members of the Home Guard simply hated the damn thing. The holy grail was to always keep the Flower of Sulphur at hand for many of the machine gunners. The MG34F1 was not bad, but as we shall see the conversion to 7.62×51 was to be everything but a success.

By the mid 1970s, the MG34F1s were starting to show a lot of wear. The supply of certain spare parts was starting to dry up. The knowledge once gathered at Kongsberg during the initial conversion from 7.92 to .30-06 had been lost in the meantime. The apparatus to adjust the connection between the barrel jacket and the receiver was nowhere to be found.

For the new conversion, it was decided to remove most of the markings from the barrel jacket of the MG34s to avoid all confusion regarding the serial numbers. The official Norwegian serial number was of course the one stamped on the left side of the receiver. The original German nomenclature on the barrel jacket was just ground off and then it was blued over. This makes the research on these weapons very difficult.

Although the conversion had been relatively simple from 7.92 to .30-06, the new conversion to the much shorter 7.62×51 proved to be a nightmare for the next 17 years. The drawings and plans for the conversion were drawn up in 1976. One of the most critical issues was that there was no longer a supply of original springs of any kind for the MG34. A contact was made with a spring factory in Sweden, and production began. Additionally, many parts had to be modified in the top cover for the new conversion. As the 7.62×51 cartridge is considerably weaker than the 7.92/.30-06 rounds it replaced, it was decided to make a lighter barrel for this conversion. This created another problem in the timing and unlocking of the mechanism.

The Feedway of the 7.62×51 Round

During the test firing of the first conversions to the 7.62×51 cartridge, the following stoppages were noted: incomplete feeding of the rounds and incomplete locking of the bolt/barrel connection

The centre line of the round was found to be at too much of an angle from the centre line of the chamber of the barrel during the feeding of the cartridges, therefore causing the stoppages mentioned above. The receiver of the MG34 has a curvature in the front end of the feedway that is intended to help guide the cartridge on its way into the chamber. The 7.92 and .30-06 are so similar in length that the first conversion did not cause any problems, but the much shorter 7.62×51 cartridge would not work well in the first converted MG34s.

To improve the feeding, the following suggestions were made: the forward cartridge pressure pawl was to be replaced with a newly made pressure pawl with an angled surface to help in adjusting the round in the correct direction. The rearward cartridge pressure pawl was also to be slightly adjusted and the feed pawl and feed pawl slide were also slightly altered in the process. The feed tray was also altered for the shorter cartridge.

With these corrected parts, test firings were held in April, 1976 and the cyclic rate was found to be around 850 rpm with new ejector plates installed. When the guns were sent in for conversion at Kongsberg, the following checklist was set up for the guns before the work was done on them:

• Serial number
• Trigger group
• Barrel jacket – straightness and dents
• Rear sight
• Connection between receiver and barrel jacket
• Receiver
• Buttstock
• Top cover
• Bolts, both the main bolt and the spare.

After the conversion of the guns themselves had been completed, the need for special equipment arose. A special blank firing barrel modeled after the German original was introduced by Bakelittfabrikken. This blank firing barrel had a heavy chamber end that caused a lot of unnecessary wear on the guns. In the 1988 manual for the MG34, several types of barrels for both blue plastic short range training ammunition and red plastic blanks are shown. These barrels have their own booster cones, but I never saw these issued to the troops. The belt loaders were also rebuilt for the shorter cartridge. The transport crates for the MG34F1 were remarked and read MG34F1F2, a black square stenciled over the original F1 marking.

The Kongsberg small arms factory went through all the Home Guards MG34F1s and rebuilt them into MG34F2s as a modernizing project. After a couple years of service it was obvious that this was far from the case. The rebuilt MG34F2s were less reliable than ever and the stoppages were many. A few local enthusiasts in the Oslo Home Guard analyzed the problem and found that on their weapons most of the problems were related to the ejector. Many of their bolts had ejectors that showed signs of having been ground off with no other purpose than to fit the bolt inside the receiver, instead of finely honing the ejector until the bolt fits in the gun and works perfectly as it is supposed to. The report from these enthusiasts was sent in to the General Staff of the Home Guard, but no attention was paid and no action was taken.

During the rebuilding process, the ejector plates had been changed on all the guns and replaced with new made ejector plates that had the point of impact moved 6 mm forward to compensate for the shorter cartridge. This is not a good solution, as the ejector will hit the ejector plate earlier and both parts will wear more than necessary. The lighter barrels also add to this problem, as the MG34F2 will unlock its action faster than what is intended and the parts will go rearward with more force than the system is designed for.

In the mid 1980s it was decided that an AA tripod was necessary for firing against helicopters and other flying vessels, so a number of these were ordered from DISA in Denmark. Later, new cradles were ordered so that the AA mounts could be used with the MG3. A small number of MG34s that were earmarked for the AA tripods were fitted with MG3 AA sights on a locally made base.

The last accessory to be developed for the MG34 in Norway was a plastic mechanism cover. This model was identical to the older canvas type except for the material used. As they were made shortly before the guns were to be scrapped it is doubtful that they were ever issued. The only place I saw any sign of them was at a scrap pond awaiting destruction.

Throughout the 1980s the MG34 became more of an accessory and a necessary evil to the soldiers of the Home Guard and less of a vital part of the small arms inventory. Very few soldiers could use it effectively. Some units had good instructors and armorers that kept their MG34F2s running and maintained them properly, while others might as well have carried railroad ties around with them. The HK21 was strongly considered as its replacement around 1989, but was dropped due to its low tolerance in high stress situations. A small number was bought and tested with specialized units of the Home Guard.

Booster cones

The original German MG34 used a booster cone opening of 11 mm when normal ammunition was to be fired. There was also a booster cone with a 9.5mm opening to be used with the lighter aluminium-cored practice ammunition. After converting the guns to caliber .30-06 it was found that a booster cone opening of 10.5 mm would be ideal to ensure proper reliability. During the last conversion process it was decided to manufacture booster cones of 9.5 mm, 10 mm and 10.5 mm and change these around until the gun worked during test firing. The original intention was to mark the correct booster cone opening under the lid of the transport crate, but this was seldom done. In other words it was just sheer luck if the gun kept its correct booster cone through some years of maneuvers.

When the MG34 was scrapped in the 1990s after almost 50 years of service in Norway, especially in the Home Guard, it was not without a bit of sadness. During our yearly exercises it was a common sight. Most of the machine guns were scrapped for metal, but a small number were deactivated and sold to members of the arms collecting society.

Manuals

Several manuals were issued on the MG34 during its service life in Norway. These were issued in 1949, 1956 and 1988. Training charts and even the old German instruction film “MG34” are noted in older publications. The instruction film seems to be mostly lost today, except for a few rolls that have been transferred to DVD recently.

HK21E

In the late 1980s the HK21E was a strong contender to be the replacement of the MG34 in the Home Guard and it was tested on many occasions. A small number was purchased for the Home Guards 016 Special service units. The original HK21 was tested in Norway for the first time as early as the 1960s. The testing was done in both caliber 7.62×51 and 5.56×45 and the guns were literally shot to pieces. The Armed Forces Museum has a crate with the remains of these weapons.

1919A4

In the early 1990s, a 1919A4 Browning machine gun was converted to 7.62×51 caliber by local enthusiasts in the Oslo area. The conversion was quite successful and the Browning worked flawlessly. Nothing came out of this, but at the time there were still a lot of 1919A4 Brownings in storage in Norway.

MG3

In 1967, the Norwegian Armed Forces adopted the G3 rifle for all its branches and started manufacturing it at Kongsberg. More than 200,000 G3s were made in the years to follow. The G3, known as the AG3 in Norway, replaced the M1 rifle and M1 carbine in the Norwegian Army as well as the K98k in the Home Guard. It would later replace both the submachine guns and the pistols for most of the Norwegian units and was for a while the universal small arm of the Norwegian Armed Forces. The armed forces adopted the MG3 at the same time as the light and medium MG, but kept the MG34F1 for the Home Guard.

The MG3 was a well proven machine gun at the time and is still state of the art in its class along with the MAG58. When the German Leopard tanks were purchased for the Norwegian Cavalry, the tanker version of the MG3, the MG3A1 was adopted with it. The Rheinmetall manufactured MG3s that were initially purchased did not present any problems at all, except for the normal wear and tear on any machine guns. For the medium machine gun role, the MG3 was mounted on rebuilt 1919A4 tripods with newly made cradles made by DISA in Denmark.

Around 1970 the Norwegian Air Force rebuilt a number of MG Lafette 34s to take the MG3 and used them for perimeter defence of the air bases. Technically these mounts are similar to the MG Lafette 42, but are easily separated from these by the crude front mounting bracket.

When it was finally decided to replace the Home Guards MG34F2 with the MG3 in the early 1990s, the guns were to be supplied from Turkey, not a country known for its high standard in arms-making. When the Turkish MG3s were first issued there were quite a few problems with them. Cocking handles breaking off were only minor problems. Many Home Guard soldiers, enthusiasts and officers felt that they might as well have kept their old MG34F2s. Quite a few of the Turkish MG3s turned out to have severe headspace problems and literally blew up during firing. After this had been investigated it was found out that the chambers of the barrels had been made incorrectly, and new bolts and barrels were purchased from Heckler & Koch in Germany to solve this problem once and for all. The barrels have chrome lined bore and the same Cr marking as the WW2 MG42 chrome lined barrels.

The status of today is that Norway is still equipped with the MG3 and there seems to be no other machine gun on the horizon. A few Leopard II tanks were bought from Belgium, equipped with MAG58 machine guns, presenting a supply and logistics situation. Amusingly enough, the Swedish Army, who has the MAG58 as their standard LMG, recently bought Leopard tanks with MG3s and had to deal with the same problem. If the two countries would have traded the machine guns and mounts with each other a lot of logistics could have been made easier.

Apart from the MG3, Norway uses the M2 HB .50 cal. in the Vinghøg soft mount with the Raufoss Multi Purpose ammunition and FN Quick Change Barrel set-ups. The issue pistol is the Glock 17, known as the P 80, the MP5 and the G3 rifle are also in use. Snipers use a locally manufactured bolt action rifle built on the 98k mechanism. Our new combat rifle is the HK416, which is presently being introduced to all branches of the military along with a number of HK MP7 PDWs.

Today’s current snipers are taking a new approach for time sensitive missions that require speed instead of stealth. This approach has the sniper and spotter each assume the role of being an independent shooter and two weapons on target are more effective. The time spent on a spotter setting up his equipment hinders the team when conducting time critical missions. There are certain tools the sniper team will use to facilitate this dynamic setup. The riflescope is the gateway to the field of battle for the sniper. The sniper needs a rifle scope that enhances his capabilities to engage targets fast and effectively. With today’s advancement in rifle scopes, features such as first focal plane reticles benefit the sniper by allowing the reticle to be read correctly at any power setting. The sniper doesn’t have to be constricted to milling off a target in a default power setting. Another key feature in today’s rifle scopes is high magnification. This enables the team to observe and correct their shot or their team member’s shot without coming off their respected weapon. A rifle scope is only as good as the reticle inside it. A reticle that the military is adopting is The H59, Horus Vision reticle. This reticle forms a Christmas tree-like grid in mils below the first horizontal stadia line. With the H59 reticle, the sniper visually makes elevation and windage corrections from the grid. By using the mil-radian grid system, the sniper can identify his hit or miss, and make corrections by adjusting his hold on the target. Because of the target rich environment, the sniper doesn’t dial for elevation or wind. The hold system is faster and more efficient for rapid target engagement.

Another important tool to assist the shooter is a ballistics program. A ballistics program is a tool that allows the sniper to calculate bullet drop, wind deflection, time of flight, kinetic energy and other details of the specific round the sniper is shooting. In short, a ballistics program is the tool that accounts for all of the deterministic variables in long range fire. The HorusKestrel device is a popular tool that the military uses. This device combines the critical environmental data and targeting software solutions required for precision shooting. The shooter can create up to five targets customized for location, distance, direction, declination and winds. The Kestrel allows the user to obtain highly accurate measurements of wind and compass direction for target bearing. The Kestrel meter tracks current atmospheric data and automatically updates the firing solution. The new models of the HorusKestrel, allow the shooter to lase a target with a Vectronix PLRF and transmit the target range to the HorusKestrel through a Bluetooth connection. This feature enhances the sniper team in acquiring a firing solution faster.

A semi-auto sniper rifle enables the sniper team to move into a variety of environments with ease. The size and weight of such rifles aid in missions that rely on speed and violence of action. With the 7.62 LaRue Tactical OBR being magazine fed and having a 20-round capacity, it is effective at both precision fire and suppression if needed. The 7.62 OBR also breaks down to allow much more in depth maintenance on the operator level than that of a standard M24 or M40A3, allowing easier function in all environments. Semiautomatic capability is essential in order to be able to switch from the long fight in a rural environment to the short fight in an urban environment. The ability to engage targets from 5 meters to 1,000 meters is crucial.

The Raid

To understand how a sniper team supports a time sensitive target mission, I have created a scenario. In this scenario, the sniper team is in a supporting role of a raid to extract a high level Taliban figure located in a village on the border of Afghanistan. The Primary method of insertion is by helicopter to the adjacent structures to provide observation and security of the assaulting force. The sniper team moves into position. The primary shooter set’s up on target and begins pulling security. The secondary shooter uses the Vectronix PLRF to acquire ranges for target reference points. The data is streamed into the HorusKestrel and firing solutions are created. A target presents itself to the team. The primary shooter receives a command to hold 4.2 MILS up and begins his final firing phase. The secondary shooter estimates wind speed and direction to the target and uses a simplified wind formula to calculate a call. The secondary shooter gives the call of .8 MILS right to the primary shooter. The round is sent and is spotted to have missed the target by .2 MILS left. The secondary shooter sees this through his riflescope and because of the H59 reticle, he simply holds 1 MIL right and fires. The primary shooter also reengages with the new hold and within seconds, two rounds are on target. Team communication is done by visually engaging the reticle and relaying precise holds to one another.

The 2012 International Sniper Competition

With the battlefield rapidly changing, training needs to address the needs and innovations in weapons, equipment and tactics for the sniper. The military needs to expose its military snipers to the latest resources and shooting trends. The sniper needs to evolve with change, not regress. One way the military tests its finest snipers and their equipment is at the United States Army International Sniper competition held at Fort Benning, Georgia. The focus of the competition is to bring teams together to share battlefield lessons learned and to compete tactically and technically. Training is an excellent tool, but competition puts a high demand on snipers to perform well while under stress. Competitions also provide the sniper team to assess one’s equipment and analyze their performance both physically and mentally. The competition, scheduled November 4th to November 8th, is entering its 12th year. This year it will have 35 teams from the Army, Army National Guard, Marine Corps, Air Force, Special Forces, SWAT and foreign allied countries compete in 15 grueling events. The 72 hour competition virtually runs non stop, with only 1 to 2 four hour rest breaks during the event. The competition will have the two man teams compete in sniper stalks, urban shooting, orienteering, stress shoots and other marksmanship tasks.

I will have the privilege of competing in this year’s International Sniper competition with my partner SGT Christopher Stevens. We will be representing the 3rd Infantry Regiment, The Old Guard, out of Arlington, Virginia. We will be the first team from The Old Guard to compete in this competition. Our training for this event has been rigorous and rewarding. We have had the pleasure to train with some of America’s finest and I will continue coverage on this event in an upcoming article and offer an inside perspective on the competition, from interviews with other competitors, to after-action reviews of each event.

The PSL rifle chambered in 7.62x54R was introduced into Romanian military service in the mid-1970s. The mission description for the PSL is closer to what we would label a designated marksman’s weapon versus as a true sniper rifle. The current offering of PSL rifles in the U.S. market has to be considered a great purchase for someone desiring a working example of a Cold War Communist Bloc weapon. The PSL rifle has always been a surprising performer considering its “bastard” heritage compared to the more infamous Soviet/Russian SVD Dragunov. The PSL utilizes the basic AK operation with piston operating rod and bolt carrier connected. The PSL’s receiver is reinforced front and rear due to it being “stretched” in order to accommodate the longer and beefier 7.62x54R cartridge compared to the 7.62×39. Anyone looking for a hard-hitting, high capacity semi-automatic rifle would do well by not overlooking the PSL. This stems from the PSL’s well earned reputation for ruggedness and reliability combined with the 7.62x54R cartridge. The added bonus is you are getting a magazine fed semi-automatic rifle chambered in a potent cartridge with enough accuracy allowing for hits on man sized targets out to 600 yards.

The PSL used for this article was imported by Century International Arms and labeled as PSL-54C. The PSL acronym stands for “semi-automatic rifle with scope” in Romanian. The base PSL rifle acquired came with two 10-round magazines, a Romanian LPS-1 optic manufactured by IOR, magazine pouch, cleaning kit, and sling. Basic PSL dimensions are 10.25 lbs with a 24.4 inch barrel and an approximately 2 inch muzzle brake giving overall length of 46 inches. The LPS-1 optic is mounted on a side rail on the left of the PSL’s receiver. The Russian style PSO reticle in the LPS-1 features range finding markings and hold over chevrons. The optic’s reticle was originally illuminated via tritium, but the tritium has since expired eliminating the illuminated reticle feature. While the PSL resembles a SVD Dragunov externally, it is totally dissimilar in operation under the hood. SVD Dragunov’s are rare and expensive in the U.S. market, with the PSL more than glad to fill in for it. Several fundamental differences exist between the PSL and the SVD. The PSL operates via the Kalashnikov long-stroke gas piston bolt carrier system inside a stamped receiver more similar to the reinforced RPK light machine gun than a standard AK, where as the SVD is a short stroke operating system utilizing a milled receiver. Trigger group designs are different between the PSL and SVD as well. The PSL and SVD both operate with 10-round detachable box magazines though the magazines are not interchangeable between weapon systems. On the whole, quality control for the Russian SVD is of a higher standard than the Romanian PSL and this aids the SVD in a more consistent accuracy reputation compared to the PSL. However, range experience and research leads to the belief that the accuracy potential of the PSL is under-rated. The Romanian decision to utilize simpler manufacturing techniques with the PSL versus more complex Russian SVD seems justified. The PSL starts with one basic advantage due to the AK operating system – reliability.

Critics/naysayers of the PSL point to the maxed out receiver combined with much longer operating rod as imposing stress on the action impacting accuracy. The long and relatively thin 24.4 inch barrel with 2-inch long brake on the end would seem only to accentuate this tendency. Slow motion video capturing a PSL while firing supports this notion. The PSL defies this logic by often performing better than expected, but below what U.S. market would consider a precision rifle. However, attention to detail such as ammunition supply, better stock system, finding a way to mount a better optic than the normally supplied Com Bloc 4x scope, and action fine tuning being pioneered by noted AK system gunsmith Jim Fuller’s Rifle Dynamics will bring out the full potential of the PSL.

A simple performance enhancement for the PSL would be to create a “flat-top” like Picatinny rail for mounting optics or other aiming devices. The inability to mount optics on the PSL over the receiver via Picatinny rail a la AR dissuades U.S. shooters against the PSL; not to mention inhibiting maximizing the PSL’s true field accuracy. The true hallmark of Soviet-era designs gaining acceptance in the U.S. is the rise of gunsmiths and aftermarket accessories starting to cater to its clientele. Texas Weapon Systems (TWS) is the poster child for what innovations are possible once enough demand is exerted from the market. TWS started with a Dog Leg Scope Rail with integral dust cover enabling AK connoisseurs to enhance their weapons capabilities with minimal fuss without sacrificing hallmark AK reliability and handling. It made business sense to concentrate on the more prolific AK model before the PSL due to AK quantities far exceeding PSLs in the U.S. The TWS Dog leg replaces the AK/PSL standard dust cover providing a Mil-Std 1913 rail mounting surface. In effect, it turns an AK or PSL into a flat top receiver with all the advantages associated with mounting magnified scopes, red dots and other optic options. Earlier experiences with TWS Dog Leg covers on AKs had set high hopes that TWS would turn its attention to the PSL rifle – which they finally have. Ultimately, the TWS Dog Leg offers shooters flexibility in setting up their PSL to desired personal preference. TWS offers a rear peep sight option as well for anyone wanting to maintain back up iron sights (BUIS) in case an optic fails. The extra sight radius offered by mounting the TWS peep sight at the end of the receiver compared to normal rear sight location is a worthy enhancement in its own right.

TWS literature states it best by describing how its “joggle” shaped pivot, i.e. dog leg, replaces the rear sight block in front of the receiver and cam action lock release button replaces the existing dust cover release button. The TWS dust cover hinges similar to the dust cover found on Krinkov AK models allowing for weapon cleaning and other maintenance chores. The key aspect of the TWS offering is that it does not disturb a mounted sight’s zero. As proofed on two separate AKs before trying the PSL version, the TWS Dog Leg does indeed enable repeatable accuracy. This is achieved by a self centering mechanism designed into the TWS dust cover combined with spring tension once the cover is closed. What makes the TWS stand out is how the Dog Leg design enables the same dust cover height as a standard cover thus optics are placed low enough that a proper cheek weld is maintained. Another key point is that the TWS version is relatively economical compared to other offering while still maintaining sturdiness and no shift of optic zero. The TWS Dog Leg is truly so simple that it is brilliant. The TWS Dog Leg is constructed from aircraft grade aluminum alloy 6061-T6 and is hard black anodized, which can stand alone or be painted to user preference.

The PSL used in this article was purchased several years ago and has undergone several stages of development. The original urge was for a SVD, but pricing and availability prevented this. Discovered handling and performance of the PSL assuaged any feelings of regret of not spending several thousand dollars on a SVD. Surplus ammunition intended more for PKM belt fed machine guns delivered 4-inch groups with the 4x scope. Zeroing in the LPS scope proved more of a challenge than anything else. The windage and elevation turrets operate via different mechanisms than more accustomed to Western type optics, not to mention how the scope sat to the left side of the receiver. The stock’s length combined with short eye relief of the LPS-1 scope proved something that had to be adjusted to as well. Handling of the PSL was above average considering its size and weight. The PSL’s “wispy” barrel keeps weight centered around the receiver compared to the front heavy feel found on most tactical bolt actions. Recoil was manageable and in no way harsh. The Tapco G2 trigger group was gritty with creep but serviceable.

Interest in the PSL was revived after running across several posts on Suarez International’s Warrior Talk Forum highlighting the “Guerrilla Sniper Rifle” (GSR) concept. The GSR is a rifle, preferably a semi-automatic, with accuracy standards of headshots at 200 yards and solid body hits out to 600 yards under field conditions. While not strictly defining what weapon is best, Suarez International was quick to seize on the PSL’s capabilities and cost effectiveness. The idea, or need, for maintaining sub-MOA accuracy at 800+ yards is unfounded for most. This type of accuracy is very expensive and frankly most users are not capable of taking advantage of this accuracy level. The PSL’s intended role of augmenting AK47/74 effectiveness with its superior long range capability makes it a natural candidate for a GSR, especially with readily achievable improvements in ammunition, optics, and rifle itself. While not as accurate as a bolt action rifle, the PSL offers much more firepower and could be used in any chance encounters much more effectively than a bolt action rifle.

Jim Fuller’s Rifle Dynamics was a natural to become involved with the Suarez “Guerrilla Sniper” concept and designed an accuracy enhancing package for the PSL. Rifle Dynamics is one of the premier AK gunsmiths in the U.S. and they are 07FFL/SOT manufacturers, which allows for work on machine guns, suppressors, SBR’s and SBS’s combined with being considered a dealer as well. The Rifle Dynamics’ PSL package consists of:

• Shorten barrel to 19 inches
• Cut 11 degree target crown on barrel
• Re-thread barrel for muzzle device
• Uncant sights/gas block
• Modify rear sight
• Correct breach face
• Correct bolt face
• True/fit bolt carrier/locking lugs
• Re-headspace and pin barrel to proper spec
• Adjust trigger group
• Fit/smooth safety
• Properly fit magazine catch
• Deburr PSL, including trigger guard, charging handle, and magazine catch
• Sandblast and Parkerize all metal parts
• 25 yard zero iron sight verification

Even without firing a live round the Rifle Dynamic modifications could be detected in the smoothness of the action, trigger pull, quality of re-finish and overall weapon feel. The shortened barrel not only positively impacts weapon handling due to decreased length and weight, but also accuracy by minimizing barrel “whip” or “vibration” caused by when a round is fired and the action operates. The reduction of length from 24.5 inches to 19 inches in effect stiffens the barrel and provides better barrel harmonics allowing for more consistent accuracy. It was initially decided to take full advantage of the Rifle Dynamic improvements to the PSL by mounting a Leupold Mk 4 3.5-10x40mm scope with M3 style turrets. A BP-02 scope mount was used for this. The BP-02 mount attaches to the side rail similar to the LPS optics, but features a Picatinney style base that is centered over the rifle’s action and lowered closer to the bore line.

Total comfort could not be obtained with the BP-02 mount as it provided more of a chin weld than a true cheek weld combined with skepticism of its hardiness riding on the side of the PSL’s rail. The PSL was again put back into the safe until the TWS Dog Leg scope cover was discovered. The TWS Dog Leg satisfied any remaining hesitancy related to the PSLs viability as a DMR and facilitates the Rifle Dynamics modifications to be fully explored. Several 7.62x54R ammunition choices besides surplus “spam” can Bulgarian 149gr FMJ variants were accessed. These loads consisted of Wolf Gold 150gr FMJ and 180gr SP, Barnaul 185gr FMJ ammunition and of special note Sellier & Bellot 174gr Match HPBT. A quick word about 7.62x54R ammunition in the PSL is due here. Use of what is commonly termed “heavy ball” 185gr+ surplus ammunition intended for use in the PKM machine guns is to be avoided in the PSL’s already maxed out action.

Rifle Dynamics’ and TWS cover improvements were quickly born out with the same surplus ammunition that performed in the 4 MOA range before modification turning in consistent 3 MOA performance. As expected, the other loads did better with the Wolf Gold Ammunition 150gr FMJ giving just at 2 MOA, the Barnaul also near 2 MOA, and the Sellier & Bellot 174gr HPBT a pleasant surprise at hovering near 1.5 MOA. Overall, this is pretty consistent accuracy. Jim Fuller pointed out that PSLs are known for their proclivity for preferring certain types of ammunition over others with no rhyme or reason as to why. I am fortunate that this particular rifle shoots tested brands relatively close in performance with points of aim that are relatively stable.

The PSL’s buttstock is shorter than what U.S. shooters are used to and the stock’s short comb height generates complaints from some users. The coming together of other features such a Rifle Dynamics’ improvements combined with the TWS Dog Leg dust cover led to more dedicated search for improving the stock arrangement. Black Horse Arsenal proved the answer with their authentic Russian Izhmash SVD Dragonov sniper rifle composite stock modified to fit the Romanian PSL. The conversion of the SVD Dragonov stock to the PSL began as a project in 2006 by a Black Horse Arsenal sister company with the objective to introduce an alternative to the original PSL wood stock. The stimulus for this were relationships inside the U.S. military supply chain wanting to provide lighter and more durable furniture for the PSLs being supplied by the U.S. to post-Saddam Iraqi Army. The polymer buttstock is adjustable for length of pull with an elevated cheekpiece that swivels out of the way if desired. There is a locking lever on the bottom of the stock that locks the stock in position once the user finds their specific setting. It was decided to change out the front handguards of the PSL with Black Horse Arsenal polymer furniture as well. The lower hand guard has a slightly changed gripping surface that allows the supporting hand a more comfortable hold. The Black Horse Arsenal buttstock is attached with one hex bolt by the cheek pad and another coming up from the bottom of the pistol grip. Some PSL models will require a hole to be drilled into the receiver for attachment. The Black Horse Arsenal PSL stock was the finishing touch of bringing the PSL to its full potential offering the user the most ergonomic stock for taking advantage of the TWS Dog Leg Dust cover with Leupold scope mounted.

In layman’s terms, the 7.62x54R can be considered the Russian rimmed .30-06 in terms of ballistics (180gr @ 2,700 fps) and thus by degree a relative of the 7.62×51/.308 Win, especially with the 19 inch barrel. The Leupold M3’s adjustable turret, calibrated for 7.62×51/.308 Win proved close in elevation settings out to 500 yards as test fired at Echo Valley Training Center. Like any calibrated scope, adjustments need to be field verified for any load used. The 7.62x54R is not a high pressure cartridge. It does not rely on +26 inches of barrel to burn a slow burning powder to achieve listed velocity figures. The shortening of the PSL’s barrel has limited negative effect on velocity allowing for ballistics similar to a .308Win/7.62×51. The PSL was fired from the bench initially to verify accuracy with most testing done from prone and “dug in” positions.

The Rifle Dynamics improvements to the basic PSL combined with mounting the Leupold Mk 4 scope to the TWS Dog-Leg railed cover and using quality ammunition such as the Sellier & Bellot load has turned the PSL into a credible long range performer. The Black Horse Arsenal stock was another contributor to the equation of increasing the PSL’s performance. Proper cheekweld and positioning of hand for straight back trigger pull cannot be underestimated in relation to repeatable accuracy. The PSL’s semi-automatic capability combined with 10-round detachable magazines serve as added performance enhancements. The re-worked PSL with Rifle Dynamics tuning, TWS Dog Leg cover, Black Horse Arsenal stock, Leupold optics, and quality ammunition outperforms most shooters’ abilities with its accuracy, especially when under field conditions compared to shooting off a bench. This is not too bad for a mass produced stamped receiver rifle. As expected from an AK based action there were no issues with the PSL’s reliability throughout its various stages of development. The rejuvenated PSL proved great to carry afield during training and is a potent hunting rifle in its own right. An accurate, reliable, rugged semi-automatic rifle featuring a 10-round detachable magazine of hard hitting 7.62x54R can find many uses.

Sites of Interest

Texas Weapon Systems (TWS)
10900 Research Blvd
Ste 160-C/#32
Austin, TX 78759
(512) 554-1136
www.texasweaponsystems.com

Black Horse Arsenal
(541) 487-4246
www.blackhorsearsenal.com

Rifle Dynamics
(702) 860-7774
www.rifledynamics.com

Sellier & Bellot
www.sellier-bellot.cz

Century International Arms
430 South Congress Ave. Suite 1
Delray Beach, FL 33445
(800)-527-1252
www.centuryarms.com

Echo Valley Training Center
www.echovalleytrainingcenter.com

Leupold & Stevens, Inc.
14400 NW Greenbrier Pkwy
Beaverton, OR 97006
(800) LEUPOLD
www.leupold.com

Wolf Ammunition
PO Box 757
Placentia, CA 92871
(888) 757-9653
www.wolfammo.com

Arrested Development

However, what was modern in the 1960s, in 1970s proved to be expensive and non-modifiable. As early as 1977 a program was thus started to design a modern replacement chambered for the smaller caliber bullet. In 1977 Miloslav Fisher of the Brno’s General Machine-Building Plants R&D Center (Vyzkumne vyvojovy ustav zavodu vseobecneho strojirenstvi) or VVU-ZVS (also known as the Prototypa Brno) started the ‘Lada S’ study, to examine the possibility of re-arming the CSLA with a domestically designed and manufactured rifle, chambered for the Soviet 5.45mm round. Several years of research and preparations resulted in green-lighting the design in 1984. The study’s cover name, Lada (a popular Slovakian female first name) became the cover name of the whole program, led by Bohumil Novotny. It aimed at creating the three gun ‘family’ of unified design small arms, consisting of a subcarbine with 185 mm long barrel, an automatic rifle with 382 mm barrel and a 577 mm barreled Light Support Weapon.

The similarity of the concept to the AK-74 family consisting of AKS-74U, AKS-74 and RPKS-74 was not at all accidental. The new Czechoslovak rifles were downright Kalashnikovian in both idea and detail. The only points different were the stiffer, slide-on / slide-off receiver cover, peep-style battle-sights, and the Galil-style thumb-operated safety-selector lever, but devoid of the AK-trademark long selector lever / cocking slot cover.

The design was ready by the end of 1985; prototypes were manufactured and tested in 1986. After many failures and recoveries the third generation of these was finally approved for production in November 1989. The new rifle was then running perfect, which sadly cannot be said for the state that commissioned it. In 1989 the Communist Bloc undermined by Gorbachev’s glasnost from one side, and Polish Communists sharing power with Solidarnosc opposition movement from the other, started to fall apart in a rapid ‘domino theory’ style. Then in late November and early December came Czechoslovakia’s turn. After several days of demonstrations, the Communist Party gave way and finally relinquished power in what became known as the Velvet Revolution.

Lada: The Little Orphan

As of February 1990, the Lada system was declared fit for production, but nobody was interested in it any longer. As the Czechoslovakian program did not involve production of the 5.45x39mm ammunition (as opposed to the Polish one), conversion to the 5.56x45mm was the only logical solution – more so as the country’s ammunition provider, Sellier & Bellot in Vlasim, was already making the .223 Remington with M193-style FMJ and JSP bullets.

At first there was talk of ordering 300,000 new rifles and a tender was held to choose the system integrator and future manufacturer. The offer by Czeska Zbrojovka Uhersky Brod (CZUB), a 1936-established national arms maker, was given priority due to its rich experience in individual small-arms manufacture, including the Sa-58 and the vz.61 Skorpion machine pistol manufacture for the CSLA.

But the Army was penniless, and state (at that stage called the Czecho-Slovakia, after what came down in history as the ‘hyphen war’) was now on the verge of separation, with political fire being stoked by extremists on either side of the national divide. Fortunately the ‘hyphen war’ was the only one fought there, and everything ended peacefully, in what was dubbed the Velvet Divorce. In 1992 the history of the Czechoslovakia was over after 74 years since November 1918, when Hungary’s and Austria’s Slavic lands were united, forming the new state under the influence of Thomas G. Masaryk, who became the first Czechoslovak president. As of January 1, 1993 there were two separate states: Slovakia and Czechia (Bohemia).

Now the new rifle was in dire straits indeed – the smaller the army, the less chance to be manufactured in numbers. At the same time CZUB got privatized, and as a private enterprise it had to earn what it was to spend on the new rifle design – not just draw it on the state’s budget, as previously. For five long years the Lada program got lost from the radar – gone, but never forgotten.

Enter Mr. Findorak

After the NATO doors were cracked open with the Partnership for Peace, giving a renewed hope of the full membership soon, the NATO-caliber rifle program was once again hauled forth from the backburner. NATO-caliber – but not the STANAG magazine: this conversion would have called for a wholesale re-designing of the receiver and so was deemed too expensive. The new Lada still had an AK-74 compatible magazine – but was now chambered for the 5.56mm (even though the surviving samples are stamped ‘.223’).

Several Czech designers and companies approached CZUB in the meantime, offering other rifles instead. One of them was Ladislav Findorak, ex-Army officer, who endorsed a delayed blowback system based on Soviet Anatoli Baryshev’s designs. This was a bold proposition – a complete weapon family called LCZ, made up of the same design but different size building blocks, which put together were to give anything from automatic rifle up to a .50 cal. heavy machine gun and even a 30mm grenade machine gun. CZUB partly financed his scheme and tested the resulting weapons, but chose not to continue. Findorak then started his own company, known under the English-language name of Czech Weapons in Slavicin, but both partners parted on good terms, and CZUB was impressed with Findorak’s ability in weapon designing.

Other than Findorak, two other rifles were considered, one designed by a British team for another English-named Czech company, the Moravian Arms Company and the other option was license from Colt’s to manufacture AR-15 rifles (M16/M4). CZUB had great designs for the then struggling Colt, but all that was left of it was a less-than-spectacular Colt Z40 pistol – and the starting of the CZ-USA subsidiary, who now owns the Dan Wesson Firearms.

CZ 2000 vs. Project 805

The Army of the Czech Republic (Armada Ceske Republiky, ACR) was once again interested in the new rifle, but this interest eventually failed to bloom into contracts. The CZUB was now left with no other way than to develop the Lada and find a buyer – if not at home, then abroad, trying to capitalize on the good standing of the CZ brand and the need for modern Kalashnikov derivatives in Western chambering. But to sell abroad the Lada needed a name that was (a) sexy and (b) involved ‘CZ’ to marry it to the brand. At the turn of the century ‘2000’ seemed to mesmerize buyers and sellers alike, bringing with it a promise of the modernity – more so for what was in fact nothing more than a face-lifted AKM. Thus the CZ 2000 was born, sometime accompanied by the name Lada, sometimes not. The CZ 2000 was a name used only for PR. For in-house use, the whole ‘Army Rifle Replacement’ program was dubbed the Project 805, according to the new classification scheme, in which model numbers were assigned according to the nature of the product. Assault rifles and SMGs were assigned series 800 – that’s why the civilian-legal Sa-58 was called the CZ 858, and the 9mm silenced Skorpion prototype with a fixed stock was the XCZ 861.

The New Rifle

It was only in late 2005 that CZUB decided to go whole hog and make their own rifle anew. The Army was not yet inclined to change the battle rifle for the entire military, but they nevertheless managed to buy a batch of Bushmaster M4A3s for the Special Forces. The situation could have slipped out of hand if the Army continued to re-arm itself piecemeal, instead of a large-scale re-armament – so CZUB bolted into action. A totally new specification was drawn, finally putting the stillborn Lada to rest. The new rifle was first called the CZ XX, then CZ S805. The S stood for ‘special’ to differentiate it from regular CZ 805 (no S), being a tricked-out Lada carbine with rails all over and an ambidextrous selector lever, designed for India (but never bought).

This new design was meant to get CZUB to the forefront of the world’s rifle evolution, constituting a totally new multi-caliber modular platform – much in the SCAR flavor. There were to be two sets of building blocks, one (with ‘A’ in model designation) for three intermediate rounds (5.56×45 mm, 6.8SPC and 7.62×39 mm), and the other (‘B’) for rifle calibers – and that’s not only 7.62×51 mm mind you, but .300 Win Mag as well. Each of these could have been fitted with three lengths of barrels, to became a Battle Rifle (‘1’ designator), CQB Carbine (‘2’) or the DMR/LSW (‘3’) fire support weapon. Thus a rifle in 5.56mm would be an A1, while a carbine in 7.62×51 mm would be a B2, and so on.

Close But No Cigar

CZUB had no design resources to speedily accomplish a design like that, and so they decided to outsource the designing phase and hired Mr. Findorak again. This proved to be an excellent choice – in less than a year the rifle was not only designed, but prototypes were built and tested. This also proved unfortunately to be Findorak’s last design accomplishment, as he died prematurely in the fall of 2006, in his early 50s.

In November 2006, CZ S805 was first demonstrated to the Army’s chief of staff, General Stefka, but the Army again didn’t order any – instead they bought another batch of Bushmasters. After that, CZUB decided to go public with their new accomplishment, hoping that patriotically-inclined public would affect the military complacency. For three years the rifle was regularly exhibited during the IDET fair in Brno as well as Prague’s ‘Future Soldier’ conventions, but success proved to be elusive. The big change came upon in 2009, when finally a tender was opened for the Czech Army’s new battle rifle.

Meanwhile at the factory, the Findorak rifle design’s development had been overseen by Vitezslav Guryca, a CZUB designer since 1984, whose previous accomplishments included the CZ 97B; Czech first ever .45 ACP pistol. Testing of the Slavicin-made prototypes revealed minor problems with lock timing, trigger mechanism, buttstock, return spring assembly, and barrel change method. These teething problems were ironed-out by Guryca, assisted by the CZUB’s chief engineer Radek Hauerland, chief designer Pavel Mahdala, with Jaroslav Bachurek, Jiri Kafka and Vladimir Simek. They were also designing the whole armament subsystem around the new rifle, including a novel 805 G1 40mm underbarrel grenade launcher, as well as the 805 UN/BN bayonet.

Racing against the clock, the design team decided to curtail the modularity of the system, and press on with development of only the A platform (SCAR-L equivalent) with two barrel lengths, rifle (A1) and carbine (A2). These were initially provided in two calibers, 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm. The first A1 demonstrated in November 2006 to the chief of staff was a 5.56mm A1, but the first to be hands-on publically demonstrated was the A2 in 7.62mm (during the Future Soldier 2008). Later on, the program got curtailed once again – only the 5.56mm system was exhibited since then, from early 2009 on with a re-modeled upper receiver.

The Multi-Optional Rifle

The caliber exchange in the CZ S805 rifle requires changing barrel, gas system, bolt-head and a magazine well. The magazine well is a separate module of the lower receiver, connected by a T-slot and the rail and (since 2010) stabilized with a pin – the idea resembling the MGI’s Hydra exchangeable magazine well system. There were three magazine modules demonstrated so far, two for CZ’s own plastic magazines and one for the AR-15 (STANAG) magazine.

The proprietary plastic magazine is a really bulky affair, patterned after HK G36 magazines – the 5.56mm variant claims interchangeability with the German rifle. These are opaque, semi-transparent to allow quick bullet count, and fortunately do not copy the G36 integral magazine couplings. The 7.62 and 5.56 plastic magazines differ mostly in shape with the 5.56 being much straighter than the 7.62 banana. There’s even a joke about these, stating that the 5.56 is a ‘Euro banana’ (hinting at the infamous EU regulation on the shape of banana, stipulating it should be almost straight – because such shaped bananas prevail in former French Guyana), as opposed to the 7.62mm ‘real banana.’ An AKM-compatible magazine well was announced, but never demonstrated, while the factory dismisses the speculations about Sa-58 compatible magazine well being ever contemplated.

Bought At Last

In November 2009, the long-awaited tender for the new Czech rifle was organized, but despite 27 initial submissions, only two rifles were finally pitted against each other: CZ’s offer, now referred to as CZ 805 Bren and FNH’s SCAR-L, with domestic design being finally selected after a reportedly hot contest, decided by a narrow margin. The results were promulgated on February 1, 2010, and on March 18, after the FN’s Czech partner decided not to repeal the results, the ministry finally ordered 6,687 CZ 805A1 rifles, 1,250 CZ 805A2 carbines and 397 CZ 805G1 grenade launchers. Each rifle and carbine was ordered with Meopta’s ZD-Dot red dot sight and a set of BUIS, and for the special forces 1,386 ‘enhanced optical suites’ were ordered, consisting of Meopta’s DV-Mag3 daylight 3x magnifier, NV-3Mag night 3x magnifier and a DBAL-A2 (AN/PEQ-15A) laser target designator.

But before the first rifles hit the shelves of the Army stores, the military demanded several changes that arose from the qualification testing of the samples delivered as stipulated in contract by May 2010. First of all, somewhat surprisingly, the Army requested a folding-only stock instead of the factory-offered folding/telescoping stock – said to be awkward. The stock is held by a T-rail on the receiver backplate, and can be replaced any time, for any style – providing it is fitted with a proper attachment. Second change concerned stabilizing the magazine well with a pin. The third request called for replacement of the fixed pistol grip with one fitted with exchangeable backstraps, just like the ones so popular since all new pistols’ frames became plastic. Another change was introduced in the bolt head – the seventh locking lug was omitted. Initially, the seventh lug was deeply undercut by the extractor claw channel, and it could possibly crack, so it was eliminated and now there’s only six. All these changes delayed the date of the initial delivery to July 19, 2011, when the first 505 A1s and A2s with 20 grenade launchers were taken over by the Army, with 2,745 A1s and 926 A2s scheduled to be delivered during the latter half of the 2011, and further deliveries made until 2013, when the initial order would be fulfilled.

The Inner Life

The gas-operated rifle has a gas opening on top of the barrel, where gas block with bayonet attachment on the bottom is fitted. On top there’s a large ring, into which the gas mechanism is inserted. The gas mechanism consists of a one-piece gas piston (somewhat resembling the one of the Sa-58), complete with a self-contained return spring and two-stage gas regulator. The whole gas system is held in place by a lug in the form of the regulator shield. When the shield is turned to either of the two working positions, the lug stays firmly in the abutment cut into the gas block. But if the gas regulator is turned a full 180 degrees, there is a flat undercut in the shield, fitting over the top of the gas block, and the whole unit can be pulled clear for cleaning or replacement for other caliber’s set. No other procedures or tools are needed. Whoever struggled with a SCAR gas mechanism once would appreciate that immediately and immensely. The piston hits the boxy bolt carrier and makes it recoil, while the operating cam unlocks the bolt. The unlocked breech opens and the extractor extracts the spent case, while the spring-loaded rod ejector in the breech face tilts it to the right. Then the ejected empty hits the deflector, changes the rotation direction and flies clear forward and to the right. The ejection opening is far enough ahead to allow left-handed operation without the need to change the ejection direction. The recoiling bolt-carrier compresses the return spring set on a single guide rod, but not anchored rigidly in the back plate. There’s no magic at all in the operation of the CZ 805 Bren: as with about 75% of modern military rifles based on the AR-18, if you know one, you know them all. The only unusual thing is a firing pin automatic safety in the rear part of the bolt carrier – a spring loaded lever that hooks in the pin, holding it immobile to prevent AD from pin inertia. It operates just like the HK MP7 firing pin safety, being swept out of the way by the falling hammer.

The upper receiver is monolithic, with a full length Mil-Std 1913 rail running on top. The upper is machined out of a forged aircraft-grade aluminum billet, has a form of an inverted U-sectioned through, completely open at three sides. Initially it was planned to be made of polymer plastic, but during the development an aluminum ‘interim’ receiver was used, and so it remained. The sides have (each) two cooling slots and three barrel screws openings, as well as a cocking slot with rounded cocking handle inserting opening. The cocking handle can be inserted from either side, without any adverse effects on operation. The barrel screws also hold the side rails, and their openings are filled with polymer sleeves to eliminate vibration and hinder heat transfer. The ejection opening is on the right side of the upper receiver. From the rear it is closed by a back plate, from the front by the barrel assembly, and from the bottom half by the lower rail, being the part of the barrel assembly, and the other half by the lower receiver. The interesting point here is, that the lower hinges not on the upper receiver, but on the rear end of the bottom rail.

The Barrel Assembly

The barrel assembly is exchangeable as a whole unit, and resembles the one used in SCAR – at least in the mode of fixing – very closely. The locking ferrule is screwed onto the rear end of the barrel. The rear two pairs of the barrel fixing screws are screwed into this ferrule from the sides. On top of the ferrule there is a piston guide, directing it on the way to hit the bolt-carrier. On the bottom another two screws fix the lower rail to the ferrule. At approx. 2/3 length of the barrel the gas port is drilled, covered with gas block. Just aft of the gas block there is a U-shaped former, into which the bottom of the forward bottom rail screw is screwed, and into which sides fit the forward barrel fixing screws pair. The locking ferrule and this former keep the barrel free-floating as much as possible in a gas-operated gun. The muzzle is threaded for a countering nut and muzzle devices – standard bid-cage flash hider/compensator, a blank-firing-attachment or a sound moderator. To exchange the barrel one has first to field-strip the rifle (the bolt head has to be withdrawn from the locking ferrule of the barrel, and lower receiver has to be detached from the bottom rail), then to unscrew six barrel fixing screws and withdraw the barrel. It can be done in field conditions, but it is by no means a quick-change barrel. Anyway, it takes a torque wrench to reassemble it in a rigidly-regulated sequence. Whoever changed a barrel on SCAR, knows the drill.

The A1 and A2 barrels are identical save for the length and theoretically they can be exchanged freely – but in reality the Army ordered the rifles in final configuration with no spare barrels. It is then a modular system, but not an operator-configurable one. The bore is 6 grooves, one right hand twist in 7 inches.

Lower Receiver

The lower receiver is divided into two parts: trigger mechanism housing with pistol grip and the exchangeable magazine well. Both are made of polymer, connected by a T-rail and corresponding slot, and pinned. The pin can be started out by bullet point, and then pushed out with a firing pin. After the pin is out, both parts can be slid one from another and separated. In both 5.56mm magazine wells the magazine release is fully ambidextrous – by bottom lever in CZ proprietary magazine, and by buttons positioned on both sides of the STANAG-magazine well. The bolt hold open is positioned inside the magazine well and provided with ambidextrous push-buttons. Caution: these can only activate the hold-open when there’s no magazine. The release is ALWAYS by pulling on the cocking lever. This is a drawback, but Czech soldiers used the same system on their Sa-58s for half a century, and 50 years of tradition is an undisputable power in each Army. The standard magazine well is the CZ plastic magazine one, but STANAG-magazine wells are going to be provided for the Special Forces to insure interoperability and also for the future A3 LSW variant, to enable the use of the Beta C-Mag and other high capacity magazines fitting the AR-15 magazine well.

The complete lower is a swing-out affair, fixed by two cross-pins. After the cross-pins are withdrawn, there are corresponding sockets in the stock where these can be stored. Nothing new for any HK user.

The modified (M2011) pistol grip has exchangeable backstraps, also secured with a pin. Two sizes are available, standard (M) which fits most hands, and XL.

The trigger mechanism is a modified AK with a burst limiter – not much changed since the Lada, except perhaps for the flat trigger/selector retaining spring, which is another of the Sa-58 left-overs. The selector has four settings, 0-1-2-30, all within a right angle, which means that separations are diminutive, just 22.5 degrees. Pictograms are dots in two colors: white dot means SAFE, and then there are red dot(s), for single, burst and continuous fire. The lever is well within reach and moves up to SAFE, down to FIRE, just like the 1911. A possible civilian-legal variant would perhaps only have two settings, SAFE and FIRE also in a 90 degrees arc, which would be best for it. The burst setting is pointless, with the two-rounds burst – fortunately it resets itself after releasing the trigger prematurely, unlike the M4.

Pros and Cons

This author had the opportunity to check out the CZ 805 Bren at a shooting range, and the occasion, however brief, left me with several remarks to make. A 4.2 kg heavy rifle has no right to display a noticeable recoil or muzzle flip with the 5.56x45mm round, and this truth was once again proven by the CZ rifle. It takes a long burst on fully automatic to swing the muzzle noticeably, although still keeping a full magazine-dump within a torso target at 15 meters was easy – as opposed to the Sa-58. The shoulder stock is made of plastic, and by contrast seems to be weightless at all, which means the rifle is heavy on the nose. That’s not bad for dynamic sweeps, but if you keep it ready for a long spell of time, your weak hand would finally become sore. And definitely make use of the 6 o’clock rail by attaching a foregrip. If you don’t, you have to watch your supporting hand thumb position – if you utilize the cocking handle on the left side of the gun and you’re not a southpaw, that is. Again, whoever shot the SCAR, knows why – the cocking handle is reciprocating, and with bolt in battery it is very easy to place your thumb in the way, if you support the gun by magazine well. Been there, done that – you better don’t. The cocking handle stripped the half of my thumbnail in no time. Nothing you’d like to repeat, believe me, although not incapacitating. The rifle is mostly flat, but has rails all over – waiting to skin your fingers alive if you don’t muzzle them with rubber covers or wear gloves, or preferably both. All controls are within easy reach (or at least – within MY easy reach) and work quite nicely – rotate easily, but firmly keep their positions, or spring back energetically after release of the push buttons. The only drawback in that area is the safety-selector lever, with four settings within 90 degrees – that’s way too cramped. The plastic magazines are said to be interchangeable with HK G36, but fortunately omit the integral coupling devices, sticking out from their sides. Anyway, they’re still wide and big – it’s hard to believe they only keep tiny 5.56mm rounds.

The long 40-centimeter overhead monolithic rail has enough room for any combinations of sights one is likely to haul. The factory sights suite consists of a set of CZ’s own BUIS and a Meopta ZD-Dot red point sight. Whoever used any variation of the M68 CCO would be at home with the ZD-Dot, housed in as big a tube with as many protuberances as most of the M-series Aimpoints, and utilizing the same time-proven red dot reticle. By the way, it’s the Meopta who makes most of the Aimpoint lenses. Each A1 rifle and A2 carbine was ordered with a ZD-Dot. 1,386 would get an ‘enhanced optoelectronic suite’ consisting of two 3x magnifiers, one day-time, one coupled with NV device and a DBAL-A2 laser module. The magnifiers, at least the daylight model, DV-Mag3, gives a very sharp, even image. The optics are really good – but Meopta still has a thing or two to learn in tactical optics. No quick release means – so while FIBUA you have to undo a lever and take the magnifier out, unlike the Aimpoint QD pivot mount. But the prototypes had both red point and the magnifier mounted with Allen screws, so that’s an improvement over the previous version, nevertheless.

Que Sera Sera

The future of the CZ 805 is still ‘not ours to see.’ It has just begun it’s travel, and the soldiers would no doubt find many ways to give the CZUB team a reason for headaches. For some reason or other the modular rifle have in reality became a fixed configuration one – perhaps the user had not matured yet to have too many choices left. The plans are still ambitious, though, and in May 2011 the existence of the new A3 was announced – but in a little strange way. The A3 ‘soon in a theatre near you’ is a bipod-fitted LSW/DMR – that’s more or less consistent with the program. But then the CZUB announced it would be a 7.62x51mm weapon, which then should be a B3 rather, and the first version of the long-awaited B full-power round configuration. The civilian-legal semiautomatic variant of the A1 has also been hinted to, so perhaps there would also be a U.S.-market version with a 16-inch barrel – which would certainly be greeted with much interest.

During World War II, the United States became allied with the Chinese Nationalists and provided massive military aid through the United States’ Lend Lease Program, enacted in March 1941, to assist them in fighting the Japanese army, which had invaded China in 1937. The Chinese were provided with military aid that included large amounts of U.S. weapons. Some of the U.S. submachine guns supplied were the UD-42, 1921, 1928 and M1-M1A1 Thompsons and M3-M3A1 “grease guns”. The wartime plan of the U.S. was to assist China in becoming a strong ally and a stabilizing force in Asia after the war.

The Chinese Nationalists and Chinese Communists had been fighting intermittently since 1927. The war represented an ideological split between the Western-supported Nationalist Party and the Soviet-supported Communist Party of China: the war was temporarily interrupted by the Japanese invasion. The Japanese, aware of the ongoing turmoil in China with the civil war, and territorial disputes between warlords, saw an ideal opportunity to dominate the country and secure its vast raw material reserves and other economic resources. When World War II ended with the Japanese surrender to the Allies in 1945, the Chinese civil war between the Communist and Nationalists intensified. Needing weapons to fight their Communist adversaries, many of the U.S. weapons supplied through Lend Lease were copied and manufactured locally in Nationalist Chinese workshops and factories; the quality of weapons varied from excellent to poor. The long, ongoing civil war eventually resulted in a Communist victory in 1949; the Nationalist government was forced from the mainland and settled on the island of Formosa (Taiwan) located off of the southeast coast of the mainland. Communist leader Mao Tse-tung renamed mainland China the Peoples Republic of China.

A Brief History of U.S. Submachine Guns

When the United States entered World War II in 1941, its military forces had few submachine guns in their inventories. Many decision makers in the armed forces of the day saw no real need for a submachine gun, there was no requirement for such a weapon that many felt only wasted ammunition. The collective results of the testing of the Thompson submachine gun by the Infantry Board, Cavalry Board and the Air Service during the 1920s were reported to the Sub-Committee on Automatic Weapons by Army Major O’Leary. The report summarized that: “From the foregoing recommendations and test reports, it is concluded that while the Thompson is a mechanically practical weapon, it offers no tactical advantage over weapons now available and should receive no further consideration or testing, the submachine gun being judged to have no military value at this time.” The Sub-Committee approved the recommendation. The early military testing and reports of the Thompson accurately reflects the mindset and tactics of the U.S. military in the post World War I era.

In 1931, the Infantry Board again evaluated the Thompson submachine gun. The Board concluded that the Thompson was only suitable for certain situations such as small wars against savages, jungle fighting, beach defense or riot duty. The Board went on to state that the weapon, “Has no place as a standard article of the Infantry.” The Infantry Board recommended that the Thompson not be adopted as standard, but limited issues of the weapon be authorized for special operations and riot duty. The United States Army eventually procured a small number of Thompson submachine guns for further evaluation and guard use. However, in 1932, the United States Army adopted the Thompson submachine gun as a “Nonessential Limited Procurement Item.” By 1938, the Model 1928 Thompson was upgraded to “Standard Procurement” for cavalry use in military vehicles. Although the U.S. Army was finally purchasing the Thompson they still viewed the weapon purely in a defensive role and not as an infantry weapon.

It was not until the U.S. became deeply involved in World War II would the value of the submachine as an effective military weapon be realized. The Thompson was designed over twenty-five years earlier during 1919-1920; it was heavy and expensive, costing as much as a .50 caliber machine gun. After it became apparent that the pistol caliber submachine gun had a role to play, the U.S. Ordnance Department began to look for a modern alternative to the labor-intensive Thompson.

During the Second World War, Germany fielded a number of new weapons produced from simple sheet metal stampings. The MP40 submachine gun started a world revolution in small arms design. The methods and materials used allowed weapons to be manufactured cheaply and very quickly in large numbers – very advantageous during a large scale war. Weapons manufactured by these methods proved as durable as their labor-intensive counterparts made primarily of milled steel. Some of the first designs fielded by the Allies were the 9mm British Sten and the Soviet PPSh41 and the PPS43.

Seeing the benefits of such a design, the United States Ordnance Department began to develop a similar submachine gun that was to be fabricated from inexpensive sheet metal. After an in-depth study by the Ordnance Department engineers, the requirements for a similar U.S. weapon were established. Development began by the Small Arms Development Branch of the Ordnance Department with assistance from the Inland Division of the General Motors Corporation. One of the first new submachine gun models to be designed was the T15 submachine gun. The T15 was a .45 caliber weapon that featured a straight open-bolt blow back operation commonly used in most submachine gun designs. The T15 quickly evolved into the simplified T20 model after several requirements were revised. One of the design changes was the elimination of semiautomatic function, and a requirement for the weapon to be easily converted to fire 9mm Parabellum ammunition. Because of the slow cyclic rate of the weapon it was decided that there was no need for a semiautomatic feature thus allowing the design to be further simplified.

The T20 had one very unique design feature that separated it from all other submachine guns of the day. On virtually all previous submachine gun designs, the bearing surfaces of the bolt would move forward and rearward supported by the inside surfaces of the receiver. On the T20 weapon, the bolt was designed with two horizontal holes that ran through the entire length of the bolt. The bolt then rode on two steel rods that were inserted into the holes, and were held in place by a steel plate oriented by two holes located in the rear of the receiver. Each guide rod had its own separate recoil spring. The steel guide rods were supported at the front by a steel guide plate that was indexed in the receiver by two integral tabs on the plate. A spring steel circular clip kept the bolt, guide rods and recoil spring assembly together until the barrel could be screwed onto the receiver. The front guide plate was secured to the receiver by the tightening of the barrel nut assembly. The primary advantage to the design was that the bolt never contacted the inside surfaces of the receiver. The unique arrangement made the T20 submachine gun nearly impervious to stoppages from dust, mud water or even sand. The T20 was one of the few weapons that were able to successfully pass the Ordnance Department’s rigorous mud and dust tests. In the design of the T20 the receiver was constructed by joining two separate stamped sheet metal pieces by welding. The receiver, the housing for the trigger and sear assembly, and pistol grip were all an integral part of a single assembly. The only other separate parts required were a dust cover/ejector housing for the trigger mechanism and a simple spring steel trigger guard that also held the cover in place. Other parts like the barrel bushing, sights, and ejection port cover were attached to the receiver assembly by rivets or welding – no threaded fasteners were used. The receiver of the M3 submachine gun was fabricated from sheets of .060-inch steel. Although several steps were involved, a new M3 could be made in 1.4 minutes!

The T20 was recommended for adoption as the Caliber .45 Submachine Gun, M3 on December 24, 1942. The contract for manufacture of the M3 was awarded to the Guide Lamp Division of General Motors. The Guide Lamp initial contract price for the manufacture of the U.S. M3 was $18.36 per unit. The only major part that was subcontracted out was the bolt assembly, which was manufactured by the Buffalo Arms Company of New York. The manufacture of the M3 submachine gun was further simplified with the introduction of the M3A1 model in 1945. One of the primary changes was the elimination of the troublesome cocking handle, replaced by simple depression in the bolt allowing the weapon to be cocked with the soldier’s finger. Other upgrades were introduced to simplify the disassembly of the weapon.

The Chinese Type-36 Submachine Gun

After the end of World War II and the U.S. Lend Lease Programs, the Chinese Nationalists and Communist Chinese began to copy and manufacture weapons of both U.S. and Russian designs. The U.S. submachine guns the Nationalists copied were the Thompson and the U.S. M3A1. Both of the U.S. weapons the Chinese chose to manufacture were relatively difficult designs to produce; the Thompson requiring a number of machine tools and skilled labor to manufacture. The M3A1, although a seemingly simple weapon, fabrication of the M3A1 receiver and parts would require special dies and large complex stamping machines. After stamping the M3A1 receiver halves, they needed to be accurately welded together without warping. Both U.S. weapons were difficult to manufacture with limited resources, especially when compared to the Soviet designs, the PPSh-41 and the PPS-43 submachine guns, whose receivers were simple U-shaped pieces of sheet metal which could be formed over a mandrel.

The first Chinese M3A1 clone produced on mainland China was adopted in 1947, and thus designated as the .45 caliber, Type-36. The designation came from the Chinese Republic calendar year that started in 1911 when the Republic of China was established by Sun Yat Sen. The Chinese .45 caliber Type-36, manufactured at the Shenyang 90th Arsenal, near Mukden, China was a near exact copy of the U.S. made M3A1, except the Type 36 used an M3 style barrel nut that had no flat areas for easy removal with a wrench, there was no oil container inside the pistol grip and the Chinese characters marked on the magazine housing. Reportedly fewer than 10,000 Type-36 submachine guns were produced before Communist forces overran the factory.

The Chinese manufactured Type-36 is more crudely constructed than its U.S. made counterpart. An attempt was made to swap parts between a U.S. made Guide Lamp M3A1 and a Chinese Type-36 and few of the parts were found to be readily interchangeable. The same problem was experienced with common parts from the Type-37.

The Chinese Type-37 Submachine Gun

Like the Chinese Type-36, the Type-37 was also very close copy of the U.S. M3A1 submachine gun, except the Type-37 was chambered for the 9mm Parabellum cartridge. The 9mm Type-37 submachine gun differed only slightly from the Type-36, and was basically a conversion of the .45 caliber Type-36. The conversion parts are nearly identical to the U.S. made 9mm conversion kit for the M3 and M3A1. The Type-37 was manufactured at Mainland China’s 60th Jin Ling Arsenal located in the city of Nanking, China, then the capital city of the Nationalist Chinese. The Type-37 designation of the weapon indicates that it was adopted and manufactured during 1948. Prior to the Communist takeover of the Arsenal, the Nationalist Chinese fled to Formosa taking most of the manufacturing equipment with them. Once settled on Formosa, production of the 9mm Type-37 resumed and re-designated as the Type-39. The submachine guns manufactured on Formosa are marked with the logo of the new ordnance department established there, the Combined Service Forces. The M3A1 design was copied and manufactured in Argentina as the P.A.M. 1.

(Special thanks to: The United States Marine Corps National Museum, Triangle, Virginia, Mr. Al Houde and Bruce Allen, United States Marine Corps National Museum, Quantico, VA, Dolf Goldsmith, Nevada and National Archives II, College Park, MD)

J. Curtis Earl

The passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act created a new class of firearm owners in the United States. It is commonly referred to as the “Class Three” community by those of us that belong. This community started out very small but has since grown to a very respectable size. To those on the outside, it is known by two simple words: machine guns.

When this new community was still in its infancy and the number of Class Three dealers very small, one machine gun dealer soon became somewhat of a national celebrity. That dealer was J. Curtis Earl of Phoenix, Arizona.

Readers of Small Arms Review know the story of J. Curtis Earl because of the excellent three-part story by Richard MacLean featured in the May, July and August 2010 issues. Those new to SAR with an interest in Earl would be smart to order the back issues of this authoritative story or look them up on line at www.smallarmsoftheworld.com.

What brought Earl into such prominence with the American public were his advertisements and catalogs. He certainly understood the value of advertising; his prices for machine guns were at the top of the market. But Earl had something most of his competitors did not have – a very large inventory. Earl showcased this very impressive inventory in a series of catalogs he sold thoughout his career. This story is about the world famous J. Curtis Earl catalogs.

The David Weisz Company and the M.G.M. Weapon Collection

One of the most sought after Earl catalogs is the Metro Golden Mayer (M.G.M.) collection catalog. What is not widely known is that three variations of this catalog exist. It is very possible Earl’s early decision to publish and sell catalogs was influenced by the auction company that sold all the assets of the M.G.M. Studio beginning May 3, 1970 – the David Weisz Company. The David Weisz Company used five catalogs and assorted supplements to advertise and sell the assets of the M.G.M. Studio, including the weaponry. Each catalog was a different color (yellow, blue, green, red and silver) and advertised the many different types of studio assets. The Weisz auction catalogs are now collectibles in their own right. Earl’s first M.G.M. catalog actually copied the cover of the Weisz silver catalog titled, “MINIATURES, WEAPONRY, VINTAGE CARS.” Earl changed the color to yellow and priced this catalog at $1.00 on the first inside white page (page 2). It is 16 pages in length.

This catalog recounts Earl’s purchase of 20 machine guns from the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) studios. His style of advertising to prospective customers is never more evident as in the opening page of this catalog (spelling and grammar mistakes included):

In pricing these guns to you, as the propective buyer and collector, I have given much thought to arriving at a fair and equitable figure on each weapon. Some of these are the rarest of the rare, and as such, discounting any history, are very valuable guns. Other, tho not so rare, rate a certain percentage of value over their counterparts due to their background. The amount of collectors value attributed to this background is best determined by your own eye. Each gun, in its own right, is “one of a kind”. All descriptions are given in full honesty, with these factors, I feel confident that I am giving you full value for your investment dollar, as with the quality and history offered, with all fact considered, you will be getting the most for your money in this type of gun purchase.

The rest of the catalog follows the same style. Included in this lot of machine guns from the M.G.M. studios were five Lewis machine guns, five Vickers machine guns, two Hotchkiss machine guns, two German MG 08/15 machine guns, four Thompson submachine guns and two Reising submachine guns encased in sheet metal to resemble German Schmeisser submachine guns. It is not known why Earl modified the cover on his first M.G.M. catalog by removing the David Weisz Company name. Perhaps, David Weisz objected to how Earl copied his catalog cover or Earl decided to promote his own name and business. It is all speculation now as both Earl (2000) and Weisz (1981) are deceased.

But change the cover he did. The new cover featured a rectangular block angled over the Weisz name titled, “Machine Guns for the M.G.M. Collection…and many others.” It still retained the yellow cover, M.G.M. logo, auction title and the price increased to $1.50. Two variations of this second cover Earl M.G.M. catalog are known to exist. The first variation is 18 pages in length and held together by three staples on the left side. The second variation of the Earl M.G.M. catalog is 20 pages in length. The last page is titled “BROCHURE SUPPLEMENT” and is dated Sept. 10, 1971. This last page is unnumbered and states, “…about one-half of the M.G.M. guns listed have been sold…”

Research for this story revealed the existence of extra pages for the Earl M.G.M. catalogs that have never been stapled into a catalog. It appears likely Earl had extra catalog pages printed and distributed same as customer requests dictated and/or as enclosures with some of his later catalog sales.

Except for the change in the top half of the cover page of the first catalog, all three Earl M.G.M. catalogs are very similar in content. Most changes involve prices or sold notations. Some additional content is added in the later editions.

A New Format: $1.50

Earl must have had a very good response in sales from the M.G.M. catalogs because he soon published another catalog. The catalog featured a new format, one Earl would continually refine over the years. This catalog is undated, but does reference a citation to Title 18, U.S. Code, Chapter 44, “Publication #603 dated 6/71” under the caption: STATES LAWS REGARDING MACHINE GUNS. Given that the last page “Brochure Supplement” in the last variation of the Earl M.G.M. catalog is dated September 10, 1971, this most likely makes the publication date in 1972.

The cover featured a picture of a Vickers machine gun and Thompson Submachine Gun with drum but sans butt stock. The title and writings on the cover page will be used on all of Earl’s future catalogs: J. Curtis Earl PRESENTS A BROCHURE OF MACHINE GUNS AND SUBMACHINE GUNS – FOR SHOOTER OR COLLECTOR – Specializing in Thompson Submachine Guns – … with facts, figures and notes of interest on purchasing, shooting and collecting the most interesting and most fascinating of all guns…machine guns.

This catalog is filled with information about the M.G.M. guns and Thompson submachine guns. Six pages are devoted to the acquisition and current sale of the M.G.M. collection. Several pages are copied directly from the Earl M.G.M. catalog. Anyone remotely interested in machine guns, especially the Thompson, would gladly pay $1.50 for what was then a wealth of information. Of course, this wealth of information showcased some misinformation too. Earl’s famous listing of Cutts Compensators showing a “straight, no taper, slip-over fit on front sight” is prominently featured. This compensator type was later debunked by Roger Cox in his now classic 1982 book, The Thompson Submachine Gun. And there is “the bird-teeth rare 25 rd. ball mag.,” another Thompson accessory that existed only in the pages of Earl’s catalogs.

This catalog featured what Earl named the “Midas Thompson,” a fully engraved Colt Thompson with very high grade American walnut stocks. The price was a paltry $5,750. Also featured was the Auto-Ordnance Corporation experimental 9mm Thompson with the distinctive curved magazine, serial number S-1. No price was listed for this fantastic collector’s piece.

Price increase: $2.00

The next catalog, believed to be the 1973 edition, saw a slight price increase. It is almost identical to the $1.50 catalog, above. Most differences involve the layout and use of additional pictures throughout the catalog.

At least two variations of this catalog exist. The catalogs are nearly identical except the first or earliest catalog has a blank back cover page. The later catalog variation has short “Note to Purchasers” and “Note of Interest” statements from Earl on the back cover page. There are also some minor differences on pages 16 and 25.

1974 Edition: $2.00

Earl’s next catalog retained the same cover and price as the earlier edition, above, but was dated – a trend he would continue in some manner with the rest of his catalog editions. This catalog is marked the “1974 Edition” with a copyright of September 1972.

A careful review of this 1974 Edition catalog shows it is almost identical to the earlier undated $2.00 catalogs, above. The copyright September 1972 date is a further indication the first undated catalogs, above, were published in 1972 and 1973. There is a change of some prices as the Midas Thompson apparently had not sold and the price increased to $6,500. What is new is the addition of a yellow four page brochure insert that begins with the word, “Howdy!” Earl then goes on to tell the readers about how the collecting of machine guns is beginning to become more acceptable in America and quotes a July 1973 article from The American Rifleman magazine. Of particular interest in this add-on brochure is information on the Browning and Lewis machine guns obtained from the Savage Arms Company museum. There is also a pair of “NAVY COLT THOMPSONS” with consecutive serial numbers, Nos. 4666 & 4667, for sale as a pair for $5,700.

1975 Edition – $2.50

When opening this catalog it first appears it will be a repeat of the 1974 edition. However, Earl removed three pages of information about the M.G.M. guns and substituted a two page excerpt from the July 1973 article from Guns and Ammo magazine about the Midas Thompson – something that would be used in all of Earl’s future catalogs. Earl further has a caution to prospective buyers that many of the new dealers in the machine gun field are engaging in false advertising, i.e., the dealers do not have in stock many of the guns currently being advertised. One new picture of approximately 35 Thompson guns in a row from the New York State Penal System is very impressive.

The 1975 edition replaced the yellow brochure insert of the 1974 edition with a blue insert brochure. Except for color, the inserts are almost identical. One of the Browning water cooled machine guns is marked sold, consecutive serial numbers, Nos. 4666 & 4667 are now priced at $6,950 and the Midas Thompson price increased to a whooping $15,000. Earl certainly had the philosophy of increasing the price of a gun until it sold.

Copyright September 1972, 1976 Catalog: $3.50 – Blue Cover

A new cover is featured on the 1976 catalog. Earl is pictured kneeling behind a Browning water cooled machine gun. The cover also shows a Thompson with attached butt stock, German MP 40 and a MAC 10. The cover is blue in color, priced at $3.50, not dated, but notated with the same September 1972 copyright date.

Page 2 features a note from Earl that begins, “Adios, 75! Howdy, ’76” making this the 1976 catalog. He goes on to explain the virtues of collecting machine guns and how the number of machine gun dealers has increased exponentially. Earl’s prediction that the price of the few registered machine guns in America will continue to increase in value and that his “…present stock will not last forever…” was correct.

The major revision in this catalog is the removal of the remainder of the M.G.M. pages and the insertion of a two page story on the E.H. de la Garrigue half-scale Thompson submachine guns. This is a must have Earl catalog for the miniature firearm collector. It features excellent pictures; including the famous father and son pose with full size and half size Thompson guns. All models and accessories are discussed and priced for sale.

Much of the content of the yellow and blue brochure inserts are now part of the catalog. The consecutive serial numbered 28 Navy Thompsons, Nos. 4666 & 4667, are listed as P.O.R. or price on request. The Midas Thompson is still priced at $15,000.

Copyright September 1972, 1977 Catalog: $3.50 – Green Cover

In 1977 or 1978, Earl changed the color of the cover of his catalog to green. The copyright September 1972 markings are on the lower left corner of the cover page but there is no date anywhere on or in the catalog. Notwithstanding the fact the catalog is priced at $3.50 on the cover, it is believed this is the $3.00 1977 revision catalog referenced in the Earl advertisement at the beginning of the story. No catalog published by Earl with a $3.00 cover price or date within the 1977 time frame could be located.

As with the blue cover $3.50 catalog, page 2 of the green cover $3.50 catalog features a note from Earl that begins only with, “Howdy.” The message is identical. The blue and green catalogs are basically identical until page 8. The green cover reduces the coverage of the E.H. de la Garrigue half-scale Thompson submachine guns to just a half a page. Added is the cover of the February 1975 GUNS magazine with “THE ROARING TWENTIES” engraved Thompson submachine gun. Also included is a picture of a STEYER-DIAMLER 9mm submachine gun and five pictures of an extensive firearms collection acquired by Earl. The Midas Thompson price has been changed to “$P.O.R.” or price on request. There is also a change to higher prices on many of the firearms listed, i.e., Ingrem (sic) “Police Ordnance” M-6 S.M.G. – “from $600” to “from $800.”

The order of the later catalog pages are also changed between the blue and green cover catalogs but aside from the price increases, the content is the same. As stated above, this catalog is undated, but it does reference a citation to Title 18, U.S. Code, Chapter 44, “Publication #603 dated 6/76” under the caption: STATES LAWS REGARDING MACHINE GUNS. Earl regularly updated this section (the blue cover $3.50 catalog cites Publication #603 dated 6/74) as newer catalogs were published. The June 1976 publication date of Publication #603 lends substantial support to the green cover catalog being the 1977 catalog revision.

Copyright September 1972, 1979 Revision: $4.00

The 1979 Revision catalog brought yet another price increase from Earl. Customers with earlier catalogs could certainly see the similarities in the catalogs as there were no major changes. One interesting note was the two M.G.M. “Schmeissers” made from Reising Model 50 submachine guns, were still in inventory and priced at $650 each. One added headline was Earl had “OVER 150 THOMPSONS NOW IN STOCK.” There are some minor changes on pages 19 and 20 along with price increases throughout this newer catalog. Model of 1927 Colt Thompson Semi-Automatic Carbine, serial number 5252 was priced at $8,750 in the 1977 green cover catalog. The price had now risen to $10,950. MAC-10’s had jumped in price from $450 to $550.

1981 Revision: $5.00

This catalog is identical in most parts to the one above but Earl added two new sections. The first, “News off the top of my head…” is one page of Earl comments concerning the current Class Three market. Comments include the rising number of new machine dealers and the limited availability of inventory, the pitfalls of unregistered guns and a warning about the dewats, re-wats and copies currently on the market. He talks specifically on the MACs and the new Thompsons being manufactured by the “Auto-Ordnance Corp.” Of course, this is the new (at the time) Auto-Ordnance Corporation in West Hurley, New York. Earl states, “It is a new gun, made by cut-corner methods (castings instead of machined steel blocks, with a pot-metal part thrown in too) by people who just use the old name… but come by it honestly, and use it loosely.”

The second new section is a half page titled, “Facts ‘n Figures…..on buying and dealing…..and some general B.S.” This includes information about local laws and the transfer process of a class three weapon. Shipping and Earl’s payment plans are also referenced.

At the end of the catalog Earl includes several new pages with pictures of items for sales of inert explosive devices, smoke grenades, large caliber ammunition rounds and assorted bayonets, pistols, rifles and shotguns.

1981 Revision, 1983 Reprint: $5.00

Earl states in an insert on page 1 that this catalog is a reprint of his 1981 edition catalog with only some minor changes. He says he is down to 950 pieces of inventory and prices have risen considerably. Contained in the catalog is a letter from Earl telling about his new service, the “VIDEO TAPE SHOW-AND-TELL” program. The cost of a video is $75, but Earl will refund $55 of the cost if you return the video to him. The video time is 30 to 90 minutes depending on the customer request, i.e., single gun or all guns within a certain price range.

1986 Revision: $5.00

The 1986 Revision catalog follows the same format as all the previous catalogs but has some changes and updates. It starts off with a new picture of an older Earl on page 1 standing with some of his vast collection. There is a half page devoted to cannons with pictures that will appeal to some collectors. The “News off the top of my head…” section has been updated with a total of 9,100 machine gun dealers in the USA – up from 4,450 in the last catalog. There is a full page of pictures devoted to Earl’s inventory on January 1, 1986. The pictures are very impressive – definitely worth the price of the catalog to a Thompson collector. Earl is down to only 130 Thompson guns in stock – only 130!!! MAC 10s in .45 ACP have risen in price to $1,295; 9mm MAC 10s are $1,595.

Earl devoted a third of a page to “BUYERS REMORSE.” Apparently, some of his buyers were attempting to back out of sales. Earl repeats: ALL SALES ARE FINAL! The video tape show and tell product information has been incorporated into the catalog. There are other minor changes and a few different pictures. It is quite evident this is a true revision catalog, not a reprint.

1986 Revision, Reprinted 6/88 – $5.00

The June 1988 reprint of the 1986 Revision catalog is the last of the Earl catalogs. It is identical to the 1986 Revision catalog, above. No later edition or dated Earl catalogs have been located. Letters have been found that indicate Earl was still selling catalogs in the late 1990s, but it is believed these were the June 1988 reprinted 1986 Revision catalog. A 1997 letter from Earl to a prospective customer lists a 44 page brochure for $6.50. The June 1988 reprint catalog is 44 pages in length counting the cover and back page (40 numbered pages inside the catalog). As the Earl catalogs become more and more collectible, additional documentation or catalogs may be discovered.

Other flyers and Advertisements

Earl also used gun magazine reprints to advertise certain guns in his inventory. A prime example is the reprint of the July 1973 Guns and Ammo story about the Midas Thompson purportedly written by Earl using the pen name Hank Drake. Earl also used a four page brochure on the E.H. de la Garrigue miniatures Thompson guns that referenced and featured pictures from the February 1976 issue of Gun World magazine.

For Sale – J. Curtis Earl

The business acumen of J. Curtis Earl speaks for itself. And the personality and life style has been well documented. One of Earl’s good friends in his later days was Thompson enthusiast Chuck Olsen. Fortunately, Olsen was able to preserve a lot of documentation related to Earl. One of the documents saved by Olsen was a 1983 spiral bound investment portfolio of Earl’s automatic weaponry business complied by Smira, Olivier and Associates, Phoenix, Arizona. Earl had decided to sell everything and engaged the Smira team to market his complete business. The price for the entire inventory and residence was $1,940,000. This included approximately 800 Title II firearms, approximately 200 Title I firearms, an extensive collection of spare parts, one half million rounds of ammunition and seven cannons.

The portfolio explains Earl’s method of direct advertising by way of a $5 brochure that offers his many guns for sale, to wit, “Depending on the volume of advertising that he orders, he controls the response; thus the amount of sales; and his profits and work involved in acquiring them, Nice, Clean, Efficient, and Lucrative. Over the past fifteen years, he has sent out over 65,000 brochures. At $5.00 per brochure, the brochure alone provides him with a nice profit.” Later, the Financial Section of the portfolio directly references, “Brochure Sales amount to about 3,000 (three thousand) copies being sold a year amounting to an additional $15,000.00 income.” All questions as to why Earl started selling catalogs – answered!

Epilogue

Reading each Earl catalog referenced in this story provided a great deal of information and insight on the Class Three community over an eighteen year period. There is no doubt Earl was a power dealer in this arena. Does this story represent every catalog? No one can say for sure. There is no known master index of every Earl catalog or catalog variation. To that end, if any reader has an Earl catalog that is different from the ones listed in this story, please contact the author via SAR so any new information can be included in any future story.

Author’s Note: The author gratefully acknowledges all the assistance for this story by members of the Thompson Submachine Gun forum at MachineGunBoards.com.