I am continually amazed at how gullible people are, and how quickly they take refuge in rumor or falsehood when presented as convenient fact. Dan Quayle, as Vice Presidential candidate, corrected a child during a spelling bee – Quayle spelled “Potatoe” as he was taught in his classical education. I know this, and knew it at the time, because I personally was taught to spell it as “Potatoe” in the fine U.S. public schools of the 1950s and ‘60s. So, when people start talking about “Common Knowledge” and mock Dan Quayle for this event, dismissing him as an intellectual lightweight for adding the ‘e’ to the spelling of potato, I’m skeptical of the depth of their understanding of the lynching tactics of modern media. As reference, this quote from the Oxford Dictionary:

“The spelling of potatoe, while not terribly common, existed for almost the entire 20th century. For example, the New York Times was still occasionally spelling potato with an –e in 1988. In fact, one can easily find spellings of potatoe all the way up to 15 June of 1992, at which point they suddenly drop off or become used in an ironic way, referencing this incident.” – Ammon Shea, Oxford Dictionaries.

So, one of the most common misconceptions in “common knowledge” is total baloney, concocted and driven hard by the media in order to destroy a conservative Vice Presidential candidate during the re-election campaign. A very successful disinformation campaign, it worked to make a laughingstock out of Dan Quayle in the eyes of the uninformed. Read that as “most American voters.”

My point in this example? Only that people are damn gullible. They read things, and are easily led. Thus, we come to “gun control” in the U.S. A complete nut, maybe on too many meds or off them and destabilized, gains access to a firearm, and massacres some innocents. Most of the time the killer is avowedly anti-Christian, has lots of leftist beliefs, might be into Satanism, and damn sure is not a typical American firearms owner. So, who gets blamed by the media? The basic, rock-solid gun owning public of America. What’s called for? Is it more control over the proven mentally ill so they’re not allowed to purchase firearms? Nope. Is it perhaps arming people in the schools so they can defend against the actions of a crazy person? Nope.

We have to ban different classes of firearms so that law-abiding, morally grounded, properly trained, responsible American firearms owners can’t enjoy their Second Amendment Right to be armed in a modern fashion. That’s the vast majority of us. Typical, isn’t it?

Thankfully, this time the silly, pointless, and impotent laws that were proposed, that would never solve the problems, were defeated without having to go through ten years of ridiculous impositions on firearms owners. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be more attempts, and very soon at that. We need to discuss reasonable, rational solutions to the problems of a crazy person with a weapon – how to protect our children in the schools – with real solutions, not theatrical pronouncements and impositions on the Rights of citizens in misguided efforts at gun banning. The first step in trying to accomplish this is to understand that the gun-banners are irrational first, dealing only with emotions and misinformation, and that they are NOT the majority of Americans. It’s best to offer real solutions, to deal with these issues head on, not just hope they’ll forget about us for a while, because they won’t, they’re just backing up to regroup.

-Dan

Military history is a fascinating subject, particularly the story of “forgotten wars” such as the Boer War or the Spanish Civil War. Let’s today take a look at the Chaco War.

But where is the Chaco? The word Chaco means hunting in the Quechua language (spoken in Peru). It indicates at the same time a province located in the North of Argentina and also a vast arid and afflicted territory, which is on the Andean plateau that borders on Bolivia to the South and Paraguay to the North. It is bordered in the East by Brazil and the West by Argentina.

When the Latin America countries, independent for only a few decades, had sought to assert their authority, frontier conflicts were not rare. The coastal states of the Gran Chaco desert engaged in hostilities between 1865 to 1870: a coalition formed by Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, entered to war against Paraguay, which was thoroughly beaten.

Seizing the circumstances, Bolivia also asserted its authority over the region. But what is Chaco if not a hostile and uninhabited desert, subjected to infernal climatic conditions. In addition, following the “Nitrate War” with Chile in 1884, Bolivia lost a province of the South that gave it access to the Pacific Ocean. Bolivia then sought to be able to appropriate both the Rio Pilcomayo, then the Rio Paraguay, which converge towards Rio de Parana to join the Atlantic, which was not at all to the taste of the government in Asuncion!

Consequently, border incidents were frequent between the two countries. But a civil war struck Paraguay in 1922. Benefiting from this respite, Bolivia built a line of forts to assert its presence in the Gran Chaco, whose resources remained limited. Until the day when… it was announced that there could be oil in the region.

1927 and 1928 are remembered by engagements between the troops of the two countries, so much so that an international commission was needed; engaging several states in the name of the League of Nations, so that peace returned.

But in a region where there are no roads and little water, life and even survival are difficult. The hostilities began in June 1932, both wished to have control of the Pitiantuta lake and they in turn built Fort Carlos Antonio Lopez, which defends the area. In fact, the fort consists of no more than some log huts reinforced by fill and defended by a ditch. Consequently the conflict escalated and an attempt at international mediation failed. Each of the two countries sent increasingly greater forces. From a simple frontier conflict one passes to a true war, using infantry, artillery, tanks and airplanes. The belligerents then endeavoured to take the forts built by the enemy, in particular those of Corrales, Toledo and Boqueron, which were taken by Bolivia.

Each of the two countries is supported by armament from states who wished for the victory of their allies, with the hope at drawing some political advantage from it. Thus at the time of the conflict, one saw the deployment of material from the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland. A truly general engagement in the conflict…

In September 1932, Paraguay launched an offensive and laid siege to Boqueron. The position was firmly defended by Bolivia, which had a garrison there of more than 700 strongly armed men with 27 light machine guns, 13 machine guns, two 75mm Schneider guns, one Krupp mountain gun of the same calibre and two 20mm Oerlikon guns.

The Paraguayan soldiers dug trenches and besieged the position. Bolivian reinforcements manage to penetrate to the fort, but were not able to break out. On their side, the Paraguayans bombarded the unfavourable position systematically. They brought to the ground 24 pieces of artillery and 11 mortars. Deprived of water, food and ammunition, the garrison capitulated on September 29th. The Army of Paraguay captured 820 prisoners.

Encouraged by this victory, it engaged in a new offensive starting from October 8th, with new troops. Although the Bolivians were better equipped than their adversaries, the latter were accustomed to the roughness of the climate and had a better knowledge of the ground. The Paraguayan forces continued their progression towards the North-West, taking forts, capturing many prisoners and a considerable amount of material, which they hastened to turn against their former owners.

The Bolivian Army tried again to gain ground by a counter-attack on November 5, 1932, but the Paraguayans preferred a withdrawal and dodged a confrontation. At this time the Bolivians chose to entrust the command of their army to the German General Hans von Kundt, veteran of the East European war. On the other side the Paraguayans had French military advisers. In the way of material, the Standard Oil Company and the U.S. banks supported sending American, English and German materials to Bolivia; while Royal Dutch Shell forms the link between the British and French armament companies to aid Paraguay. In Paraguay, General Jose Estigarribia took command of the troops. He would become Marshal and later President of the Republic.

The new chief of the Bolivian Army launched several attacks against enemy positions starting December 26, but the resistance of their adversaries permitted them to avoid being surrounded or defeated. In spite of air support, all the offensives of General von Kundt failed, but worse still, the front moved back and the soldiers of Paraguay gained ground.

During the summer of 1933, the Bolivian Army was forced to move back several hundreds miles; it was demoralized and desertions were numerous.

Starting in September, General Estigarribia again took the offensive. He encircled the Bolivian positions, which in accordance with orders did not retreat, but were forced to give up from lack of supplies. Two divisions were thus captured in December. Other units managed to take refuge in Argentina where they were interred.

At the end of December 1933, a ten-day truce made it possible for the belligerents to recover. Once the cease-fire finished, the hostilities began again. Bolivia took the offensive and captured the 2nd Paraguayan division and part of the 7th, which had the imprudence to advance too far from their bases.

The months passed. Each combatant bandaged their wounds and re-equipped themselves. On August 14, 1934, the Paraguay 6th Infantry Division set out again on the attack – it took the offensive and the Bolivian garrisons were trapped and capitulated one after another. General von Kundt was dismissed and replaced by General Enrique Peñaranda. But on November 27th, it was the president of Bolivia, Daniel Salamanca, who was deposed by the chiefs of the Army.

Soon, the major part of Gran Chaco was under the control of Paraguay, who then continued their advance and penetrated into Bolivia in January 1935. At the culminating point of their advance, they were 290 miles from their bases; but they ran out of steam and the two countries we’re exhausted economically and the losses were enormous. A cease-fire intervened on June 12, 1935.

Negotiations began under the auspice of the adjoining countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Uruguay and the United States. An agreement was concluded on July 21, 1938; most of Chaco Boreal was annexed by Paraguay, Bolivia was granted a right-of-way on Rio Paraguay. The war caused more than 100,000 casualties and others followed in the following years from the epidemics.

The peace treaty between the two countries, was finally signed… in April 2009 by Evo Morales, Bolivian president and the president of Paraguay Fernando Lugo, following the mediation of the Argentinean president Cristina Fernandez-Kirchner.

And no oil was ever found under the Chaco.

Forces involved

Bolivian Army: At the beginning of the conflict, the Bolivian Army had 12,000 men. The uniform of the troops was gray-green, with a belt and cartridge pouches made of leather. Troops had a cap and carried a rolled cover across the chest.

The army consisted of seven divisions. Each one generally had two infantry regiments and one cavalry regiment, with sometimes an artillery regiment and engineers. Troops for the most part were Indians and officers were from the local middle-class. Also, we noted the presence of some Chilean and Czech “military advisers.” At the end of the war, they had mobilized 250,000 men and the losses were 57,000 men.

Paraguayan Army: At the beginning of the hostilities, Paraguay had three divisions, each consisting of two infantry regiments and one cavalry regiment. Other units were independent, particularly artillery and engineers. The army totalled 8,000 men.

The uniform was composed of an olive drab jacket-shirt and pants. All the soldiers did not receive shoes and many went in sandals or bare feet. They were capped with a fabric hat. The army distributed mess tins but as for the remainder (cover, bag, can) each of the soldiers looked after himself.

Foreign mercenaries (White Russian) took part in the engagements, while French pilots flew the planes. At the end of the conflict the country mobilized 150,000 men, gathered in three army corps. The losses rose to 43,000 men.

Weapons of the belligerents

The armament of Bolivia

Small arms: The Bolivian troops were equipped with various material, generally of European origin:

• Parabellum pistol (9×19);
• Mauser C 96 (7.63×25);
• Colt M1911 (.45 ACP);
• Walther PP pistol(.32 ACP);
• Browning 1910 (.32 ACP);
• Bergmann MP 28 submachine gun (9×19);
• Swiss Solothurn SI 100 submachine gun (9×19);
• Bergmann MP 35 submachine gun (9×19);
• Finnish Suomi KP 31 submachine gun (9×19);
• Mauser M1891 rifle, identical to the Argentine model (7.65×53), manufactured by Ludwig Loewe in Berlin;
• Mauser M1895, rifle bought in Argentina;
• Mauser M1907, type Mauser 98 rifle manufactured in Germany (7.65×53), provided by DWM in Berlin;
• Mauser F.N. 1924 and 1924/30 rifle and carbine, weapons made in Belgium (7.65×53);
• Mauser Vz 24, rifles of Czechoslovakian origin (7.65×53); 39,000 rifles acquired via the English company Vickers. One second order related to 45,000 parts and a third on 20,000 others;
• Mauser Export 1933 carbine, identical to the K98k (7.65×53), from Mauser factory in Oberndorf;
• Lewis light machine gun, (.303 British);
• Madsen light machine gun, from Denmark (7.65×53), provided in infantry and aircraft (turret) versions;
• Czech light machine gun ZB 26, (7.65×53);
• British Vickers-Berthier light machine gun, (7.65×53);
• German Maxim machine-gun, (7.65×53), possibly commercial M1909 or rebarreled MG 08) ;
• American Colt M1914 machine gun (.303 British);
• Vickers Class C, infantry water cooled machine gun, 350 specimens between 1928 and 1934 (7.65×53);
• Aircraft Vickers Class E machine gun (18 specimens) and 6 class F between 1928 and 1932 (7.65×53);
• Tank machine guns Vickers Class C/T (7.65×53);
• Browning-Colt MG 38 infantry water-cooled machine gun, (7.65×53), 256 specimens between 1920 and 1938;
• Browning-Colt MG 40 aircraft air cooled machine guns (7.65×53), 207 specimens in 1933-1934.

Tanks and armored vehicles

• Vickers 6 ton, Type A light tank (16,000 lbs) propelled by a 95 hp Puma engine. It had twin turrets; each armed with one 7.65mm water cooled Vickers machine gun. A single specimen was used by Bolivia and it was captured by Paraguay, which exhibited it in a monument at Asuncion. It was returned to Bolivia in 1994 and it is now exhibited at the La Paz Museum of the Military Academy;
• Vickers 6 ton, Standard B. Similar to the Type A, it was equipped with one turret armed with a 47mm gun and a Vickers machine gun. Two examples were used.
• Renault FT 17. A Renault tank was delivered to Bolivia in 1931, but we cannot confirm that it was used in combat;
• Carden Loyd universal carrier Mark IV. British 1.5 ton vehicle, also manufactured by Vickers. Propelled by a 40 hp Ford engine, it could tow a tracked trailer or a wheeled gun. It was armed with a 7.65mm Vickers machine gun. Bolivia received between two and five of these machines.
• Ansaldo L3/33 or 35 universal carriers. Italian 3.2 ton caterpillar vehicle propelled by a 43 hp FIAT engine. It was armed with two machine guns. Fourteen Ansaldo carriers were delivered to Bolivia.

Artillery

• Maxim-Nordenfelt 1″ machine gun;
• 20mm Oerlikon automatic gun;
• 2 mm Becker automatic gun;
• 47mm gun;
• 60mm Krupp mountain gun;
• 65mm Vickers Mk E gun;
• 75mm Schneider gun;
• 75mm Krupp L13 mountain gun;
• 75mm Vickers Mk KK gun;
• 81mm Brandt-Stokes mortar;
• 105mm Vickers Mk B mountain howitzer;
• 105mm Vickers Mk C howitzer.

Aviation

• Curtiss Hawk II;
• Curtiss Falcon;
• Vickers Type 143;
• 1 Junker 52, used primarily as ambulance aircraft;
• Ford trimotor.

The armament of Paraguay

Light weapons – when adopting modern rifles, both Bolivia and Paraguay choose small bore rifles shooting the same cartridge: the 7.65mm Mauser, which was extremely convenient when the two countries engaged in hostilities, because each one of the protagonist could use captured material of their adversary:

• Belgian M 1903 Browning pistol (9mm Browning long);
• Mannlicher M1905 Austrian pistol, similar to the Argentinean model (7.65mm Mannlicher);
• Finnish Suomi KP 31 submachine gun (9×19);
• M1907 Mauser rifle and carbine. Similar to German Mauser Gewehr 98, built by Mauser (7.75×53). The rifle has a straight bolt handle and a rear toboggan sight graduated up to 2,000 m, it mounts a bayonet. The carbine is provided with a bent bolt lever, a tangential rear sight graduated up to 1,400 m, with a hand-guard. The fore arm is prolonged to the mouth of the barrel. The weapon does not receive a bayonet;
• M1909 short rifle. Produced by Haënel in 7×57 with a G88 type bolt, a Mauser magazine and a stock with semi pistol grip and a hand guard;
• M1927 Mauser rifle and carbine. Made in Spain by the Oviedo Small Arms factory (7.75×53), with a straight bolt handle, a tangential rear sight graduated up to 2,000 m and a hand guard;

• Belgian Mauser FN 24/30 (7.75×53).
• Czech Mauser Vz 12/33 (7.75×53).
• M 1922 Mauser 1933 carbine and musketoon, German weapons manufactured by Mauser (7.75×53);
• Danish Madsen light machine gun (7.75×53);
• Vickers-Berthier light machine gun (7.75×53);
• German water cooled Maxim machine gun (7.75×53).
• British Vickers water cooled machine gun (7.75×53).
• American Colt-Browning MG38 water cooled machine gun (7.75×53), 144 examples between 1928 and 1934.

Artillery

Some old guns of various origins, supplemented by new Vickers guns and material taken from the enemy.

Vehicles

Paraguay used Chevrolet, Ford and International trucks. Some cars were equipped with machine guns. Italy provided Ansaldo L 3/33 caterpillars.

Aviation

The Paraguayan Air Force counted 21 aircraft at the beginning of the conflict, of which:

• 7 Potez 25, biplane, a two-seat French plane, used for reconnaissance and bombardment;
• 7 Wibault 73 C, single seat, monoplane fighter of entirely metal construction, with an aerofoil parasol wing;
• French Breguet 19;
• 5 Fiat CR 20;
• some Junker 50.

The Chaco War received little publicity outside of South America. In Europe few people heard of it, as it was a period where no TV, nor mobile radio set, nor I-phone existed; only a few articles were printed in the newspapers.

Without being like the Spanish Civil War: a vast field of experimentation for new materials, it was the first major conflict between the World Wars where machine pistols were used. It is also necessary to note the British Vickers company, which without any remorse, sold weaponry to both belligerents… as long as they could pay.

Successful handgun designs constantly evolve. This is for a variety of reasons stemming mainly from market and technological impulses/pressures magnified by ever changing mission requirements of end users. The CZ 75 P 07 model is the poster child of this design modification creep. The P 07 traces its heritage in the CZ family tree back to the 1970s with the origination of the CZ 75. Let’s go over the CZ 75’s salient characteristics and history to better understand the P 07’s design. Developed in 1975 by the Koucky brothers – Josef and Frantisek – who worked for CZ, the CZ 75 was intended as a service pistol for the export market. It was chambered in 9mm, which was not a Soviet/Warsaw Pact caliber. The CZ 75 melds many features from weapons that preceded it, such as the Browning Hi-Power and SIG 210. The CZ 75 is a steel framed short recoil operated locked breech pistol ala Browning’s system with camming-cut below the barrel. The CZ 75’s barrel lock up is via lugs machined into the barrel interacting with the slide in front of the ejection port.

The CZ P 07 can be viewed as the updated polymer sibling of the classic CZ 75. The P 07 strives to maintain the classic grip shape of the CZ 75. While not an exact match, the P 07 comes very close to the CZ 75 grip ergonomics. There are other nuances to the CZ P 07 that further distinguish it from the CZ 75. The frame has been upgraded with a railed dust cover allowing for accessories such as lights and lasers. One of the features that attracted many to the CZ 75 was that you could carry it “cocked and locked” similar to the 1911 and Browning Hi-Power as well the hammer down. Unlike the CZ 75, the P 07 arrives with a de-cocking safety lever as its standard configuration. Of late, “cocked and locked” single action semiautomatic designs have fallen out of favor for various reasons. Thus, CZ’s decision in terms of standard trigger configuration i.e. de-cocking lever. However, CZ 75 aficionados should not despair because CZ’s new Omega trigger system is at the center of the P 07’s design features. The CZ Omega trigger system has fewer parts compared to the CZ 75 and in turn touts a better trigger pull. While long in travel as is typical of DA/SA handguns, the trigger pull is smooth in the Double Action mode with the Single Action featuring a light break with short reset. The other benefit of the CZ Omega trigger is the ability to switch the P 07 from the standard de-cocking safety to a safety set up similar to the CZ 75 allowing for Condition One “cocked and locked” carry. The work to do this seems simple enough for a layman to accomplish.

The CZ P 07’s beavertail frame is textured as are the grip panels allowing for positive grip even with wet slippery hands. CZ even included rough textured patches on the forward part of the frame that serve as “memory” spots for a shooter using the preferred thumbs forward grip. The P 07’s slide is thicker and less svelte than the CZ 75s. This is a result of being machined from bar stock allowing for a reduction of manufacturing costs. Many will find the thicker slide easier to gain a solid grip on when manipulating it. The P 07’s slide moves along rails embedded inside the polymer frame; to be clear here the slide moves within the frame versus more prevalent western designs of the slide fitting over the frame. Proponents point to benefits derived from this such as smoother cycling and finer tolerances translating into better accuracy potential. One drawback is the operator must be more conscience of grip placement when manually operating the slide. The P 07’s thicker slide makes this less of an issue.

The specific 9mm (.40 S&W available) CZ P 07 tested for this article featured a threaded barrel and elevated open sights to allow use over the top of a suppressor when installed. The dimensions of the CZ P 07 are similar to a more compact weapon versus a full size duty weapon. Barrel length is 4.5 inches when taking into account the protruding 1/2×28 threaded muzzle. Weight is 27 ounces with overall length at 8 inches. Capacity with the 9mm is 16+1 with two magazines shipped with the P 07. Frame and slide color is black with olive drab frame also available. The P 07 utilizes an external extractor. Like the CZ 75, the P 07 functions via a short recoil operated locked breech ala Browning’s design with camming-cut below the barrel. This serves to unlock and lower the barrel during the recoil cycle. CZ has slightly modified Browning’s design by moving the locking recess from the barrel; instead CZ utilizes a single locking lug milled above the barrel’s chamber using the slide’s large overhead ejection port as its locking recess. The front contour of the barrel lug cam slot has been cut square to direct counter-recoiling forces up and forward into the barrel itself to reduce stress on the lug. The elevated adjustable steel iron sights are three dot design – two on the rear sight and one on the front post. The elevated sights are quickly noticed aesthetically speaking. A user could resort back to normal height sights if desired or concerned about snagging. Many find aiming down the extended length of an installed suppressor very functional in terms of accuracy making extended sights superfluous.

Many find disfavor with the DA/SA trigger arrangement preferring to go with constant or “safe action” styles found on Glock or S&W M&Ps. CZ’s inclusion of the Omega trigger design on the P 07 makes the P 07 DA/SA trigger one of the nicest experienced and forces a re-evaluation of DA/SA opinions; especially if a user chooses to carry the P 07 in a Condition One status after converting over from the standard de-cocking configuration as it arrives in the box. The Omega flexibility is a great enhancement. Once the Omega trigger control is mastered, which takes surprisingly little orientation training, the CZ P 07 is very capable of firing multiple shot strings with the utmost accuracy.

The P 07’s shared lineage with the CZ 75’s in terms of design history and track record of proven performance grant the CZ P 07 instant credibility. The P 07’s modified profile such as the extended beavertail, threaded barrel, and textured grip wrapped around high capacity 16 rounds magazines makes it ideal for duty as a nightstand handgun, open carry, tactical response LE teams, or special military units. There are a surprising number of holster manufacturers making products for the P 07 such as Bianchi, Dale Fricke, Crossbreed, Fist, and Kramer. The CZ P 07 disassembles quickly similar to the CZ 75 via pulling the slide open aligning witness marks on the frame and slide and then rotating the takedown lever downward on the frame freeing the slide from the frame. The P 07 exhibited no evident tool marks and no lateral play in the slides fit to the frame or barrel to slide. The barrel locks up tight when in battery.

T&E was conducted at Echo Valley Training Center, a private range located near Winchester, VA, where many local and federal law enforcement tactical team members train. It is difficult to convey how many shooters at the range perked up when first exposed to the CZ P 07 threaded barrel variant. Many confessed ignorance that CZ USA even offered a package like the P 07 with beavertail, Omega trigger, and optional threaded barrel. Every time one of them got to handle and shoot the CZ P 07, a convert was obtained. Their duty weapons span the gamut, including custom tuned 1911 pistols, but all appreciate what the P 07 offers in terms of accuracy, reliability, handling, capacity, lethality and reasonable price. The threaded barrel on the P 07 indicates that it could be used in an offensive capacity versus strictly defensive in nature. It was decided to dedicate some time evaluating the P 07 using several drills experienced during training at Suarez International, Tactical Response, Graham Combat, and other schools. Drills included working around breaching facades, door entries, and other CQB activities typified by experiences encountered in shoot house environments. A premium is placed on a quick handling accurate handgun such as the CZ P 07 with multiple rounds fired in quick succession the norm to put a target down. The natural point-ability of the P 07 comes into its own in this realm. Reloading the P 07 during high volume drills exhibited no idiosyncrasies with the magazine release button easily accessed.

The P 07 impressively handled all ammunition brands, bullet types, and weights with equal aplomb. CZ ergonomics and handling characteristics are quickly appreciated and make a user understand why the P 07 and its predecessor the CZ 75 are so well thought of. The beavertail grip frame and overall balance of the P 07 made felt recoil negligible. The P 07’s slide reciprocated smoothly with the sights tracking smoothly in between shots fired. Black Hills, Federal, Hornady, and Winchester ammunition was used for range T&E. Loads fired spanned 115gr to 147gr with hollow points and FMJ bullet types utilized. Significantly, no malfunctions were experienced while test firing over 500 rounds during range visits used to evaluate the CZ P 07 for this article. It is not normal protocol to bench test handguns for accuracy due to reliability and quick engagement of targets being more paramount in a martial handgun. A weapon like the CZ P 07 should be fired as it is designed to be used – standing without support and while moving to get off the “X.” This is the true measure of accuracy combining trigger pull, grip, and sights. After a few runs orientating myself to the first round DA trigger pull, first round hits became the norm on the various Echo Valley Training Center steel targets, plate racks, and dueling trees. The P 07 did not disappoint regularly producing 2-4 inch groups at 25 yards when fired from standing unsupported positions.

Mounting a suppressor to the CZ P 07’s threaded barrel was an obvious decision in order to evaluate the handgun to its full potential. A Yankee Hill Machine (YHM) Cobra M2 suppressor was utilized for this. The YHM Cobra M2 was affixed by simply removing the barrel’s thread protector and screwing on the Cobra M2. The YHM Cobra M2’s overall length is 8 inches with a diameter of 1.3 inches and weighs only 11.5 ounces while offering a -35db noise reduction. Initial range time consisted of testing the Cobra M2 to verify established accuracy and reliability parameters of the CZ P 07 were not compromised. YHM’s Nielsen system allows the suppressor to be adapted to most semiautomatic handguns for flawless functioning. The Nielsen piston design allows one suppressor to fit on almost any type of pistol by simply purchasing the correct adaptor. The Cobra M2 utilizes stainless steel components to minimize wear of the threads and the Nielsen device. Cobra M2 sound suppressors are constructed using Sound Tech’s patented baffle design. The Cobra M2’s baffle stack is not only optimized for a sound reduction, but also being designed to come apart allowing for cleaning.

147gr 9mm loads are typically subsonic and the obvious choice for use with a suppressor. This is one of the reasons why 9mm handguns are favorite candidates to suppress. The 147gr 9mm’s ability to reliably function the CZ P 07’s slide, while still being subsonic, is another important advantage offered by suppressing a 9mm handgun. However, the YHM Cobra M2 proved effective at taming the muzzle blast of even 115gr and 124gr +P supersonic loads. All loads could be comfortably fired without the use of ear protection with the YHM Cobra M2 suppressor installed even in an indoor environment. A variety of 147gr 9mm loads were tested with the CZ P 07 including Winchester PDX, Hornady TAP, Federal Hydra-Shok/Tactical brands and Engel Ballistic Research (EBR). The EBR brand may surprise some readers as it is not that familiar to the public. EBR comes into its own with sub-sonic ammunition for rifles including the 5.56, 7.62×39, 7.62×51, .300WinMag, 338Lapua, and pistol calibers such as 9mm, .40 S&W and .44Magnum.

It does not take a drastic imagination leap to visualize what roles the CZ P 07 would fill with the YHM Cobra M2 suppressor mounted. Anything from sentry removal, canine or other, or CQB operations indoors come to mind. The added weight of the YHM suppressor did not prove a hindrance to weapon manipulation and the 16 round magazines are much appreciated minimizing the likelihood of needing to change magazines during a typical engagement that the P 07 would be the primary weapon. The extended sights that the P 07 comes equipped with proved an asset in “seeing” over the YHM suppressor. As stated previously, even if not so equipped, the P 07 would have performed fine in the sub-10 yard arena with solid hits possible on the steel man targets set up for testing using point shooting techniques or simply sighting down the extended length of the mounted YHM suppressor. As a side note, while the elevated suppressor iron sights have their place, if the weapon is not dedicated to suppressor use the sights make holster selection problematic. Further offensive role enhancement with the CZ P 07 could be achieved by mounting an infrared laser target designator such as the Insight Technology LAM 1000/ILWLP on its integral rail combined with an operator using night vision goggles. This obviously is a very specialized application relegated to operations associated with Tier 1 units.

The key point with the CZ P 07 is that it is eminently adaptable to individual, department, or unit needs albeit mission or budgetary based. Everything from the homeowner with a light/laser combo to an elite military team with night vision and infrared target designator and suppressor mounted will find the CZ P 07 a handgun worthy of consideration. The CZ P 07 arrives ready to go right out of the box, especially with the CZ threaded factory barrel. Kudos to CZ for including the right features for maximizing performance without turning it into a finicky or fussy competition gun. The buyer is gaining a lot of value for the listed CZ P 07 purchase price of around $500. The CZ P 07 is a potent package in any of its possible forms due to its accuracy, reliability, and capacity – all of this combines into increased lethality.

SITES OF INTEREST

CZ-USA
PO Box 171073
Kansas City, KS 66117
(800) 955-4486
www.cz-usa.com

Engel Ballistic Research, Inc.
512-360-5327
www.ebr-inc.net

Echo Valley Training Center
www.echovalleytrainingcenter.com

The CZ 75 pistol has been around, in various forms, since 1975. It was not originally available to the U.S. shooting public but finally did come to our shores after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Prior to that, shooters here that wanted one were forced to settle for one of the copies made by other companies like Fratelli Tanfoglio of Italy. The gun was copied freely because at that time neither the original designers nor CZ filed for patent protection abroad.

Today, CZ-USA brings the gun to the United States, along with a full line of CZ rifles and shotguns. They even have the law enforcement only Scorpion EVO3 submachine gun and the Bren 805 select-fire rifle.

The subject of this article is one of CZ-USA’s newest models of the CZ 75, the P-07 Duty Suppressor Ready model. The P-07 Duty model is a compact polymer-framed CZ 75 variant that has a redesigned trigger mechanism called the Omega system. This new pistol has some of the same features of the original model 75 but it also has some major differences as well. The first thing that you notice is that the P-07 frame is made from a polymer, not machined from steel as is the original CZ 75. It does however keep the same grip angle of the original gun that most shooters still think is ideal. It fits the hand very well and points naturally. The P-07 has a squared and hooked trigger guard that shooters seem to either love or hate. It has heavy, molded-in stippling on the sides of the grip as well as on the sides of the frame right above the trigger. This is a natural position for the shooters thumb if he or she uses a thumb high shooting hold. The pistols grip also has ridges molded into the front and back strap, as well as the front of the trigger guard, making it seem that the gun literally sticks to your hand. The gun also features a length of 1913 Picatinny rail molded into the frame just in front of the trigger guard. The P-07 Duty is a compact model with a 3.8-inch barrel making a perfect high capacity carry gun. While the P-07 Duty is available in either 9mm or .40 S&W, the Suppressor Ready version is available in 9mm only.

The pistol is fed from 16-round magazines with the mag release located in the usual place just behind the trigger. The magazines are blued steel with a polymer base plate and follower. There are round count holes at the 5, 10 and 16 round positions. The magazines feature mag release cuts on either side and the mag release button can be changed to either side of the frame without the need for additional parts so that it is ambidextrous as well. The magazines fit flush with the bottom of the frame and drop free of the frame when the button is pushed. The pistol comes standard with two magazines.

The P-07 Duty is unique in that it is double action with a decocking lever but it can also be set up as a single action pistol so it can be carried cocked and locked like a 1911. The best part is that the gun comes with all the necessary parts to change it back and forth with nothing else to buy. The conversion takes about a minute to switch from double to single action or vice versa. The ambidextrous levers on either side of the frame act as either decocking levers or safety levers depending on how the gun is set up. Trigger pull on the test gun broke at 9 lbs 1 ounce in double action and 4 lbs 3 ounces in the single action mode. The trigger pull is very smooth and feels less than what the trigger pull gauge read. The Omega System trigger uses less parts than other trigger systems and therefore makes the trigger pull exceptional.

The Suppressor Ready model of the P-07 comes with an extended barrel threaded 1/2 x 28, which is the standard for 9mm suppressors in the U.S. It also comes with extra tall sights that will allow for the user to get a good sight picture even with a suppressor mounted. The rear sight is fully adjustable for both windage and elevation.

The gun was tested with two suppressors from Thompson Machine; their 9mm Isis-2 with recoil booster as well as their 9mm Poseidon micro suppressor. The Isis-2 is cataloged as a 9mm suppressor but it will work with a variety of calibers including rimfire, centerfire calibers below 9mm and Subsonic 300 Blackout. When used on a rimfire or 300 Blackout rifle a threaded backcap can be exchanged for the recoil booster. The recoil booster is only needed with semi-auto pistols that need the extra boost to overcome the added weight on the end of the muzzle. The Isis-2 is a mono-core suppressor, which means the “guts,” i.e. the baffles and the spacers, are machined from one piece of 6061 T6 aluminum. This technology enables the suppressor to be easily taken apart and cleaned. The Isis-2 is a bigger suppressor with a total length of just over 9 inches with attached booster and a diameter of 1.375 inches. Even though it is a larger suppressor, it weighs only 7 ounces. On the other end of Thompson Machines’ 9mm suppressor spectrum is the tiny 9mm Poseidon. The Poseidon has got to be one of the most advanced sound suppressors being marketed today. This suppressor is just slightly over 4 inches long and has a diameter of 1.25 inches. It is very lightweight at just 3.8 ounces and is also a mono-core baffle suppressor. The suppressor is so light and small that it functions with all semi-auto pistols without a booster thus shortening up the overall package. The Poseidon can be used wet or dry and with or without a neoprene wipe. For those not familiar with wet suppressors they are designed to be shot with a coolant, either water or wire pulling gel, inserted into them before they are shot. The coolant cools the hot gases faster making the suppressor much quieter. The Poseidon was designed to be used on .22 LR, .25 ACP, .32 ACP, 9mm and .380 ACP weapons. The design is unique in that it incorporates a two-piece end cap that, when used with a neoprene wipe, seals the ablative medium (coolant) in the suppressor so that it doesn’t run out or evaporate. This has always been the downside of wet suppressors. This suppressor is also made from 6061 T6 aluminum and it, as well as the Isis-2, are both finished in matte black to match the finish on most tactical pistols. Thompson Machine also offers their suppressors in Flat Dark Earth color as an option for a slight price upgrade. Both of these suppressors are scary quiet and whether you are using them on nighttime varmints on your property on in an “on duty” capacity you can’t go wrong with either of these units. One of these combined with the CZ 75 P-07 Duty make for a very deadly combination.

During the test firing of the CZ, several types of ammunition were used. These included some light 115 grain FMJ target reloads all the way up to 147 grain hollow point subsonic. We also included several brands of 9mm personal defense ammo with some +P stuff thrown in as well. In fact, we tried everything we could think of to try to get the gun to have a failure to feed or fire but were unsuccessful. This pistol literally fed and fired everything we put in it. It even handled 9mm military ammunition, which is known for its hard primers, without a hitch. Accuracy is very good and while this author thinks the trigger pull has a lot to do with it, there is also a design element that helps produce very tight groups. The gun is designed so that the slide rides inside of the frame rather than outside the frame as in other pistols. This allows the bore axis to sit lower in the hand and recoil that feels like the gun comes straight back instead of the muzzle flipping up. All of this translates into the shooter concentrating more on shot placement than on controlling the gun. It also makes for extremely fast second shots. For whatever reason, the gun points very naturally and is extremely accurate.

In conclusion, not only is this a very good looking gun, but it is a very accurate gun with a great trigger pull, shoots any ammo that you can stuff into it and is as well-made as any handgun you will find. On top of this it has a retail price of only $528. That price is a bargain for just about any handgun these days let alone one that has the features of the P-07 Duty Suppressor Ready.

CZ-USA
P.O. Box 171073
Kansas City, KS 66117-0073
Phone: (913) 321-1811
Fax: (913) 321-2251
www.cz-usa.com

Thompson Machine
172 Center Street
Panacea, FL 32346
Phone: (850) 408-5161
Fax: (850) 984-5483
www.thompsonmachine.net

The term “machine pistol” appeared for the first time in July 1918, with a new weapon presented to a learned assembly of Allied officers. It was developed for tanks crews and it is undoubtedly the first ever Firing Port Weapon. Its mechanism is based on the principle of the M1917 semiautomatic rifle and the first tests took place with a weapon using a special clip of the Mannlicher-Berthier type but with eight cartridges. The experimentation was continued with a Chauchat M1915 light machine gun magazine. All these weapons had in common point that they were created by the same technicians: Chauchat, Sutter and Ribeyrolles.

The experimentation was conducted between summer 1918 and July 1919. The operation appeared satisfactory but the weapon was too powerful for the purpose: closer in protection for tanks crews, it became the weapon of the Renault FT 17 tank driver. The weapon had no stock. The upper part of the receiver was tubular, the lower part was square. The ejection port was on the right, and a pistol grip was located under the frame. The gun is short and the gas cylinder is located on the right side of the barrel, the same side as the cocking handle. The initial model had a large muzzle brake at the muzzle. This model is entirely made of metal parts, except for the pistol grip stocks.

A safety lever is located on the left face of the frame as on the M1917 rifle. It had no selector switch and was fired in the full automatic mode only. The rear sight is that of an American Springfield M1903 rifle and the front sight is a blade on the muzzle brake of the first model. There is no rear sight and only one small front sight on the second prototype. Sights were not needed on this type of weapon as fire was directed through the use of tracer ammunition.

This model works with gas action. The bolt is locked by a rotating head with six lugs.

Chauchat-Ribeyrolles Machine Pistol

Caliber: 8 mm
Ammunition: 8 mm Lebel
Overall length: 0.575 m (22.64 in.)
Barrel length: 0.340 m (13.39 in.)
Weight: 4 kg (8.83 lbs)
Magazine capacity: 20 rounds
Cyclic rate of fire: Unknown

Ribeyrolles Assault Rifle

This light assault rifle was produced by the Gladiator bicycle factory. It is an individual weapon firing a special cartridge specially developed for it: the 8mm Ribeyrolles. It is probably the first intermediate cartridge designed for an assault rifle, consisting of a .351 Winchester Self Loading case necked down to 8mm (.31) and loaded with an 8mm Lebel armour piercing bullet. The weapon was designed by one of the inventors of the M1915 light machine gun. It was presented at Versailles proving ground the first time on July 6, 1918. It was tested more thoroughly between July 20 and August 18, 1921 at the Camp de Chalons. The trials did not give good results; the mechanism was unreliable and the ballistics of the ammunition did not give the desired results. Many malfunctions occurred and the accuracy was poor beyond 400 meters (440 yards). It was thus not possible to continue its development because its weight was excessive for an individual weapon and it was not effective as a light machine gun.

The idea of an intermediate cartridge was, however, interesting and it was twenty more years before that subject could be revisited. The Ribeyrolles automatic rifle looked like a small carbine, several of its characteristics reappeared in the experimental 9mm STA 1924 submachine gun. The one piece pistol grip stock was made of wood. Metal elements were of machined steel. The cylindrical frame is closed by a plug, as the barrel is mounted at the front. The cocking lever and ejection port are on the right. The bolt is made of two parts and it has a small diameter recoil spring with a guide mounted rod in a tube. The barrel is covered by a shield; to which are mounted the lower and upper bands, (they are those of Lebel or M1916 rifles). The weapon has a folding bipod, which is made from tube stock. A selector is located on the right of the stock, just over the trigger guard. The front position is for full auto and the rear single shot. Moving it up puts the weapon on safe. The front sight is a blade located at the end of the barrel and the rear sight is graduated from 200 to 2,000 meters (in increments of 200 m). Feed is by a curved box magazine holding 25 cartridges. The weapon works by gas action, the firing pin is independent and actuated by a cam, which works after closing (like some submachine guns of the 1930s). It receives the M 1886-15 or M1915 sword bayonet with 520 mm (20.47 in.) cross section blade and a blued scabbard.

Ribeyrolles M 1918 Assault Rifle

Caliber: 8 mm
Ammunition: 8 x 32 SR
Overall length: 1.090 m (42.91 in.)
Length of gun: 0.450 m (17.72 on.)
Weight: 5.100 kg (11.25 lbs)
Mag capacity 25 rounds
Cyclic rate: Unknown

Although the Russian Fedorov automatic rifle appeared just before the Ribeyrolles, it shot a full power cartridge. The Ribeyrolles is indisputably the first assault rifle of the world using an intermediate cartridge.

Submachine Guns:

The 1921 Program

The program of 1921 also included submachine guns. The specifications provided that the weapon used the 9mm Luger cartridge. Several models were presented:

• CEI No. 1 and No. 2;
• STA 1922 and 1924, 300 specimens were manufactured, they were sent to Morocco and used successfully during the Rif war;
• MAS Type 1, 1bis, 2 and 3 developed in 1924. These models were the forerunners of the MAS 1938, with a frame mounted a shutter covering the ejection port. The bolt is not exactly in the axis of barrel and a perforated jacket surrounds the barrel. It had two triggers. It shot the 9mm Luger round.

Despite the qualities of these models, the tests were called into question by the choice of a new ammunition: 7.65mm Long, which is nothing other than the American .30 Pedersen round. The tests continued (slowly and without enthusiasm) until 1940, with the adoption on May 9, 1940 of the MAS S.E. 1935; its new designation was MAS 1938.

As a result of this late decision, submachine guns were almost absent during 1939-1940. Special forces and other troops that were normally using them had no other choice than to use experimental weapons, submachine guns returned by the Spanish Republicans or scarce Thompsons ordered in haste.

Light Machine Guns

ENT

A program of January 17, 1899, required the development of a machine gun likely to be used under conditions similar to those of rifle and to be operated by two men. In1900, the Ecole Nationale de Tir (ENT or National Shooting School) produced a 6mm (.236) B1 model. It was provided with an articulated butt plate, a wooden handguard that acted as a cooling jacket with lateral ventilation grooves and also with a folding bipod under the barrel. The sight is graduated from 200 to 2,000 m. The firing device has two triggers, one for single shots and the other for full auto. The gun works with direct gas action on the bolt carrier (Rossignol system) and there were two variations of. The B 1:

• one with only one gas tube ;
• the other with two symmetrical tubes, located on both sides of the mechanism. These guns are fed by a vertical box magazine introduced under the bolt (capacity and shape unknown, the boxes were missing on the two specimens examined).

APX

The Atelier de Puteaux (Puteaux Workshop close to south of Paris), made several prototypes between 1903 and 1908. They were created by Jacques Louis Henri Chauchat (1863-1917), armament engineer from the Polytechnique school and by Charles Sutter, administration officer and weapons controller of Puteaux. In 1911, they proposed a light machine gun designated C 7, functioning by long recoil of the barrel and using the 8mm Lebel cartridge. The weapon had an aluminum stock, a perforated jacket around the barrel and was fed by a curved magazine located on the top. After two trials in November 1911 and April 1912, this model revealed some imperfections that were then eliminated. New prototypes were built by MAS and tested in February 1913. They were very reliable (2,500 cartridges fired without incident), and the conclusion was that they could be used by fortress troops or aircraft, but it seems that their use by infantry was not considered. MAS built 188 CS 1913 light machine guns and 65 of them were used by French aviation at the beginning of WW I.

Hotchkiss 1908

The Hotchkiss company had developed in 1907 a lightened version of its machine-gun and was provided with a stock and a bipod. This weapon works by gas action and has a regulator, but the bolt is provided with a rotary head instead of the ascending bolt used on the other model. It is feed from the right side. The sight is graduated from 100 to 2,000 m.

Tested in 1908 (16 specimens bought for tests), this model revealed imperfections which the manufacturer corrected. On December 4, 1911, the Hotchkiss Company received an order for one hundred portable machine guns for tests to take place the following year at the Ecole Nationale de Tir in Chalons. The order was confirmed in April 1912, but these weapons were not delivered until 1913 and 1914. Finally, the weapon was adopted but received only limited use on aircraft.

Hotchkiss Model 1908

Caliber: 8mm
Ammunition: 8mm Lebel
Overall length: 1,190 m (46.95 in.)
Barrel length: 0.600 m (23.62″)
Weight: 12.5 kg (27.59 lbs)
Cyclic rate of fire: 500 rpm

The Hotchkiss light machine gun was also adopted by:

• Belgium for cyclists troops (7.65×53);
• United States under the name of Benet-Mercié Model 1909. Twenty-nine specimens were bought in France and 1,070 others manufactured under license by Colt and Springfield Armory (.30-06).
• Great Britain, as machine gun Hotchkiss Mark I, which was also produced under license at Coventry. It was used by cavalry, aviation and tanks (.303 British).

Chauchat

These light machine guns existed before the opening of hostilities in 1914, but Army headquarters did not realize the advantage that it offered for troops.

At the beginning of the conflict, General Joffre demanded the adoption of a very mobile weapon to equip the infantry. He asked that fifty thousand guns be produced as soon as possible. Chauchat and Sutter then modified the weapon which they had designed for aviation and created the first light machine gun of the French infantry. The government arsenals were already operating at full capacity, so its production was entrusted to private industry:

• the Société des Cycles Clément et Gladiator, in Le Pre-Saint-Gervais, close to north-east Paris produced 227,190 8mm M1915 guns, and 20,754 in .30-06 for the U.S. Army;
• Sidarme in Saint Chamont (near Saint-Etienne) produced for its part 20,195 8mm weapons.

The fusil-mitrailleur C.S.R.G was adopted in 1915. In spite of its qualities (simplicity, ease and inexpensive manufacture), the Chauchat light machine gun lacked reliability. The malfunctions were mainly due to the conical profile of the cartridge and its rim which fit poorly in a magazine.

The light machine gun Browning BAR M1918 had made strong impression on the French. So much so that on October 16, 1918, the War Ministry asked the U.S. government to deliver 5,000 BARs each month with delivery to begin in January 1919. Four days later, general Pétain cancelled the order stating that, “The Browning light machine gun does not offer any superiority compared to the Chauchat.” All the plans established to manufacture the .30-06 cartridge in French arsenals were also cancelled.

Berthier and the M1924

Light Machine Guns

In May 1920, general Duval, who was in charge of the infantry armament program declared that it now became essential to consider the manufacture of the BAR light machine gun and its special cartridges. On May 11, 1921, a new program of armament was established and it included the creation of a portable machine gun as a priority. Various types of weapons were put to the test (Lewis 1920, Madsen, Hotchkiss 1922) and license of the BAR was again considered, but Colt and Browning required that France pay $2,000,000 for the licence or order one thousand guns in U.S.A. for the six next years to get the licence free. This condition resulted in the project being cancelled.

Other tests were conducted with the Berthier light machine gun now owned by Vickers. One hundred Berthiers were built by MAC, and while the gun was improved, it was not adopted. Finally, the model selected was that developed at Châtellerault by colonel Reibel. He borrowed many favourable characteristics of the Berthier. This manner of proceeding was completely characteristic of the practices of the French military engineers of the time. They thus claimed to save much payment of royalties to private companies, without worrying about the expenses of studies, nor of the production costs in the arsenals. At the same time, the Saint-Etienne factory developed a MAS 1922 light machine gun, a faithful copy of the BAR…

Machine Guns

Hotchkiss

The French Army tried out various models of automatic machine-guns at the end of the 19th century:

• Maxim between 1887 and 1899;
• Colt in 1898 (potato digger);
• Hotchkiss (1898).

At the same time, the Puteaux Works in 1895 built a copy of the Gatling chambered for the 8mm Lebel cartridge.

The Hotchkiss machine gun gave excellent results, but improvements were required. In 1900, a new Hotchkiss was brought into partial service in some units for tests (in the East of France and in North Africa). The Hotchkiss Model 1900 differs from the Model 1897 by a barrel provided with a steel radiator (the precedent was out of bronze) and by a new tripod. Between 1900 and 1914, 200 Hotchkiss M1900 machine guns were furnished to the Army. Although the test of the Hotchkiss machine gun was conclusive, the Army still chooses to wait before making a decision in favor of this weapon. This did not prevent its manufacturer from selling the machine gun to many others countries.

The hesitations concerning the adoption of the Hotchkiss machine gun seems to be motivated by research going on at Puteaux Works to develop an equivalent weapon. Between 1903 and 1906, the Versailles Proving Ground examined several machine guns developed by APX. During these tests, many malfunctions were noted. The machine gun was then modified by MAS. Although being far from being the equivalent of the Hotchkiss machine gun, it was adopted in 1909. A little later an improved model, the M1907 T was realized and its manufacture continued until 1917. The modifications relate to sights, installation of a gas regulator and the striker

. At the beginning of WWI, the Hotchkiss company received a sizeable order for machine guns. These weapons, whose reliability in combat appears greater than the Saint-Etienne M1907 T did not see general use in the front until 1916. The Hotchkiss Model 1914 is similar to the model 1900 in concept but a large number of its components had been improved (mounting of the barrel, the gas piston, the feed mechanism, etc.), while the stock and optional safety were removed. The gun was manufactured at Saint-Denis (near Paris) and later in Lyon, in the Hotchkiss factories. Between 1914 and 1918, 45,850 were made for the French Army and 23,700 for the Allies.

For lack of a replacement weapon, the Hotchkiss M1914 machine gun was still in service in 1939-40 in the infantry, used as a secondary weapon through 1944-45 and later in Indochina and Algeria.

Darne

The Darne company was one of the best known gun producers of Saint-Etienne. Created in 1881, it is famous for its fixed shotgun, provided with a sliding bolt actuated by a lever.

During WWI, Darne received an order to produce Lewis machine guns for the French Air Force and made 3,266 guns. In 1916, Darne, father and son, developed a machine gun of their own design. Some specimens were delivered to the French Army in 1917 and in August 1918, the Darne establishment received a large order for 8mm machine guns. The armistice of November 11, 1918 caused the cancellation of this contract, but the Darne Company was invited to continue the development of its machine guns in order to improve their performances. Darne then created a “Military Division” which proposed a true system of weapons:

• light machine gun with box-magazine;
• light machine gun fed by link;
• infantry machine gun on tripod;
• tank machine gun;
• aircraft machine gun synchronized to shoot through the propeller, with a cyclic rate of 1,000 to 1,350 rpm. The links belt can be introduced through the right or left side;
• a heavy caliber machine gun, which can be produced in a normal or synchronized version.

These machine-guns have a square frame carrying the cocking lever on the right or on the left. This frame contains the carrier and the bolt, recoil spring and the feeding device. The barrel is easy to change and is connected by a band to the gas cylinder, usually placed below the barrel.

The number of parts is reduced to a minimum with large-scale use of manufactured goods (tubes, rods, profiled) or sheet metal parts.

It functions by gas pressure. It is locked by a tilting bolt, the rear part of which moves upwards to lock. The striker is located on the bolt carrier and it passes through the bolt after closure. The round will no be fired if the bolt is not locked upon closure.

The aircraft version was very successful and used by several countries, such as Brazil, Czechoslovakia, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Serbia, Spain, Turkey.

Other Machine Guns

A heavier variation of the Chatellerault light machine gun was used for tank and fortress: the MAC 31. Other projects to develop a new infantry machine gun started at the beginning of the 1930s. Several prototypes were developed both by MAC and MAS, including 7.5mm guns but also other heavier caliber including 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.5mm guns.

Aircraft machine guns, the MAC 34 (derived from the MAC 31) was realized, but they were not the best. Two variations do exist: MAC 34 T for turret and MAC 34 A for wing – both fed by a drum. Other variations were fed by links and the MAC 34-39 was belatedly realized. Nevertheless, a few days before the war, it was necessary to buy from abroad the excellent Browning machine gun manufactured by Colt and FN.

After this survey, we must note that if the French technicians showed competence, the military officials or politicians (in the time period considered) showed very little.

Richard “Dick” Wray (1930-2012) was one of the earliest, most well known and respected classic machine gun collector of our time. Upon his death on July 29, 2012, there was much discussion as to what would happen to his collection. It was decided that his collection should be shared and made available to other collectors by auction and world renowned Cowan’s Auctions in Cincinnati, Ohio was chosen to research, catalog, advertise and execute the dispersal of the collection on April 30, 2013 at their beautiful facilities in Cincinnati.

Cowan’s Auctions produced a beautiful full color catalog that quickly sold out as collectors wanted it for their libraries. An introduction to the collection as written in the catalog states:

“The collection of Class III machine guns of Dick Wray spans almost fifty years. Dick researched and collected classic machine guns from around the world, most from the early 1900s to the 1970s. Without a doubt, his primary interest and passion was in those guns dating from the World War I and World War II eras. Dick’s entire collection was one to attract even the most advanced collectors. At one point, Dick had almost 400 machine guns in his personal collection, including many rare and exotic models. In some cases, because of Federal law, Dick owned the only known privately held model in the United States.

“Dick was always wheeling and dealing to build his collection. As he grew older, he began actively selling portions of his collection. The remaining guns are being offered by Cowan’s Auctions and many are rare and one-of-a-kind examples that exemplify the quality and depth of this collection.

“Highlights of the auction include a Mauser Schnelfeur pistol, a Russian BSA Lewis gun, a brass-jacket 1895 Argentine contract water-cooled Maxim, MG81Z, and twin Swedish Model 36 Browning machine guns on AA mount. Other notable models offered included Vickers, Maxims, Browning, Lewis, Hotchkiss, Darne, Dryese, etc., representing the United States, Great Britain, France, Russian, Japan, Sweden, China, Germany, Italy and Austria.”

Without a doubt, this was a highly anticipated auction. There have been a few “machine gun” auctions in recent years from “collectors” containing some of the more commonly available transferable machine guns and pre- and post-May dealer samples. But none had the breadth and scope of the historic and fully transferable machine guns that was the Dick Wray collection. Many considered this a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and indeed it was.

The Wray auction of 190 lots consisted of 81 National Firearms Act items was held on April 30, 2013 beginning promptly at 10 a.m. The auctioneer was Wes Cowan, the founder and owner of Cowan’s Auctions and an internationally recognized expert in Historic Americana. Mr. Cowan is easily recognizable as he stars in the PBS television series History Detectives and is a featured appraiser on Antiques Roadshow. A large crowd of approximately 220 people attended the auction in person representing a mix of bidders and interested parties. Another 150 people were represented by telephone bidding and over 500 people used the Internet to bid.

The live salesroom auction totaled just over $2,050,000 for 191 lots. Less than half the items in the auction (the machine guns) brought the majority of total sales. Competitive bidding between the Internet, phone and floor drove prices through the roof for many of the featured items from Wray’s collection. Many of the items in the sale sold well above their pre-auction estimates while some bidders were lucky enough to get their desired interest at a very fair price. Such are the ways of an auction.

Prices shown here include the hammer price and the 15% buyer’s commission. The highest selling lot in the auction was a German WWII MG42, which doubled its pre-auction estimate of $25,000/30,000 and eventually sold to a bidder on the phones for $52,900. A German WWII MP 40 quadrupled its estimate of $10,000/15,000 and sold to a floor bidder for $43,700.

Highlights in the Class III Weapons portion of the sale included a Colt Browning M2 .50 caliber water-cooled “Tora Tora” gun on an M3 AA mount that went back and forth between two bidders on the phone and floor drove the selling price to $39,100. A Czech ZB30J 8mm LMG hammered down at $40,250, a Chinese Type 24 Maxim realized $34,500 and an Auto-Ordnance M1A1 Thompson sold for $31,050.

Other items that garnered high prices were a German WWII MG81 Mauser BYF that brought $33,350, and MG34 Tanker sold for $39,100, a Browning M1919A4E1 brought $36,800, a German LMG 15 N Bergmann realized $32,200 and a World War II C&R Browning M2 hammered down at $41,400.

More Machine Guns to Come

While many of the machine guns owned by Dick Wray were sold before his death, not all of the 81 machine gun lots in Cowan’s April auction represented all that remained. There will be another machine gun auction at Cowan’s Auctions on October 22-23, 2013 having approximately 60-70 NFA items that will have the remaining guns from Dick Wray’s collection and the extensive machine gun collection of Dr. David Nash of Texas. The highlight of the October auction will be a Colt M1904 Maxim, with original tripod, on a wheeled field carriage. Other guns will include an Argentine brass Maxim on a wheeled field mount, an FG42, Colt Vickers, MG34 and MG42, FN BAR, three consecutive numbered Vickers and a number of H&K weapons – just to name a few.

Check with Cowan’s Auctions for further information and details.

Cowan’s Auctions
6270 Este Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45232
(513) 871-1670
www.cowansauctions.com

Between the years 1870 and 1892, a tremendous technological change took place in the nature of the military service rifle. During that period the bolt-action magazine-fed rifle was refined and thereby transformed into a practicable weapon of war. By 1914, such weapons would become the standard service rifle for all the great European powers as well as for many developing nations worldwide. These rifles would retain a dominant status as the individual soldier’s weapon until eclipsed by the semiautomatic rifles of World War II and the auto-loading rifles that followed after the war.

The bolt-action rifle’s success as a military weapon came largely as a function of its practicality in combat. Two key reasons support this assertion: Firstly, its rapidity of fire – a key combat multiplier in war. Secondly, the bolt-action’s physical architecture possesses the requisite strength with which to handle intense breech pressures associated with the sort of ammunition made possible by the development of smokeless powder (a French invention of the late1880s). The strength of the rifle’s action proved decisive as high velocity small caliber ammunition possesses both a quick time of flight and a flat trajectory – both attributes enhance accuracy and thereby the probability of hitting the target.

The object of this essay is to sketch the circumstances and activities that attended the testing of bolt-action rifles by the U.S. Army in the 1870s and 1880s. In Addition, this essay offers an interpretation as to why the army’s adoption of a bolt-action rifle was for so long a decision deferred.

The Late 19th Century U.S. Army

The army was not a national priority between the years 1870 and 1892, nor was technical progress in the development of small arms a priority within the army. After the Civil War ended the Union’s million-man army of 1865 was trimmed to 27,000 by 1876 and would remain at that level until it spiked at the onset of the War with Spain in 1898. Army expenditures fell from $1,031,323,000 in 1865 to $38,177,000 in 1880. These reductions made investments in the modernization of the service rifle a challenge at best. As a result, soldiers of the late 19th century found themselves armed with product-improved conversion of a Civil War era rifle.

The mission of the post-Civil War army was diverse. Activities ranged from enduring the peacetime doldrums to surviving combat hardship. On the quiet side of army life were soldiers stationed along the eastern and western seaboards in coastal defense forts. They prepared to defend against enemy battleships raids – “terrorists-like” raids that were anticipated but never actually occurred. Other soldiers served as members of an uneasy occupational force in the Southern states, a peacekeeping mission that sometimes flared up into violence as freedmen, carpetbaggers, and defiant Southerners struggled for political power (this mission officially ended in 1877). Additionally, the army was involved in quelling domestic disorders and labor protests. However, the bulk of the army was garrisoned in 255 isolated outposts west of the Mississippi. These men were involved in an undeclared war with various hostile tribes and renegade Indians; an extended fight in which there were 27 military engagements between 1865 and 1890 in the West. As to the four major campaigns, they took place in 1867-69 and 1874-75 on the South and Central Plains; 1876-78 on the Northern Plains; and 1880-86 in Arizona and the Southwest. Small arms played a significant role in these Western wars as soldiers and their enemies were armed mainly with rifles, carbines, and revolvers as heavy ordnance was too cumbersome too haul across narrow trails, deserts sands and other forms of hindering terrain.

The Civil War Legacy Rifle

When the Civil War ended in April 1865, the army possessed a million or so serviceable, but obsolete, single-shot muzzle-loading rifles. Given the mid-century pace of technological change, the need for a modern breech-loading rifle was self-evident. Consequently, shortly after the war ended the Ordnance Department convened a rifle board. This board consisted of a council of officers whose object was the testing of promising new rifles – one of which might enter in candidacy for the army service rifle. When its work was concluded the board recommended that the Peabody breech-loading rifle be such a candidate. The rifle represented a quality design and was quite unique as it was one of the first rifles to utilize a dropping-block that hinged at the rear. No matter, budget conscious U.S. government Ordnance officers opposed the Peabody. Specifically, they recognized the prohibitive expense of retooling for a wholly new weapon at the Springfield Arsenal.

An economy-oriented solution was decided upon in lieu of the Peabody option. Existing muzzle-loading rifles were slated for conversion into breech-loading rifles. The Springfield Armory’s Master Armorer, Erskine S. Allin is generally credited with this modification to the legacy rifle (Allin served as the Master Armorer at Springfield Armory from 1853 until his death in 1879). Allin’s conversion entailed cutting into the rear-top of the barrel and installing a cam operated hinged block. This enabled the rifle to be loaded at the breech. The manner in which it opened gave the single-shot rifle the nickname: “Trapdoor” rifle. In the years that followed numerous modifications would be made to this rifle. However, the basic rifle would remain the army service rifle until 1892.

Despite its less than auspicious origin, the Trapdoor rifle turned out to be a practical and effective weapon of war. Most especially, it had a reputation of being an excellent long-range rifle, an attribute deemed quite important by soldiers who held that Indian warriors, while poor shots at long range, were outstanding fighters at close-quarter combat. Therefore, one’s life expectancy might hang upon keeping the hostiles at several hundreds yards standoff. The long-range capability of the Trapdoor rifle would seemingly give advantage to the soldiers.

A service rifle is only as effective as its ammunition. In the pre-smokeless powder era, the Trapdoor rifle’s bullet was quite formidable. Made of lead, it was round-nosed, flat-based, and its weight was approximately 405-grains. Propelled by 70 grains of black powder, it had an average muzzle velocity of 1,300 feet per second (fps). To enhance its wound producing effects, soldiers were encouraged to aim for the enemy’s midsection as abdominal wounds were usually fatal. The faith in the performance of the .40-70 cartridge was such that by the late 1870s the candidate bolt-action rifles were all tested in this caliber. However, the stopping-power came with a price. Recoil from this prodigious cartridge gave the Trapdoor rifle a more pejorative second nickname: “The mule kicker.”

Conservative Thinking

Army ordnance officers of the era were studying bolt-action rifle technology with a skeptical eye. This attitude was not necessarily born of ignorance. Well educated and equally well traveled, officers kept abreast of technological change. Nor were the qualities of bolt-action rifles outside officer learning. As early as the mid 1830s, Johann Nikolas von Dreyse of Prussia was making a practicable military bolt-action rifle. Additionally, the combat potential of these weapons had been demonstrated on more than a few European battlefields since mid century. Moreover, officers need not travel abroad to learn about the emerging technology. Domestically, commercial bolt-action rifles were being developed and marketed. Nevertheless, the bias against the bolt-action apparently ran deep. In the 1870s, Brigadier General and Chief of Ordnance (1874-1891) Stephen Vincent Benet said, “There seems to be some prejudice existing in our service against the bolt system and its awkward handle, that time and custom may overcome.”

Infantry and cavalry officers were also skeptical when it came to bolt-action rifles. These army officers appear to have equated rapid-fire weapons with the wasting of ammunition. The fear of poorly disciplined troops rapidly empting cartridge boxes and not hitting anything seemingly obsessed combat leaders. Firepower was thought of as being at the expense of the well-aimed single shot. The anti-firepower mindset did have its few situational exceptions. For example, should one be in the process of being overrun by hostile Indians, shooting fast and furious would be the order of the day. However, excepting in extremis, the well-aimed single shot remained the doctrinal solution.

Testing Bolt-Action Rifle Technology

Despite the conservatism within the officer corps, institutional vehicles for technological change did exist and function. The rifle board was such a vehicle, and its members attempted to identify and select the most practical, if not most effective, small arms for army-wide usage. Oversight of rifle boards, as well as the appointment of its members, was the responsibly of the Chief of Ordnance. The boards made their assessments on evidence gathered from rigorous testing and two types of tests were generally employed. Firstly, there were the technical tests conducted by Ordnance personnel at Springfield Armory. These focused upon weapon performance in a controlled environment and entailed tests measuring accuracy, endurance, performance under stress (for example, when the rifle was deliberately fouled with sand or dust), etc. Secondly, there were “soldier” field tests. These tests focused upon the durability and reliability of the weapon when in the hands of soldiers under actual field conditions (typically on the Western Frontier).

Testing “The Ward-Burton Rifle”

One promising candidate service rifle tested in the late 1860s was the .50-caliber center-fire single-shot Ward-Burton bolt-action rifle. It has the distinction of being the first bolt-action rifle made at the Springfield Armory. The weapon was designed and developed by Bethel Burton and General William G. Ward. An interesting design, the bolt possesses an internal cock-on-closing striker, and is locked by dual-opposing interrupted thread lugs located at the rear of the bolt sleeve. The extractor and ejector are located on a separate bolt head. The safety is located on the right side of the receiver. Albeit the rifle is a single-shot system, a magazine-fed variant of this rifle was made at Springfield Armory. This variant had its magazine housed in the butt stock and held up to eight .45-70 cartridges – a departure from the standard .50-caliber offering. Despite the aforementioned officer “issues” regarding firepower, this combining of the bolt-action and magazine-fed technologies was apparently seen as a practical combination.

In 1870 the Ward-Burton rifle was approved by the Ordnance Department for field trial. However, before the testing began, some 1,015 Ward-Burton rifles as well as 313 carbines were to be manufactured at the Springfield Armory. This delayed the tests for a year. When completed, several regiments were issued the weapons. These were the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th cavalries stationed in Arizona, Nebraska, Kansas, New Mexico, and Texas. Officers and the troops had mixed impressions regarding the weapon. Captain Snyder, 3rd Infantry, stationed at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, was quoted as: “Thinking the world of it.” However, others thought differently. Central to soldier dissatisfaction was the rifle’s tendency to break as a function of hard usage. Additionally, the absence of a visible side-hammer or cocking indicator made officers worry about weapon safety. A rifle cocked and ready to fire (in the hands of an unknowing or ill-trained soldier) equated to an accident waiting to happen. One captain wrote at the time: “…in consequence of the number of accidents occurring using the Ward-Burton gun, the men of my company are afraid to use them …I would prefer the (Trapdoor) Springfield to the other (test) arms.” Given the unfavorable commentary, the Ward-Burton was soon rejected by the Ordnance Department.

One of the more ambitious rifle boards met from 1872 through 1873. Its presiding officer was General Alfred H. Terry. Terry’s extensive combat record as well as substantial knowledge of small arms made him an excellent choice. His board was involved in the testing of one hundred and eight candidate rifles and carbines. Among those were a dozen bolt-action designs. Terry’s board met in New York City. Despite its urban setting, the bulk of testing was conducted in the West by troops.

An old axiom has it that soldiers tend to favor the type of rifle that they have trained with and fought with – given that the weapon performs well in combat. This behavior seemingly held true in the late 19th century army as soldiers repeatedly favored the Trapdoor rifle over its competitors. And so it was when in March 1873 all the field tests were completed and the results tabulated. Terry’s board declared the Model 1870 Springfield Trapdoor rifle as once again the winner. Chief of Ordnance Benet approved the board’s findings. Duly impressed with their efforts, he added a note of thanks to the board officers for their quality work.

Some political leaders did not share Benet’s enthusiasm for the Terry Board and its process. Congressmen argued that too much money had been spent on rifle testing. Resultantly, they enacted section 1672 of the “law of June 6, 1872.” that curtailed the manufacture of non-service rifles for future tests. In the private sector there were others who also disliked Terry’s work. As a result, Ward & Burton Company representatives wrote the Secretary of War William Belknap in 1873 and asked about the government’s intensions regarding their rifle in light of the Terry board findings. Secretary Belknap responded that the Congressional act precluded any Ward additional Ward-Burton rifles being manufactured at government expense. This cryptic answer apparently ended the possibility of a Ward-Burton service rifle.

More Testing

In the late 1870s a rifle board was once again convened. Earlier boards had mainly tested single-shot rifles, but now a variety of magazine-fed rifles were to be tested, several of which were bolt-actions. Another watershed occurrence was that the major manufacturers were players in the bolt-action category. They included: the Burgess, Winchester-Hotchkiss, Remington-Keene, Colt-Franklin, and Sharps-Vetterli, each of which represented much technological talent. In April 1879, $20,000 was earmarked for the testing of magazine rifles for field trials.

This magazine rifle board soon developed a liking for the Hotchkiss rifle. This rifle represented the combined efforts of Benjamin Hotchkiss and Winchester Repeating Arms Company. Once again, the National Armory at Springfield was central to the effort. Approximately 1,100 Hotchkiss rifles and carbines were manufactured at the Springfield Armory for field-testing. Of these weapons the Ordnance Department issued 202 rifles to the Infantry and 201 carbines to the Cavalry in early 1879. Recipients included the Tenth Cavalry, and Eighth Cavalry, both located in Texas. In 1881, another 490 Hotchkiss carbines were issued to Cavalry troopers. The accuracy of the Hotchkiss rifle was reputedly excellent and matched that of other quality rifles of the era. A good rifleman could reliably place ten rounds into an 8-inch circle at 200 yards, and it had a maximum range of about 500 yards.

A unique design, the Model 1878 Hotchkiss rifle possessed a three-piece bolt, consisting of head, body, and cocking piece. There was only one locking surface. The rear face of an integral guide rib located on the bolt body rested against a shoulder on the right side of the receiver. With a tubular magazine located within the butt-stock, the rifle was loaded with the bolt open. Each cartridge was inserted by way of the open action and then pushed downward into the magazine. The caliber of the rifle was .45-70. The magazine held five cartridges, a sixth could be placed in the chamber, and the functioning of the rifle was cocked by raising the bolt handle to unlock the action thereby pressing the striker back. However, the striker spring was not fully compressed until the shooter pushed the bolt down into the locked position. The manufacture of the rifle also entailed an unusual division of labor. The government made the 513 Hotchkiss rifle stocks, barrels and ancillary hardware at Springfield Armory. However, the rifle actions and butt plates were supplied by Winchester Repeating Arms Company.

By 1882 some of the field tests results were in and once again the Board favored the Hotchkiss. However, there were concerns about the issue of safety. The tubular magazine had the cartridges laying head to toe. This arrangement placed the bullet nose resting up against the primer of another bullet. Fears were that the impact of one against the other might set off the entire magazine. Despite this troubling prospect, tests affirmed its safety. Lieutenant Colonel J.G. Benton, president of the Board, wrote that the “Hotchkiss gun, No. 19, has passed these tests (accident magazine explosion) and from its combination of strength, simplicity, and great effectiveness as a single loader the Board is of the opinion that the Hotchkiss, No. 19, is suitable for the military service, and does, therefore, recommend it as such.” In keeping with Ordnance officer concerns about ammunition wastage by troops, the rifle possessed a magazine cut off that could be activated by a stop placed in the right side of the rifle. This feature enabled the rifle to be fired in a single-shot mode. Perhaps because of the lingering concerns over the tubular magazine, a prototype detachable magazine was developed for the rifle. It held four cartridges and fit in the rifle butt stock. This device anticipated future standardized features of the bolt-action rifle. This magazine was the invention of an army lieutenant named Russell.

The Hotchkiss rifle had two significant competitors in its candidacy for the service rifle title: the Lee rifle and the Chaffee-Reece rifle. On September 29, 1882, Colonel John Brooke, then President of the Board on Magazine Guns wrote to Commanding General of the Army William Tecumseh Sherman (1869-1883) and recommended that Hotchkiss, Lee, and Chaffee-Reece rifles be manufactured on a limited basis for field tests. Over time the Lee rifle apparently gained adherents. The Board indicated that the Lee rifle was deserving of first consideration despite the other two rifles having performed nearly as well in preliminary tests. Benet was supportive and recommended that $50,000 be made available for the production of the test rifles. The plan was to have 750 Lee and Hotchkiss rifles procured by contract and 750 Chaffee-Reece rifles to be made at Springfield Armory. Remington would make the Lee rifle at a unit cost of $16.66, Colt Arms Company offered to make the Chaffee-Reece rifle at the then extravagant unit cost of $150, for a run of 200 rifles. Not surprisingly, Benet quickly dismissed Colt’s offer. Rather, he opted to have the rifles manufactured at Springfield Armory at a unit cost of $35.

Although the army ultimately rejected the bolt-action rifle in the late 1870s, other government departments did not. The Department of the Interior issued Remington-Keene rifles to the Indian reservation police. Additionally, the Navy contracted for 300 of the rifles for trial in 1880. The Remington Keene rifle was a bolt-action small arm patented in 1874 by James W. Keene and manufactured by Remington in 1880. It featured a tubular magazine under the barrel. The magazine contained a long spring that pushed the cartridges back towards the breech, the cartridge then fired and the bolt was cycled thereby feeding another cartridge for firing. Additionally, it had an exposed hammer on the rear of the bolt – the hammer required manual cocking before firing. A curious aspect of this system was that it could be loaded with the bolt open or from the underside with the bolt closed. The relatively high cost of manufacture at $35 per rifle as well as it not being easily adapted to smokeless powder likely had much to do with the manufacture of only 5,000 rifles. Production ended in 1885.

The Lee Rifle

The Lee rifle was another bolt-action rifle that had received serious consideration by the Ordnance Department. It was the invention of James Paris Lee, an émigré from Scotland to the United States. Oddly enough Lee had earlier been a government employee and worked at the Springfield Armory in 1879 when he patented his new magazine-fed rifle. However, he soon departed to seek his fortune elsewhere as an entrepreneur. Lee’s rifle was a modification of his Model 1879 rifle. To begin with, the Model had two follower grooves on each side of the magazine, and the bolt guide rib locked forward of the receiver bridge with an opposite second bolt-sleeve locking lug, as is the case on all later British Lee-Enfields. The structural strength of Lee’s approach anticipated the coming of high velocity ammunition. Most competitor bolt-action rifles possessed only one locking surface. The Lee rifles tested were in the government .45-70 caliber.

Perhaps the most significant innovation found on the Lee rifle is its box magazine (an invention generally attributed to him). Firstly, it was easy to make and of inexpensive sheet-steel construction. Secondly, a soldier might preload a magazine and thereby quickly inserted so as to supply rapid and sustained fire. Thirdly, the magazine held five cartridges in staggered position thus optimizing space within the magazine. Lastly, and probably as a stop to the anti-firepower outlook of Ordnance officers, the rifle could be used as a single-loader. In any case, it had demonstrated its ability to be fired up to thirty times in one minute.

In the beginning, the Lee was withdrawn from testing because of an error on the dimensional drawings submitted by Lee to the Ordnance Department. The error resulted in some confusion regarding the chambering and during early tests it resulted in a bolt lug failure. The ultimate rejection of the Lee rifle afforded it the rather odd distinction of becoming the most successful rifle never to be adopted by the U.S. Army. The rifle’s success in the British military is beyond the scope of this article.

The Chaffee-Reese Rifle

The Chaffee-Reese rifle was another one of the candidate bolt-action rifles that found favor with the Ordnance Department. The invention of Reuben Chaffee and General James Reece of Springfield, Illinois, some 753 of these rifles were produced for test purposes. The five-round magazine was a tubular magazine located in the rifle’s butt stock. The magazine was loaded through a trap door located in the butt plate. As the bolt was cycled, one cartridge were fed forward by means of ratchet teeth – one advanced each cartridge as the bolt was cycled and another kept the cartridges from sliding backwards down the magazine. As one cartridge was pushed into the chamber another was pulled forward to take its place. This rifle could also be fired as a single-loader and as such possessed a magazine cut-off. Though the Chaffee-Reece rifle seemingly was a serious candidate for the service rifle, much of its support may have come from General Reese’s influence with the Ordnance Department. Additionally, the promise of Colt’s interest in the rifle may have added to its luster. No matter, Colt abandoned the project sometime before 1884.

The Brooke Rifle Board

The Brooke Rifle Board tested the aforementioned Lee, Chaffee-Reece, and Hotchkiss rifles. The Trapdoor being used as the standard against which those rifles were measured. Over 149 infantry companies participated in these expansive tests. The Trapdoor rifle was seemingly given an advantage from the onset as all the test rifles were first assessed by troops for their utility as “single-loaders” – a category in which soldier familiarity with the service rifle would be telling. Next, the test rifles were examined in an open ended “all uses” category. Lastly, the three magazine-fed test rifles were contrasted in a side-by-side comparison. In the first category the order of ranking (the higher the score the better) was: Trapdoor rifle, 21, Lee, 5, Hotchkiss, 1, and Chaffee-Reece, 0. In the “all uses” category, the ranking was: Springfield, 46, Lee, 10, Hotchkiss, 4, Chaffee-Reece, 3. Lastly, when the three magazine-fed rifles were compared the ranking was: Lee, 55, Hotchkiss, 26, and Chaffee-Reece, 14. The winner in all categories, once again, was the venerable Trapdoor rifle.

According to reports from the field, the bolt-action rifle was apparently not well liked by the servicemen. Cavalry troopers wrote that the bolt-action rifle was, “Unfitted for cavalry service; too easily fouled with dust…[a] complicated mechanism liable to accident in field service.” They added: “Reloaded ammunition works badly.” (Noteworthy as soldiers were often engaged in reloading spent cartridge cases in garrison.) Such negative commentary from the field served to confirm Ordnance officer skepticism towards the bolt-action rifle. However, the sampling of soldier opinion was not as large as it might have been. Troopers from Companies A and F of the Fourth Cavalry did not respond in time for their comments to be tabulated. This tardiness resulted in a loss of important data since at the time they were hotly engaged in combat with hostile Apaches.

Not surprisingly, the board’s findings provided little reason for transitioning from the reliable and respected Trapdoor rifle to either the bolt-action rifle or lever-action rifle – the latter were also involved in the tests and found wanting. General Benet stated that: “neither of the magazine guns tested should be adopted and substituted for the Springfield (Trapdoor) rifle as the arm for the service.” He qualified his assertion by adding that while he was an advocate for magazine-fed rifles, he nevertheless felt that the Trapdoor rifle was adequate for service use. He recommended that the adoption of a magazine should be postponed until such technologies reached a more mature level of development. This essentially decided the matter. His comments were passed on to the War Department on December 15, 1885.

Officers interpreted the results of all the testing as inconclusive. Time would alter opinions. Moreover, the testing pointed the way to the future service rifle. For despite the parsimonious military budgets and the officer fixation with “ammunition wastage,” the combat practicality of the bolt-action magazine-fed rifle could not be forever denied.

Postscript

On December 16, 1890 the Ordnance Department convened yet another rifle board and on July 1, 1892 its findings were issued. This time the Trapdoor rifle would be replaced with a bolt-action weapon. The reason for this watershed change was other than what might be expected. Two French technological innovations were likely the real agent of change. The first occurred in 1886 when the small-caliber high-velocity bullet (with a 2,000 fps muzzle velocity) was developed for the French Lebel service rifle. The second innovation was that of “smokeless powder.” Such changes nearly ensured the military success of the bolt-action rifle. That is, small caliber bullets traveling at high velocities created enormous pressures in the rifle’s breech. Such breech pressures necessitated the sort of receiver strength that the bolt-action system afforded. Small bullets offered a marked improvement over the large slow-moving .45-70 bullet, especially in terms of hit probability (due to a flatter trajectory and a faster time of flight).

Diehard Ordnance officers tried to adapt the Trapdoor rifle to the new realities. They built a .30 caliber prototype only to discover its architecture was simply not strong enough as the breech block angle made the rifle susceptible to bursting when fired. The Trapdoor legacy rifle had been modified to its limit. On September 15, 1892 the army adopted the bolt-action Krag-Jorgensen rifle. The long deferred decision had finally come to pass.

During World War II the British designed and manufactured the 9mm Lanchester machine carbine and magazine that was basically copied from the German MP28II maschinenpistole. The magazines were first used for the Lanchester in a 50-round capacity, and later in the Sten machine carbine with a 32-round capacity, both configurations are interchangeable, but will not fit or function in a German MP28II. The Sten was copied and manufactured in several countries during and after the war.

The British magazines were made of stamped sheet metal; a double-stack single feed design – a configuration that was both hard to load by hand, and less reliable than a double feed design. Despite their questionable reliability they were made by the millions. If one didn’t work it was usually just replaced with another or discarded. An estimated 42,000,000 Sten magazines were produced during World War II.

The magazine bodies were formed from a single piece of sheet metal. The process used to attach the ends of the magazine’s sheet metal body varied by manufacturer. Some were rolled together and spot welded at the back. Other contractors used a separate backstrap spot welded to the main body. A few manufacturers welded the seam at the front and some magazines were formed from tubing – no seam welding required. To form the feed lips a thick steel collar was spot welded to the top of the body. The removable floor plate was made of sheet metal and bent to slide onto the rails formed on the bottom of the magazine body. The floor plate was held in place by a protrusion on a plate attached to the bottom of the magazine spring.

Sten Mk1 Magazines

The early 32-round Sten Mk1 magazines can be identified by the four “witness” holes punched into the back of the magazine body. The holes theoretically allowed the soldier to see how many rounds there were inside the magazine, each hole signified 8 cartridges. The Mk1 follower was similar in design to that of the 50-round Lanchester magazines except the legs were shorter and the cross brace connecting the legs together was eliminated.

Sten Mk2 Magazines

Problems with the early Sten magazines led to the development of the Mk2 model. The holes in the rear of the Mk1 magazine allowed water, dirt and other foreign matter to enter the body and jam the follower. A second problem was the Mk1 followers without the cross brace. During extended use, the follower’s legs would sometimes spread apart and drag on the inside of the magazine body, causing a failure to feed malfunction. Although a cross brace was used on earlier 50-round Lanchester magazines, designers felt it was unnecessary on the shorter legs of the 32-round magazine’s follower. The Sten magazine was redesigned as the Mk2 model by eliminating the “witness” holes in the back of magazine and adding a cross brace to the follower. Many existing Mk1 magazines were upgraded to the Mk2 configuration during Factory Thorough Repair programs (FTR) – the British equivalent of a U.S. arsenal rebuild. During the FTR process the holes in the rear of the magazines were filled and the followers were replaced with new ones having a cross brace. The most common Sten magazines found in the U.S. today are the Mk1 variant, with the “witness” holes still open, although most of those examined did have the Mk2 cross brace type followers.

There was another common problem encountered in the Mk2 Sten that was not directly related to the design of the magazine. This problem was caused by the horizontally placed magazine housing sagging downward, causing the top of the magazine and cartridges to be misaligned with the bolt. The Sten Mk2 was designed with a magazine housing that could be rotated 90 degrees for storage or transporting. The housing was secured in its firing position by a spring loaded plunger mounted on the housing that fit into a hole in the receiver. Wear on the locking pin hole would allow the housing to sag when a loaded magazine was inserted into the weapon. This problem was permanently solved with the Sten Mk3 model that had its magazine well welded directly onto the receiver tube.

Indian Magazine Conversion

The Indian Army issued the Sten in large numbers, and quickly became aware of the problems with the magazine’s reliability. To solve the problem the magazines were converted to a single stack design. This was more reliable than the original double stack, which had to funnel the cartridges into a single file at the top for feeding into the weapon. The conversion was accomplished by the insertion of two brass rods on each inside surface of the magazine body. The rods keep the cartridges in a single line. The trade off was the magazine’s capacity was reduced to only 19 rounds. The Indian Army felt the increase in the magazine’s reliability justified the decrease in its cartridge capacity.

Sten Magazines Today

The original designers of the Sten magazine could not have ever imagined the long life the magazines would have years after the end of World War II. Because of the large quantities and low cost of surplus Sten magazines, they have been adapted for use in a number of modern firearms. The very first prototype MAC 10 submachine guns were designed for the Sten mags. More recently they were used by Masterpiece Arms for use in their line of 9mm modern semiautomatic MAC-type pistols. They have also been used for one company’s 9mm/AR-15 conversions. In some cases where magazines for certain weapons are expensive or unavailable, Sten magazines have been altered to fit and function in those weapons, while other firearms were designed around the Sten magazines. To replace the problematic Zytel magazines used in the SWD M11/Nine there are magazine well conversion kits, designed that adapt the M11/Nine to use Sten magazines.

The magazines for the British Sterling submachine guns, developed after the Sten, were more carefully designed. The Sterling submachine gun had very well made double stack, double feed magazines that have low friction roller type followers. However, Sten magazines will fit and function in a Sterling, but unfortunately Sterling magazines cannot be used in the Sten.

One of the contributing factors to the Sten magazine’s functioning problems is the feed lips’ propensity to spread apart when loaded. This condition will get worse when the magazine is stored fully loaded over a period of time. When the feed lips spread apart the angle of the top cartridge changes, resulting in jams and failures to feed. To keep the magazines reliable the top cartridge must be at a 7 to 8 degree angle. British armorers used a special gage to check the width of the feed lips and correct feed angle of a cartridge. For out of spec magazines a mandrel and forming tool were used to bring the magazine back into a serviceable condition.

To maintain the correct angle the feed lips may need periodic adjustment. This can be accomplished by gently tapping on each feed lip until the top round in the magazine is at the correct angle. An inexpensive protractor or a smart phone with a level app can be used to measure the angle of the cartridge.

Caseless firearms represent the golden ring for gun designers. The advantages are obvious. Ammunition weighs but a fraction of its cased counterpart. Strategic materials are conserved. Reciprocating weapons are by definition mechanically more reliable as there is no case to extract and eject. At the end of the day the range is tidier. Like most things, however, the devil is in the details.

The Germans chased this goal vigorously in World War II. As the demands of Total War began to take their toll Nazi planners saw the appeal of caseless technology and invested heavily in its development. At the end of the day the state-of-the-art in materials science simply did not support the production of caseless ammunition that was sufficiently robust for combat use. What did spring forth from this undertaking was the use of steel in the manufacture of conventional ammunition cartridge cases. Anyone who has ever run a contemporary box of steel-cased Wolf or Tulammo through their weapons has benefitted from that research directly.

The argument could be made that H&K and Dynamit Nobel actually got there with the G-11. Designed in the waning days of the Cold War, the G-11 was revolutionary in every sense of the word. The G-11 incorporated a vertically mounted box magazine that was at least generationally similar to that of the contemporary FN P-90 though the geometry was totally different. The G-11 operated with an ingenious rotating bolt system wherein the bolt itself incorporated an integral chamber and rotated through 90 degrees to align with the barrel for firing. The modes of fire included semiautomatic as well as a conventional fully automatic rate of fire of around 600 rounds per minute. On three round burst, however, the weapon cycled at around 2,000 rounds per minute and was purported to have all three projectiles out of the bore before the recoil impulse transferred to the firer. Heady stuff that.

The ammunition for this system really broke new ground as well. Rounds sported 4.7mm bullets and were 21mm long. Projectiles weighed a mere 52.5 grains. The propellant grain itself was molded in a square cross section and the primer was consumable such that there was no residue remaining after firing. The rounds were said to be so robust that one Nobel engineer carried one around in his pocket for a year along with his keys before chambering and firing it successfully.

The combustion was said to be so clean that the weapon was not intended to be field stripped for cleaning. That particular claim seems to hearken back to a certain Colt rifle that was itself a technological breakthrough for its time. The assertion back in the sixties that cleaning was optional did not bear out well in the rice paddies of Vietnam. Alas, we never had the opportunity to put the claims of the G-11 to the test. The G-11 was ready to come online at about the same time the Iron Curtain fell so the entire project was shelved. Eventually after the reunification of Germany, H&K engineers produced the more conventional G-36 that has gone on to serve around the globe with a variety of militaries. The basic operating system was also adapted to drive the H&K 416 as well as the upgraded British SA-80. In the interim between these two major firearms milestones an American company known for its BB guns briefly produced a caseless rifle that would be ground shaking even if it was released today.

Classic Americana

Daisy BB guns are as American as Ford, Chevrolet, McDonald’s, and NFL football. Interestingly, these guns were originally conceived as promotional perks to be given to farmers when they purchased a Daisy brand of windmill pump for their livestock. It was found that the BB guns generated more enthusiasm than the windmills and the Daisy BB gun company was born. As windmills look at least esoterically like daisies now you know where the name came from.

It is the rare American who is not familiar with the story of Ralphie shooting himself in the eye with a “Daisy Red Rider spring action repeating air rifle with a compass in the stock and a sling that tells time” from the classic movie A Christmas Story. While Daisy is rightfully renowned for their timeless line of air rifles, in the late sixties they ventured into something fairly radical.

In 1962 Daisy purchased the rights to a revolutionary new gun. Titled the V/L after the initials of the designer, this caseless rifle was only produced for two years. From 1968 to 1969 Daisy produced roughly 25,000 of these guns in three configurations. Their solution to the frustrating challenges of caseless ammunition was novel.

A Surprisingly Simple Solution

One of the significant hurdles to producing caseless ammunition for civilian use is the concept of a consumable primer. Ignition must be residue-free if a system is to take full advantage of the caseless concept. In the case of the V/L rifle, the solution rested in air rifle technology.

Ammunition for the V/L system consists of a simple lead 40 grain bullet mounted atop a pellet of yellow cake propellant. The rifle itself has an under lever spring piston that compresses a volume of air with activation. The round is set into the chamber and the action closed. Upon firing, the trigger releases a jet of pressurized air into the base of the propellant grain. The resulting adiabatic heating raises the temperature of the propellant to the point of ignition. The gun is single shot only and there remains no residual detritus to extract or eject. The engineering behind the concept is brilliant.

Ammunition was packaged ten rounds to a round plastic tube not unlike a drinking straw. One end of the tube was heat sealed and the other sealed with a small plastic plug. These tubes were sold ten to a box and ten boxes to a case. Each case of 1,000 rounds occupies little more much space than a brick of five hundred rounds of .22 LR. Cases were designed so that the end could be folded back and the entire affair set on a dealer’s counter for consumers to purchase boxes one at a time. While the rifle was manufactured in Rogers, Arkansas the ammunition was produced in Canada. I have no idea what the ammunition cost new.

With each activation of the spring piston the safety resets. Parts are typically pressed steel coated with enamel paint consistent with the standard of manufacturing of air rifles of the day. Sights are a fixed front blade and a simple sliding rear sight adjustable for elevation.

The guns themselves came in different grades. The service grade version as I have in my collection sports a fairly flimsy hollow plastic stock that hefts like an inexpensive BB gun. Fancier versions had wooden stocks and presentation cases. In the case of my rifle it has an interesting story itself. My grandfather was a railroad man of modest means but he had a gift for machines. I spent countless hours with him in my youth in his workshop building toys, furniture, tools, or whatever else we might need or want. Though he was a survivor of the Great Depression and died decades ago I still use a wood lathe in my own shop that he built from scratch out of a surplus set of wheel bearings and a washing machine motor. Always on the lookout for the mechanically cool and unusual, my grandfather bought this particular V/L rifle new from a hardware store in Hattiesburg, Mississippi in 1969. Though it has little innate value it is priceless to me given its genesis. I still remember shooting it off of bridges at stumps and logs with him when I was very small.

Range Time

I was fortunate to happen upon several thousand rounds of ammunition for sale through a catalog back when the Internet was just a gleam in Al Gore’s eye. As I have stored it sealed in a steel ammunition box ever since then, it is still surprisingly reliable. Failures to fire are uncommon but I cannot attest to what sort of performance the gun might produce were it new with fresh fodder. As it is, typical muzzle velocities ranged from 1,100-1,600 feet per second and the rifle disperses vertically based on inconsistent velocities. Considering that the propellant is hydrophilic and deteriorates over time and that the spring piston has been cycled several thousand times over the past 43 years, performance was likely better a few decades ago. In the case of my rifle and ammunition, the propellant cakes are starting to crumble a bit and that no doubt accounts for the wide variation in velocities.

To fire the rifle you cock the action lever underneath the forearm and leave it open. This action compresses the air cylinder, opens the bolt assembly, and resets the safety. Place a single round of ammunition in the chamber and replace the cocking lever. This action closes and seats the bolt as well. Now take the safety off and the rifle will fire in the conventional manner. Report is mild but the bullets still produce a noticeable sonic crack.

I do recall that this very rifle accounted for a veritable battalion of squirrels that threatened my grandfather’s garden. Interestingly, the report of the gun during firing is only slightly louder than my suppressed .22 pistols. My grandfather shot squirrels out of the trees with this rifle in his backyard with impunity back in the day despite the fact that he lived in the middle of town.

The Rest of the Story

Daisy clearly hoped that the V/L rifle would fall solidly into the category of air rifle and not be subject to the gleaming new restrictions of the 1968 Gun Control Act. The gun will actually launch conventional .22 caliber air gun pellets at around 300 feet per second but as the nominal diameter of an air gun pellet is 0.218 as compared to 0.222 for a rimfire bullet, accuracy and consistency are atrocious. Alas, ATF had other ideas and classified the gun as a firearm. As Daisy was not legally configured to produce conventional firearms given the new record-keeping requirements, they dropped the V/L like a hot rock.

The V/L rifle never was really tack-driving accurate due to inevitable inconsistencies with propellant burn and quality control of the revolutionary new ammunition. Combine this with the ATF involvement and the equally inevitable challenges of reliably supplying gun owners with an entirely new class of ammunition and the V/L died a natural death. Given its truly revolutionary position in the development of firearms it is a surprisingly easy addition to the collection of most serious gun collectors. $250-300 will typically score a V/L rifle in decent shape with a little ammunition to boot. Large quantities of ammunition are no longer available and subsequently command collector’s prices when it can be found. I cannot fathom anyone wanting to really shoot this gun a lot anyway. Conventional .22 LR is still cheap and platforms to launch it cheap as well. The V/L is intriguing simply for its novelty.

The Grail-like search for military-grade caseless systems continues apace to this day and the incorporation of polymer cases and semi-cased designs represent intermediate steps. It is interesting to ponder, however, that more than forty years ago an iconic American BB gun company produced briefly a fascinating caseless rifle system that, were it not for Uncle Sam’s regulatory involvement, might have established an entirely new genre of firearms in America. That is an interesting thing to consider.

A Brief History of the Thompson

The Thompson submachine gun was conceived during World War I as a trench broom designed to sweep the enemy from the trenches. Although it was the brain child of John T. Thompson, a retired U.S. Army Ordnance officer, the Thompson submachine gun was designed and engineered by Oscar Payne and Theodore Eickhoff, both employees of Thompson’s Auto-Ordnance Corporation. The company was financed by multi-millionaire Thomas Fortune Ryan, who had made his fortune in the tobacco and transportation industries. After several prototypes were designed and tested the weapon was ready to go into production. The Auto Ordnance Company had no facilities for large scale manufacturing, so the project was farmed out to Colts’ Patent Fire Arms Company in Hartford Connecticut. A total of 15,000 Thompsons were produced during 1921-22. Since World War I had ended a few years earlier there was not much of a market for the submachine guns. The Company sold a small number to a few law enforcement agencies and large corporations.

Unfortunately, gangsters of the era discovered the Thompson and the weapon became infamous in that role. To further tarnish the weapons image, the use of the Thompson by criminals was greatly exaggerated in the popular gangster films of the day. The submachine gun’s criminal use, both real and imagined, resulted in new laws being enacted in 1934 to keep the weapons out of the hands of criminals that included a hefty tax on each weapon. Commercial sales of the Thompson all but ended. The remaining inventory of Colt Thompsons and much of the tooling used to manufacture them was placed in storage. The Auto-Ordnance Corporation was deep in debt to the heirs of Thomas Fortune Ryan, who had passed away in 1928, and they desperately wanted to sell off the remnants of the failed business.

Enter J. Russell Maguire

On 1 September 1939 Germany invaded Poland, a few days later both England and France declared war on Germany; it was the beginning of what would become World War II. Neither France nor England was prepared to fight a major war.

J. Russell Maguire was an American industrialist and opportunist. Well aware of the situation unfolding in Europe, he surmised there would be a huge market for war material especially weapons. Maguire learned of the Auto-Ordnance company and after considerable negotiation, a deal was finally struck giving Maguire controlling interest in the company.

The remaining Thompsons that were made by Colt in the 1920s were quickly sold with France and England among the first customers. As the fighting in Europe increased, Maguire needed more Thompsons and approached the Savage Arms Company to see if they would be interested in manufacturing the guns. Ironically, Savage had bid on the original 1920 contract, but were underbid and lost the contract to Colt. The first contract with Savage was signed in December of 1939 for 10,000 Model of 1928 Thompsons using much of the same tooling that had been used by Colt over eighteen years earlier. Savage manufactured the Thompsons in their Utica, New York plant. The Thompsons first had Auto Ordnance’s New York address, and later their Bridgeport, Connecticut address on the receivers. The only markings that indicated Savage was the manufacturer was a letter S prefix on the serial number.

Soon the U.S. military’s demand for the Thompson became such that Auto-Ordnance opened a second plant in Bridgeport Connecticut in 1941. Initially, the new plant only manufactured receivers and trigger frames. Many of the components to complete the weapons came from Savage and other subcontractors. The 1928 Thompsons produced at the Auto-Ordnance plant had a Bridgeport, Connecticut address on their receivers and the letters A.O. preceding their serial numbers.

The Thompson was originally designed during an era when firearms were made to a very high standard and built to last. Fit and finish was paramount and only high quality metal and wood was used in their construction. However, since the outbreak of war huge quantities of weapons were needed. New weapons were being designed using stamped sheet metal to replace the old world method of machined receivers and parts. This new method allowed for faster production and less cost; appearance was no longer a priority. By the time World War II began in Europe the original design of the Thompson was nearly twenty years old. However, it was the only submachine gun available to the Allies.

The 1928 Thompson was time consuming to manufacture, expensive and heavy. From the time the 1928 Model was placed back into production, ways to reduce its cost and labor time were sought. The Auto-Ordnance Corporation had a difficult time keeping up with the ever-increasing demand for the Thompson. To increase production they had to either procure more machine tools, and increase the work force or simplify the parts, where possible, for easier manufacture. There were still a few amenities on the 1928 Thompson that could be eliminated in order to expedite the weapon’s production. After the complex Lyman rear sight, the next elaborate feature of the Thompson to be eliminated for the sake of faster production was the finned barrel. Also eliminated was the checkering on the actuator knob and control levers.

One of the most difficult tasks in manufacturing the 1928 receiver was machining the surfaces on the inside of the receiver where the Blish lock rode. Savage engineers discovered that the Blish lock used in the 1928 Model was of dubious value and designed the M1 Model, without it. The M1 Thompson submachine gun was a simplified version of the Thompson, with a new receiver and trigger frame, but using many of the 1928 Model’s internal parts. The M1 design eliminated many features of the 1928 that made the weapon labor intensive, and expensive. The new M1 was much better suited for a military application. The M1A1 Model was introduced just a few months later to further simplify the basic design by eliminating: the firing pin, the firing pin spring, the hammer, the hammer pin and simplifying the bolt with a protrusion on the bolt face that served as the firing pin.

The Aluminum Thompson

One of the disadvantages of the 1928 Thompson was its weight, another was the time required to manufacture the weapon. There had been a number of advancements in metallurgy during the period especially with aluminum in the aircraft industry. During 1940, Savage Arms decided to produce a number of prototype Thompson receivers and trigger frames from heat treated aluminum forgings. The material was lighter and could be machined much faster than steel.

The Aluminum prototypes were made in Savage Arms’ model shop. The project was undertaken and funded strictly by Savage. The aluminum Thompsons were fitted with handguards, pistols grips and buttstocks made of Tenite, a cellulosic thermoplastic manufactured by the Eastman Chemical Company. The plastic material was thought to be more durable, cheaper and lighter than walnut, which was becoming scarce because of the war. However it was discovered that Tenite did not hold up well when subjected to high temperatures; it became slippery when wet and very cold to the touch during winter conditions.

Most all of the internal components and the barrel were standard military production items. Most of the receivers had the Savage S prefix, but were not serial numbered. All of the known aluminum Thompsons have no type of finish. If the project had been successful they probably would have been anodized or painted black.

Savage engineers encountered several problems with the aluminum receivers. One was the hard steel bolt was gaulding to the softer aluminum receiver. This problem was solved by anodizing the inside of the receiver where the bolt rode. However the anodizing could not hold up to the 20,000 round testing. Another problem was the stretching, and eventually cracking, of the rear of the receiver. Efforts to design a suitable buffer to prevent the problem were unsuccessful.

The aluminum prototypes Thompsons were eventually sold to the Auto-Ordnance Corporation, who made the decision not to submit them to the U.S. Ordnance Department for consideration. Reportedly, there were forty aluminum receivers and trigger frames manufactured. According to Savage, all of the aluminum Thompsons were to be destroyed; quite apparently they were not as there are several examples known to still exist.

On 25 April 1942, the M1928A1 Thompson was reclassified as “Limited Standard.” The M1928A1 weapons were to be replaced in service by the new M1 version of the Thompson and the stamped sheet metal M3 submachine gun that was under development by the Ordnance Department and the Guide Lamp Division of General Motors. Due to unforeseen problems, the M1928A1 model continued to be manufactured until the autumn of 1942.

The official end of the M1928A1 model came at an Ordnance Committee meeting held on 16 March 1944 item 23248; Memorandum for the Standards and Specification Section, Conservation Branch, Production Division, Army Service Forces. It was noted for the record that, “U.S. Army specification 52-3-30 of Gun, Submachine, Thompson, Caliber .45 M1928A1 be canceled in accordance with paragraph 30, AR 850-25.” The request was approved.