Barrett is known for its innovative approaches in designing rifles. Much of this stems from Barrett’s non-typical background for a firearms firm. Its first product, the semiautomatic M82 .50 BMG typifies this approach. Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, based in Murfreesboro, Tennessee was founded in 1982 and centered on Ronnie Barrett’s idea of a shoulder-fired .50 BMG rifle. Barrett’s first conventional military success was the sale of about 100 M82A1 rifles to the Swedish Army in 1989. World events then transpired to give Barrett a major impetus towards success in 1990, when the United States armed forces purchased significant numbers of the M82A1 during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in Kuwait and Iraq. About 125 rifles were initially bought by the United States Marine Corps, and orders from the Army and Air Force soon followed. The success of the Barrett .50 BMG rifles allowed for Barrett to expand its product line to include AR and precision bolt action rifles.

The Ronnie Barrett saga of one man’s vision coming to represent a whole new class of weapon that harnessed the brute power of the Browning .50 caliber round is a thing of legend. Many are familiar with the Barrett story thanks to several documentaries and articles that have been featured since 1982. Ronnie was a professional photographer and artist who wanted to create a shoulder fired rifle chambered in .50 BMG. He had no prior experience in manufacturing or as an engineer. He hand-drew the design for what was to become the Barrett semiautomatic .50 BMG rifle. When he took those drawings to machine shops in the area they laughed at his ideas. Instead of giving up, he decided to manufacturer his idea himself. This same attitude has carried through to other Barrett products. Ronnie Barrett’s “amateur” boldness in bucking the norm by challenging conventional thinking; his dogged refusal to accept no as an answer believing his product was a better answer was eventually rewarded both in terms of worldwide military procurement and recognition by his peers.

The focus of this article will be on the Barrett MRAD – Multi-Role Adaptive Design. The MRAD was initially introduced chambered in .338 Lapua in response to the United States Special Operations Command’s (USSOCOM) solicitation for a new long range anti-personnel rifle. One of the main objectives of the USSOCOM PSR (Precision Sniper Rifle) specifications is caliber modularity; providing military snipers with the capability to change calibers without armorer support. This shows through in the Barrett MRAD. While it would seem a sniper would always use the most powerful long range cartridge, the truth is many training venues and budgets do not allow full time use of expensive .338 Lapua ammunition. A removable barrel also provides the tactical operator the advantage of carrying the MRAD in components, thus reducing the package size during transport. The .338 Lapua is the obvious main cartridge that the USSOCOM specifications were built around. However, the military is also interested in maximizing logistics of using current cartridges such as the .308Win/7.62 NATO and .300 WinMag as well as allowing operators to choose cartridges that best suit their needs. Allowing snipers to swap to .308Win/7.62 NATO or .300WinMag saves precious resources while still satisfying mission requirements. If ammunition resupply becomes a problem in a combat theater, snipers can count on the availability of various .308Win/7.62NATO ammunition compared to .338 Lapua or even .300 WinMag. As a footnote to this, the ability to use .308 Win, and to a lesser degree .300 WinMag, will find favor with law enforcement agencies.

The Barrett MRAD represents the cutting edge of rifle technology combining many innovative patent pending features with time proven accuracy producing enhancements. The MRAD’s distinctive aesthetics immediately puts one on notice that this is not an ordinary rifle. With the MRAD, Barrett has created very accurate modular long range rifle. Barrett’s instincts for how to create a minimalist design while retaining the ability to change barrels and accommodate mission specific accessories is the key to its performance success. Just like the AR platform, the Barrett MRAD is comprised of an “upper” and a “lower” section. The MRAD’s upper is a monolithic rail system with a free floated barrel inside. As previously mentioned, the Barrett MRAD is configured to accept multiple calibers with a simple barrel and bolt change. The MRAD’s mission flexibility will be on display in this article by featuring the .308 Win and .300 WinMag chamberings. Time spent with Jeff Burch, the Barrett Director U.S. Commercial Sales really brought home the simple genius of the MRAD design. Jeff demonstrated the barrel change procedure with the MRAD. The procedure is instinctual and easily accomplished afield with only rudimentary tools needed that are easily carried in a drag bag or other gear.

The .308 Win MRAD features a 1:10 RH twist 17 inch fluted barrel and functions with a 10-round detachable double stack magazine. The .300 WinMag barrel measures 24 inches and is also fed via 10-round detachable magazine. Further listing of MRAD dimensions includes an overall length of nearly 42 inches with the .308 Win and 49 inches with the longer .300 WinMag barrel. The folding stock reduces length by nearly 9 inches. Weight is around 13 pounds. An integral 30 MOA Picatinny scope rail is ready to accept a myriad of optics and other accessories. The MRAD upper receiver forend rail system can accept additional rail sections for mounting of night vision devices, laser designators, and anything else a user would need to fulfill a mission. The MRAD’s bolt is encased in a polymer sleeve that adds lubricity and makes cycling the action almost effortless. The Barrett MRAD had no problems keeping scope reticle relatively stable when functioning the bolt even when firing multiple rounds in relatively rapid fashion; a compliment to its design and smoothness of the bolt. There is a “hitch” felt at the top of the bolt handle lift before it starts its rearward path. Once accustomed to this characteristic it did not hinder bolt manipulation. The Barrett MRAD has a familiar AR type pistol grip and safety lever. The rear stock is multi-adjustable in terms of length of pull and comb height. The modular Barrett adjustable trigger arrived set for 3 pounds.

A tactical rifle weapon system is made up of rifle/optics/ammunition/shooter. For this evaluation a Schmidt & Bender 5-25x56mm PM II with H2 CMR reticle was mounted on the MRAD via AWP rings. In the past few years, Schmidt & Bender (S&B) has made a couple of powerful statements by winning two of the most prestigious U.S. military optic contracts. Most recently, S&B was chosen to provide the optic for the U.S. Precision Sniper Rifle (PSR) contract that the Barrett MRAD was created to contend for. Schmidt & Bender will be supplying its 5-25×56 PM II scope in a special PSR version to U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Special Forces for existing and future sniper rifles. The Schmidt & Bender optic is expected to serve and perform all over the world under widely varying and harsh environmental conditions; albeit under water, near coastlines, in arctic surroundings, in the jungle and last, but not least, in urban warfare. Another milestone that established Schmidt & Bender as a major player in the tactical optic market was the S&B 3-12×50 PM II model being chosen for use by the U.S. Marines on their sniper rifles. This was after two years of comprehensive testing by the U.S. Marines against twenty five rival scope types.

The first requirement of a tactical precision rifle is accuracy. Testing consisted of .300 WinMag Black Hills Match 190gr BTHP, Federal Premium 190gr Sierra Matchking, and Hornady 178gr A-Max TAP loadings. The same brands were used in the .308 Win portion of evaluation along with Winchester. The Black Hills .308 Win Match loads tested consisted of 168 grain and 175 grain Match bullets. The Federal .308 Win chambering was the venerable 168 grain Match load. 168 grain TAP from Hornady along with Winchester 168 grain Match was also used. The thought process is simple; if these loads do not produce accuracy nothing will. Prior use of these loads backs-up this belief. The Barrett MRAD shot all the premium loads tested into 1MOA or better at 100 yards; mostly better with 5/8” groups not untypical. This statement covers both the .300 WinMag and .308 Win chamberings. The bench testing was done off a Champion tripod front rest and rear sand bag. The accuracy figures are based on firing three five-round groups and averaging group sizes. Not a lot of time was spent at the 100 yard range. 300 yards and out is the more indicative test of a weapon system like the Barrett MRAD. This generates useful ballistic information for the shooter, especially when it comes to elevation and windage data for log books and ballistic calculations. Accuracy out to three hundred yards was sub-MOA and it was the shooter who ruined the sub-MOA potential at the 600 yard targets. The Barrett MRAD was tested over an extended time period constantly producing sub-MOA groups with several different ammunition brands – an important logistic consideration. Another sign of an accurate, dependable rifle is how cold bore zeros compare over time and if the point of aim shifts after a few rounds heat up the barrel. The Barrett MRAD showed no shifts in point of aim and cold bore zeros produced fine groups when overlaid together.

The MRAD’s relatively light weight for a precision rifle at 13 pounds translates into a weapon that can be carried afield without fatiguing the user and is easier to adapt to non-standard firing positions even offhand if needed. Tactical rifles weighing significantly more than the Barrett MRAD have been handled. While accurate from a fixed prone position, all were challenging to shoot in any other position besides prone, even if employing shooting sticks or other means of support. The 17 inch and 24 inch barrels are a solid compromise balancing weight, performance, and field handling for the precision marksman. The MRAD had no problems with shifting points of aim even when firing 10 aimed rounds in relatively rapid fashion. Let’s face it, the majority tactical precision rifle scenarios will not require this many rounds fired during one mission or call out, especially for law enforcement.

After testing innate accuracy from the bench, field tests were performed at Echo Valley Training Center. This consisted of shooting prone off a bi-pod or pack. The MRAD’s stock configuration is unique to say the least. After firing over 450 combined rounds of .308 Win and .300 WinMag, the MRAD’s ergonomics, especially firing from the prone position, came to be fully appreciated. The buttstock is fully adjustable for length of pull; further tweaking can be accomplished with the cheek piece, which can be raised or lowered per individual preference. The Barrett MRAD’s smooth bolt manipulation became evident on the range when having to quickly correct hold point based on spotter’s feedback and re-engage any missed target. The MRAD’s ease of manipulation aids a shooter chambering a fresh round with minimal head disturbance. This enables a fast, accurate follow-up shot on a target not anchored with the first shot or another separate aiming point if a shooter is in a target-rich environment. The ten-round magazine capacity is also valued in target rich environments. This is where all of the MRAD’s technological innovation pays off for the law enforcement or military sniper deployed in the field. Extremely accurate range rifles do not always translate into effective tactical rifles due to durability issues that arise when taken afield. The MRAD was tested during various range conditions and subjected to course conditions made familiar by training at Storm Mountain Training Center. An operator will quickly overcome any preconceived notions about the MRAD based upon appearance once it is utilized in the field or training operations. The MRAD’s advantages in accuracy and ergonomics will quickly become apparent. Any department or individual contemplating a new tactical rifle would do well to consider the MRAD – not only for what it offers in performance, but also the advantage of having Barrett as a company backing it in terms of service, parts and accessories.

Orientation and intimate familiarity with a weapon such as the Barrett MRAD is a must for shooter and rifle to achieve full potential. The modularity of the MRAD comes in very handy in this aspect of being able to convert to .308 Win/7.62 NATO, .300 WinMag and .338 Lapua. In fact, for most missions, especially in the law enforcement realm, the .308 Win chambered MRAD is more than suitable for sniping/tactical applications. The Barrett MRAD .338 Lapua is best thought of as a specialized platform when needing to extend range beyond 1,000 yards. The .308 Win still allows the trained marksman a ballistic advantage, especially when combined with the MRAD’s gilt edge long range accuracy. The .300 WinMag chambering in the Barrett MRAD fills the gap between the .308 Win and .338 Lapua with many feeling it is the optimum chambering by offering extra horsepower compared to the .308 Win without the blast and recoil of the .338 Lapua. The key thing to remember with the Barrett MRAD is that you have a choice and flexibility to adapt to specific mission profiles.

Sites of Interest

Barrett Manufacturing Inc.
P.O. Box 1077
Murfreesboro, TN 37133
(615) 896-2938
www.barrett.net

Schmidt & Bender USA Inc.
Service Center
(703) 953-1253
www.schmidtundbender.de

Echo Valley Training Center
www.echovalleytrainingcenter.com

Black Hills Ammunition
PO Box 3090
Rapid City, SD 57709
(605) 348-5150
www.black-hills.com

Hornady Mfg. Inc.
3625 Old Potash Hwy
Grand Island, NE 68802
(800) 338-3220
www.hornady.com

ATK/Federal Cartridge Company
900 Ehlen Drive
Anoka, MN 55303
(800) 322-2342
www.federalpremium.com

Winchester Ammunition
427 N. Shamrock St
East Alton, IL 62024
www.winchester.com

By Teresa G. Ficaretta, Esq. & Johanna Reeves, Esq.

Legal News From The Nation’s Capital

Manufacturing NFA Firearms Under Government Contract: Exemptions Under Federal Law

U.S. government agencies often enter into contracts with federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to manufacture for the customer’s official government use, machine guns, destructive devices, and other certain firearms subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA Firearms). This article will address first the exemptions available to such manufacturers under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), the NFA, and the federal explosives laws, and the requirements for qualifying for such exemptions. The article will then discuss what happens when the federal government customer rejects the products manufactured and the manufacturer wishes to sell them commercially.

GCA Exemptions

As many readers are already aware, the GCA imposes licensing, marking, record keeping, and interstate movement requirements on all “firearms,” which include NFA Firearms. Section 925(a)(1) of the GCA provides for a general exemption from the statute’s transportation, shipment, receipt, possession and import provisions for all firearms manufactured for and distributed to federal, state, or local government agencies. However, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) generally interprets Section 925(a)(1) as applying only to activities government agencies undertake themselves and not to the activities of private government contractors. Further, ATF generally will not waive marking requirements under 27 C.F.R. 478.92, but it may approve a variance to manufacturers under a government contract for alternate methods of marking if they will not interfere with administration of the GCA, including firearms tracing.

NFA Exemptions

In addition to the GCA requirements and restrictions, NFA Firearms are controlled through a tax and registration scheme. First, all persons who wish to engage in the business of manufacturing or importing NFA Firearms must be “qualified” to do so. Qualification requires the appropriate FFL and annual payment of a Special (Occupational) Tax (SOT). Second, all NFA Firearms manufactured or imported must be timely registered with ATF on a Form 2 Notice. Non-FFL individuals who wish to make an NFA Firearm (except machine guns) must apply for prior ATF approval on a Form 1 and pay a $200 tax for each NFA Firearm made. SOTs are exempt from the making tax. Finally, every NFA Firearm requires ATF approval before it can be transferred to another party. The NFA also imposes marking requirements on firearms similar to those in the GCA.

The NFA exempts persons who conduct business exclusively with the federal government from the SOT and other provisions of the NFA. However, this exemption is not automatic and applicants must first prove to ATF that the business is exclusively with or on behalf of the federal government. In addition, ATF also has the discretion to relieve any person manufacturing firearms for or on behalf of the federal government from complying with any provision of ATF’s regulations. However, such relief must be sought from ATF in writing.

Federal Explosives Laws

The Federal explosives laws in 18 U.S.C. Chapter 40 impose licensing, storage, record keeping, and distribution requirements on persons who manufacture, import, deal in, or receive explosive materials. The term “explosive materials” is defined to mean explosives, blasting agents, and detonators. ATF’s List of Explosive Materials is published annually in the Federal Register and can be found on ATF’s website at www.atf.gov.

All persons who engage in the business of manufacturing, importing, or dealing in explosive materials must obtain a license from ATF; make and retain records of their manufacture, importation, purchase, distribution, or receipt of explosive materials; and store explosives in accordance with the regulations. The statute provides exemptions from most of the provisions of Chapter 40 for explosive materials manufactured under the regulation of the military department of the United States or their distribution to or storage or possession by the military or other Federal agency. 18 U.S.C. 845(a)(6). Another provision exempts the transportation, shipment, receipt, or importation of explosive materials for delivery to any agency of the United States or to any State or political subdivision thereof. 18 U.S.C. § 845(a)(3).

ATF regulations implementing the Federal explosives laws require identification markings for explosive materials intended for sale or distribution. Markings must include the name of the manufacturer and the date and shift of manufacture. The required marks of identification must be placed on each cartridge, bag, or other immediate container of explosives materials or outside containers used for the packaging thereof. Regulations provide for marking variances in the same manner as in GCA regulations.

Most of the requirements in ATF’s explosives regulations do not apply to “the manufacture under the regulation of the U.S. military department of explosive materials for or their distribution to or possession by, military services or other Federal agencies.” ATF interprets this provision as applying to contractors. Accordingly, manufacture of explosives under contract with the Department of Defense is exempt from the record keeping, marking, distribution, and storage requirements of the Federal explosives laws. ATF takes the position that manufacture of explosives under contract with Federal agencies other than DOD is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 40, with the exception of marking and record keeping requirements. ATF’s permission to utilize these statutory exemptions is not required.

Practical Application of the Exemptions

Persons manufacturing NFA firearms under contract with the Department of Defense or other federal agency are not exempt from the licensing, marking, record keeping and other requirements of the GCA or NFA. This is because according to ATF, contractors do not stand in the shoes of the government and must therefore comply with all requirements of the law. If a government contract specifies markings that do not comply with the regulatory marking requirements, the manufacturer must submit a request for marking variance to ATF. ATF’s current processing time for marking variances is 3 months, so it is important to factor this into the production schedule.

The NFA regulatory exemption in 27 C.F.R. 479.33, which we discussed above, authorizes manufacturers to be excused from most of the provisions of the statute, including payment of the SOT, registration, and transfer applications when the NFA Firearms are manufactured exclusively for the United States. Remember, however, that the exemption is not automatic and requires submission of a letter application to ATF. Manufacturers who wish to utilize this exemption should apply several months in advance of production to give ATF time to process the request. If a marking variance is needed, a separate marking variance request should be submitted to ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division. Remember, however, that it is unlikely ATF will completely waive the marking requirements of the law, as this renders the firearms untraceable in the event they are diverted from lawful commerce. But ATF will generally grant reasonable requests to depart from the minimum size requirements, location of markings, and content of the markings when required by a specific government contract.

Unlike the NFA, the federal explosives laws do not require advance approval for exemption from the requirements, but the applicable exemptions will depend on the federal agency for whom the explosives are made. This breaks down as follows: (1) the regulatory marking, storage, and record keeping requirements will not apply as long as the product is manufactured for and distributed to the Department of Defense; (2) for explosives manufactured under contract with a federal agency other than DOD, the manufacturer must still adhere to the marking and record keeping requirements, but be exempt from the other requirements. A manufacturer who is producing product for both a federal government customer and for the commercial market should take care to segregate the product lines to avoid comingling and accidental violation of ATF’s regulations.

Failed Performance Testing and Commercial Sale

Most Federal government contracts specify performance testing standards that products must meet before the government will accept delivery from the vendor. What happens to products that fail the performance tests, and is it possible to sell them commercially? The answer to this question is complex and depends on a number of factors within ATF’s control.

As stated above, all requirements of the GCA continue to apply to government contractors, so selling products commercially will not change those legal requirements. Under the federal explosives laws, once products are no longer manufactured for and distributed to the Department of Defense or another federal agency, the exemptions in the statute cease to apply. Explosive materials, including those contained in grenades, mines, bombs, and other destructive devices, must be stored in accordance with regulations in 27 C.F.R. Part 555, Subpart K. Records relating to such explosive materials must be created and maintained in accordance with 27 C.F.R. Part 555, Subpart G, and products must be marked in accordance with 27 C.F.R. 555.109.

The most difficult issues raised by a change in use arise under the NFA. If a manufacturer obtained from ATF an exemption from registration under 27 C.F.R. 479.33, the firearms originally produced for the government customer will not be registered. The firearms may also not be marked in accordance with the GCA or NFA. However, pursuant to the GCA, firearms may not be commercially distributed until marked appropriately and, in the case of NFA Firearms, registered under the NFA.

Regulations require that manufacturers register all NFA Firearms on a Form 2 no later than close of business following the day of manufacture. If a manufacturer submits a Form 2 with a date of manufacture that is weeks, months, or years earlier, it is likely the NFA Branch will either deny or not process the form because it will be apparent the manufacturer violated the regulations by not timely registering the firearms. If a manufacturer submits a Form 2 indicating a date of manufacture that is false, the manufacturer will be making a knowing false statement in violation of 26 U.S.C. 5861(l). Such violations are felonies and subject the firearms to seizure and forfeiture.

Manufacturers in this situation have two options for complying with the law. The first is to submit a variance request to ATF’s NFA Branch requesting approval to submit a late Form 2 for the firearms in question. If ATF approves a variance for late registration, the firearms must then be marked appropriately. If ATF will not approve a variance request for late filing of the Form 2, destruction of the firearms to avoid violating the law may be the only available option.

Planning for Possible Commercial Sale

Manufacturers may wish to plan for possible commercial distribution of unregistered NFA firearms that fail product testing standards by requesting variance approval for late registration prior to their manufacture. Such a variance request would be submitted pursuant to 27 C.F.R. 479.26. The request would seek approval to submit Forms 2 for products manufactured for a federal agency on a tardy basis, within a specified timeframe (e.g., close of the next business day) after they have failed product testing standards specified in the government contract. If ATF approves such a request, submission of the Forms 2 later than close of the business day following the date of manufacture would not violate the law or regulations.

The other way to prepare for possible commercial sale is to register and mark all firearms manufactured under the government contract. If the government contract specifies limited markings (and a variance has been granted for such markings by ATF), manufacturers may need to add markings to the firearms to comply with the regulatory marking requirements for commercially distributed firearms. Registering and marking all firearms in advance will also slow down the process of transferring firearms to a government customer, as a transfer application must be submitted to and approved by ATF. However, this option should be considered to create an alternate market for firearms that fail government product testing standards.

Conclusion

Licensed manufacturers entering into contracts with federal agencies for the manufacture and distribution of NFA firearms should be aware of the statutory exemptions under the federal firearms and explosives laws. Unregistered NFA firearms and firearms that are not marked in accordance with the law may present challenges in the event the manufacturer wishes to sell the firearms commercially.

The information in this article is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be construed or used as legal advice.

By Jeff Folloder

About Them Good Old Boys

One of the most oft-repeated memes heard in casual conversation and internet discussion forums regarding National Firearms Act (NFA) topics is that the founders and leadership of the National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association (NFATCA) are a bunch of good old boys that are colluding to keep machine gun prices high in order to protect their investments. That certainly makes for a meaty conspiracy theory that sets tongues wagging and fists pounding. Fortunately, it’s just not true. Many machine gun prices are high, but the NFATCA leadership actually not only supports but actively works for the elimination of 922(o) (commonly referred to as the Hughes Amendment), the bit of legislation that capped the number of fully transferable machine guns at today’s current total of around 182,000 weapons. So why does the good old boy meme persist?

Frankly, it persists because perpetuating this bit of hyperbole is ever so much easier to get hyped up over than actually understanding the truth. So let’s take a moment and examine the actual economic impact of the restrictions in place that result from the segregation of machine guns into groups that can and cannot be owned. NFA ownership is increasing each and every day. A review of ATF’s NFA Branch workload will clearly show this. With a finite supply of eligible machine guns and an increasing base of potential owners interested in acquiring them, market prices continue to escalate. This is true for pretty much all transferable machine guns. Many of us boggle at the thought of HK sears, a tiny bit of registered metal, selling for nearly $20,000 today, as opposed to the $375 or so twenty five years ago. One looks at the price of a transferable M16 and easily concludes that those folks who have these machine guns would take a huge wallop if the registry were opened up and everyone could now buy new, cheap machine guns. There is some economic truth to that. In all candor, there are a lot of common machine guns with little to no intrinsic value that absolutely would take a value hit if 922(o) suddenly vanished. But the other part of the economic truth is that there are a lot of machine guns that would easily sustain their value and even see their value continue to rise. We will look at that in a moment.

The current machine gun market is eerily similar to a precious metals commodity pit. There is never any time when all 180,000 weapons are for sale all at once. At best, there is but a tiny sliver of guns for sale and when those guns become available, potential buyers can whip up a tsunami of astonishing cash offers. Add the reach of the internet and suddenly that cozy club of knowing somebody that could get you hooked up vanishes and you wind up competing with 100’s (1,000’s?) of folks all after the same thing. The prices continue to escalate. Yelling, screaming, frenzied bidding. We are now at the point where nobody is surprised to see prices tags of $50,000, $100,000 or $200,000. One just shrugs at seeing MAC’s pushing $5,000. Surely, the good old boys don’t want to see this vanish, right?

Imagine a United States where 922(o) did vanish and the NFA registry was now opened up to any and all machine guns. Anyone eligible to purchase an NFA item could now go through the purchase process and acquire as many new, plentiful and affordable machine guns as their budgets (and spouses) would allow. A brand new M4? Done. A spiffy and cheap, AK-47? Yep. Genuine, all-German MP5’s under $2,000? Batter up. One could even pony up the funds to land a genuine M240B, in all its belt-fed glory, and not lay out the equivalent of the price of a modest home in the suburbs of Houston. An enterprising manufacturer/SOT could even set up shop and start cranking out brand new reproductions of venerable classics such as a 1928 Thompson or a Maxim 08/15 or even the Browning M1917. The ability to acquire and afford a machine gun would now be within the reach of just about anyone who had the desire to pursue such an endeavor.

And this is where the good old boy conspiracy falls apart. The vast majority of the founders and leaders of the NFATCA do have a financial interest in the commercial aspect of NFA. They are dealers and manufacturers. As dealers, they make money (hopefully) off of each and every sale. That is the nature of commerce. In a market where the supply of saleable items is restricted, the opportunity for sale is also restricted. If only a small portion of the available items are available for sale… and if there are always more folks competing to acquire those limited items… fewer sales are going to be made. Ask any NFA dealer that has been around for more than a few years: they are selling fewer machine guns than ever. Sure, the prices of the guns that do sell are eye-popping. But it’s hard to make a living when you only sell a few of those each year. It is not uncommon to hear stalwarts of machine gun sales lament the fact they were selling 100s of machine guns per year a while ago and will be lucky to sell two dozen this year. If 922(o) vanished right now, these dealers, our founders and leaders, could start moving lots of machine guns. Not a few extra, but a veritable bonanza of guns. The limit on how many could be sold would no longer be the number of available guns; the limit would be the number of available customers. Profit would soar. Instead of hoping to eke out a 5% cut off of a brokered sale of a few $20,000 M16s, the dealer is now making $50,000+ in profit off of the same margin on selling a few hundred $1,100 M16s. This is an economic principle known as fast nickels. Fast nickels maximizes profit potential by increasing the number of potential sales, even if individual sale dollars are smaller. It is almost always more advantageous to aim for fast nickels because having an unlimited customer base is simply more profitable than having a greatly restricted supply. Make an occasional sale on a few guns whose prices are kept artificially high as the result of a ridiculous piece of legislation or sell a practically unlimited supply of guns to anyone legal to own them at reasonable prices? It’s not a tough choice to make.

But there are going to be a bunch of guns that are going to take a hit in value, right? Absolutely. Those HK sears are going to crash. Same for the MACs, the M16s and all of the rest of the relatively common guns that can be pumped out the minute 922(o) is excised from the canon of federal firearms impediments. You know what is not going to lose value? The really collectible and original stuff. The Maxim 08, the M1917, the genuine Colt Thompson, the Stoner 63A. Even with brand spanking new reproductions on the market, the real examples of these guns are going to retain their value. And the value of these collectible pieces will continue to rise because you will never be able to make more of the “real” thing. Guess what the good old boys are not sitting on a pile of? They are not sitting on a pile of HK sears or MACS or M16’s. They move these as fast as they can (when they can get them). The real value of their investments is sitting in the Stoner in the back of the safe, the Swiss Maxim MG11 (with a complete set of all the goodies and accessories that can be used to pay for a very nice wedding) perfectly preserved in the man cave. Successful dealers understand the economics of increasing the supply of available product and making that supply available to as many people as possible. Getting rid of 922(o) means that those dealers make more money. Some folks that currently own the “common” guns are going to take a hit in the value of their purchases. But dealers, those good old boys, are simply not “invested” in the stuff that’s going to be vulnerable, because it moves out of inventory so fast and the rare items sit in their collections.

The good old boys want 922(o) to vanish. The NFATCA wants 922(o) to vanish. We have studied the potential scenarios of engaging a legislative effort to make just that happen. You know what? It’s expensive. And likely very time consuming. Estimates project tens of millions of dollars and possibly a decade or more of effort. That’s going to require a lot of funding and a lot elbow grease. Also a lot of grants, corporate donations and individual contributions. And as we all know, it’s the groundswell of individual contributions that make or break the success of such an effort. We know that the leadership of NFATCA can nail down some grants and also dig down deep in their own wallets, get some corporate involvement, ally with other organizations and count on the good old boys to contribute to the possibility of increasing their livelihood. Can we count on the support of the guy in Yuma, Arizona, who just sold his tricked out Camaro to buy a $19,000 HK sear to help us out?

Please visit our website at www.nfatca.org and help us help you.

By Robert M. Hausman

Ruger Notes, Explains its Sales Decline

For the third quarter of 2014, net sales were $98.3 million and fully diluted earnings were $0.34 a share. For the corresponding period in 2013, net sales were $170.9 million and fully diluted earnings were $1.44 per share. For the first nine months of 2014 net sales were $421.9 million and fully diluted earnings were $2.69 per share.

For the corresponding period in 2013, net sales were $506.4 million and fully diluted earnings were $4.25 per share.

Ruger‘s sales decreased 43% year-over-year and the estimated sell through from the independent distributors to retail decreased 44% year-over-year. During this period, consumer demand appeared to decrease only 3% year-over-year as indicated by NICS background checks. Ruger stated several reasons why the company’s sales and sell through decreased more than NICS checks year-over-year in the third quarter.

With the slowdown in consumer demand, Ruger believes many retailers felt fully stocked and were buying fewer firearms than they were selling in the third quarter in an effort to reduce their inventories and generate cash. By itself, that does not necessarily mean that the company lost any market share.

Many of Ruger‘s competitors were engaging in aggressive price discounting while Ruger says it maintained its price discipline. This continued through the third quarter. Even though many retailers were curtailing their overall purchases some of these discounts were too attractive to ignore and many retailers responded to it.

As in the second quarter, the company maintained price discipline through the third quarter in spite of the continued heavy discounting by competitors. This action very likely resulted in a loss of market share, especially at Ruger’s largest national chain accounts.

New product introductions are an important driver of demand regardless of the political environment with a level of competitors discounting. Early in the third quarter of 2014, Ruger launched the LC9s pistol, an improved striker fire replacement for the popular LC9. The new firearm was well received in the marketplace and initial results were satisfactory with the new firearms stopping the decline in demand for the LC9 platform.

Late in the third quarter, the new AR556 modern sporting rifle was launched. The quantities of AR556 shipped in the third quarter were too small to have much impact on the quarter’s results but the rifle is expected to result in incremental sales for the company going forward.

Ruger’s earnings decreased 76% and its EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) decreased 61% from the third quarter of 2013. The biggest driver of reduced operating margins was the significant decrease in sales of both firearms and firearms accessories. The next biggest driver of reduced operating margins was the deleveraging of fixed costs including depreciation, indirect labor, engineering, and product development costs.

A consequence of price discipline is that there is no pressure relief when distributors have sufficient inventory but demand continues to decline. The only relief is to cut production levels. Ruger continued to cut production levels ever more aggressively during the third quarter as it became evident that there was no improvement in demand. In aggregate, Ruger cut total unit production by 36% year-over-year for the third quarter.

Inventory levels of products at the independent distributors and at the company are now said to be adequate and production rates are close to the estimated distributor sell through to retail. At the end of the third quarter, production levels were approximately 5,750 units per day, a rate of about 1.4 million units per year.

Going forward, Ruger‘s strategy is to use new product introductions to spur demand and to adopt lean methodologies throughout the business to enable it to more efficiently fulfill that demand.

Citing Declining Sales, Colt’s May Default on Loan Payments

Weakening demand for its sporting rifles and handguns in the past year have sharply decreased revenues at Colt Defense LLC, and the gun maker reports that it is at risk of defaulting on a $10.9 million loan payment due shortly.

In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Nov. 12, Colt reported that it is seeking an amendment to the loan and is trying to raise cash but without assistance could default on the loan by year’s end.

Operating income for the quarter ending Sept. 28 was down 50 to 60%, according to the filing. Sales were down 25 to 35%.

Delays in sales to the U.S. government, as well as “the timing of certain international sales,” also hurt the company’s revenues, the filing said.

Colt, based in West Hartford, has a grace period for making the Nov. 17 payment through December 15th, but it will be in default if that payment is missed, the filing reports. Even if it does make that payment, though, “it is probable that the company will not be in compliance with the company’s term loan … at Dec. 31.”

Company Future at Risk

“The company does not have sufficient funds to repay all of its debt upon an actual acceleration of maturity,” the filing states. “Lenders would likely take actions to secure their position as creditors and to mitigate their potential risks. These conditions would adversely impact the company’s liquidity, and raise substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.”

Colt Defense LLC reunited its military and civilian handgun businesses in July 2013 with a $60.5 million acquisition of Colt Manufacturing Co., a decade after they were split apart. At the time of the merger, it was carrying $250 million in debt. Even then, analysts expressed concerns that Colt would have a difficult time meeting the obligations on the debt.

“The commercial business has done better than we thought, so that’ll be a bit of an offset, but still it’s not nearly enough to come up with the money to pay off those notes,” Christopher Denicolo, an analyst at S&P, said at the time.

SAF Supporting California Dealer Lawsuit v. Kamala Harris

The Second Amendment Foundation has joined the Calguns Foundation and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees in support of a lawsuit filed by four California gun dealers against State Attorney General Kamala Harris, alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The lawsuit alleges that the California Penal Code violates the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs by prohibiting them from displaying images of handguns or even the word “handguns” where they would be visible to passersby. However, anti-gun protesters are still allowed to appear with signs that use the words or images, constituting what the lawsuit calls “viewpoint discriminatory.”

“By prohibiting firearms dealers from displaying on-site handgun advertisements, Section 26820 violates the right of firearms dealers to disseminate truthful, non-misleading commercial information about a lawful, constitutionally protected product,” the lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, are Tracy Rifle and Pistol, owned by Michael Baryla; Ten Percent Firearms, owned by Wesley Morris; Sacramento Black Rifle, Inc., owned by Robert Adams, and PRK Arms, Inc., owned by Jeffrey Mullen. They are represented by attorneys Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay, Benbrook Law Group, PC, and UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh.

In addition to Harris, State Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms chief Stephen Lindley, is named as a co-defendant.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said this case “will serve as a reminder that firearms dealers have First Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights, even in California. A state cannot legislate political correctness at the expense of a fundamental, constitutionally-delineated civil right,” Gottlieb said. “SAF is delighted to offer its financial support of this case.”

Russians Can Now Carry for Self-Defense

The Russian government is set to ease restrictions on the carrying of licensed firearms for the purpose of self-defense.

RIA Novosti notes that self-defense is added as a justifiable reason to obtain a firearms license, in addition to hunting or target shooting. Licenses are issued through the Interior Ministry and are renewed every five years. Requirements for foreigners buying guns in Russia have been eased.

License holders are allowed to carry shotguns, handguns, Tasers and tear gas guns. Rifles and certain knives still cannot be carried. Carrying guns in schools, night clubs that serve alcohol and at mass public gatherings will remain prohibited.

Comedian Jay Leno Cancels SHOT Show Appearance

Bowing to anti-gun pressure to the effect that he was “helping to legitimize a crass commercialization which values profit over human lives,” comedian Jay Leno has canceled his upcoming engagement at the S.H.O.T. Show.

Leno reportedly called the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and told them he wished to cancel. Leno reportedly then contacted Po Murray, executive director of Newtown Action Alliance, to inform her he had cancelled his S.H.O.T. Show appearance. He allegedly said he “was unaware that the NSSF was a pro-gun lobbying group based in Newtown, CT.” And Leno reportedly told the far left Mother Jones magazine in separate remarks, “I understand its Newtown, and of course I get it. It’s just sometimes, mistakes get made.”

This author observes: Perhaps if NSSF were not situated in Newtown, the site of the Adam Lanza massacre, Leno would have appeared? The anti’s seem to make much of the NSSF being situated in Newtown as if Newtown were some sacred “Mecca” of the anti-gun movement. Leno really was not a suitable speaker as it turns out.

A sort of “petition” was post by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, with the theme, “Gun violence is not a joke, Mr. Leno. Cancel your appearance at the 2015 SHOT Show.” The drive was backed by the Campaign to Unload, which pushes for divestment from gun companies, and the Newtown Action Alliance, founded by residents of the Connecticut town who support firearms bans. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which has pushed corporate restaurants and retailers to take a stand against open-carry activists in their stores, also launched a social media campaign against Leno.

NSSF Statement on Jay Leno Cancellation of SHOT Show Appearance

The National Shooting Sports Foundation issued the following statement on Leno’s cancellation:

“We are clearly disappointed by Jay Leno’s decision not to perform at the 2015 SHOT Show State of the Industry Dinner. He unilaterally cancelled his promised appearance due to pressure from the anti-gun lobby, which included false statements about our industry and its commitment to genuine firearms safety, which we attempted to personally correct with him, but to no avail.

We are not deterred by their publicity seeking nor are we unfamiliar with the bullying political tactics of the gun control groups that seem to have as little respect for the First Amendment as they continually demonstrate with regard to the Second Amendment.

“We are proud of the many programs that we run that meaningfully contribute to public safety including our long standing Project ChildSafe and Don’t Lie for the Other Guy initiatives in addition to our members everyday work in compliance with comprehensive federal and state laws. We will not allow the lawful commerce in firearms nor our industry to be demonized and we will continue to speak out for the Second Amendment rights of the millions of law-abiding citizens who are our customers.

“Despite Mr. Leno’s cancellation, we look forward to having our biggest and best State of the Industry Dinner to date with a performer that respects the contributions of our industry and the customers it supports.”

The author publishes two of the small arms industry’s most widely read trade newsletters. The International Firearms Trade covers the world firearms scene, and The New Firearms Business covers the domestic market. He may be reached at: FirearmsB@aol.com.

By Chris A. Choat

Laserlyte V4 Compact Laser Now Available In Tan

LaserLyte, innovators in firearm laser technologies, including the best-selling LaserLyte V4 laser (FSL-4) that fits on less than one-inch of a Picatinny rail in front of the trigger guard on any full size handgun, is proud to announce the new FSL-4T in tan glass filled nylon. The color is injection molded in the laser form and not painted on, unlike many pistol laser imitators on the market. This laser is made with a durable 55% glass-filled nylon body for long-term durability with an inner aluminum core that keeps the laser accurate at all times. The new no-snag, contoured lines allow the user to quickly draw and re-holster without catching, and with less bulk, reduces printing in concealed carry situations. The new V4 Tan laser with its slimmer, smaller form, blends into the gun form yet is easily activated by the user at just a touch of the finger. The V4 Tan laser is easily mounted on a one-inch or less Picatinny rail with a crossbar screw. An auto-off feature prevents accidental activation of the laser and prevents unnecessary battery depletion. The laser has programmable modes that enable dual mode, constant on and pulse mode. The V4 Tan laser is ambidextrous and operates on four 392 batteries. It has a battery life of 5 hours constant on and 10 hours in pulse mode. The LaserLyte V4 FSL-4T laser gets sport shooters and professionals on the target faster, increasing accuracy and overall hits. It has a retail price of $109.95. For more information, visit www.laserlyte.com.

Magnum Research Introduces New MLR Ultra .22 LR Rimfire Rifle

Magnum Research, Inc. (MRI) has once again expanded their Magnum Lite rimfire rifle product line with the introduction of the MLR Ultra .22 LR with a high-tech modular tensioned-type barrel. The modular barrel means that it has been constructed utilizing a superior quality of steel for the barrel, which is attached to stainless steel breech and muzzle caps inside a thin-walled aluminum construction. The Ultra barrel took over a year to develop internally at Magnum Research and was extensively tested utilizing a variety of ammunition. When tested for accuracy against similarly constructed barrels, the Ultra barrel out-shoots them significantly. Part of the reason for this is the patented heat sink located strategically inside the Ultra barrel itself.

The MLR22ATU measures 36-1/8-inches in length and weighs just 4 lbs. 8 oz. Barrel length is 18 inches. Features include 1 in 16 twist, Bentz chamber, ambidextrous thumbhole stock design with a comb designed for scope use, integral Weaver type scope mount base on the receiver, extended magazine release, swivel studs and checkering on the palm swell grip. The length of pull is 13-5/8”. The barrel is black anodized aluminum and has stainless steel breech and muzzle caps. MSRP on the MLR22ATU is $544. A similar model to the MLR22ATU is the MLRATUT. The difference between the two rifles is that the MLR22ATUT can accommodate a suppressor and has muzzle threads of 1/2 x 28. It is supplied with a thread protector. The weight is the same, but the overall length is 36-5/8 inches and barrel length is 18-1/2 inches. Both rifles utilize the 10/22 trigger group and 10/22 rotary magazines. MSRP on the MLR22ATUT is $571. Both barrels are also sold separately for upgrading 10/22 rifles. For more information contact www.magnumresearch.com.

Millet Tactical Introduces: Three New Red Dot Sights

Millett, a performance-driven and trusted brand in the shooting industry for decades, has announced the release of three new tactical red dot sights. The new M-Force, M-Pulse and Speed Point red dot sights from Millett provide shooters with a versatile selection of precision sighting options equipped for a variety of shooting disciplines. The M-Force features a 5 MOA red dot with a fully-coated fixed power optic for a bright sight picture and quick target acquisition. Constructed with a durable 30mm tube, the M-Force comes with flip-open scope caps and a one-piece, tool-free cantilever mount for optimum sight height and quick installation on AR rifles. The high-quality, all-aluminum constructed M-Pulse features a self-adjusting 5 MOA red dot that illuminates in harmony with ambient light conditions. The sight, which includes a tool-free high rise mount ideal for AR platforms, activates once the sight cover is removed and offers versatility across a broad range of light conditions. The affordable Speed Point works great as a single sighting system or in conjunction with other sights. Featuring fully-coated optics and a 5 MOA red dot, the Speed Point offers a bright sight picture and rapid target acquisition at a variety of ranges. It comes with high tactical rings for proper alignment on AR platforms. This new red dot collection from Millett ranges in price (MSRP) from $90.95 for the Speed Point to $220.95 for the M-Force and $259.95 for the M-Pulse. For more information about Millett and its complete line of mounting systems and high-performance tactical optics, visit www.milletsights.com.

Daniel Defense Releases New Firearms And Keymod Rail System

Daniel Defense, engineering and manufacturing the world’s finest firearms, precision rail systems and accessories, has announced several new product releases. These include the DDM4v11 series rifles, the MK18 pistol and .300 Blackout pistol variants. Daniel Defense introduces the DDM4v11 series of rifles with the newly designed SLiM Rail 15.0, their first rail system featuring the KeyMod attachment system. The V11 is available with the 16-inch Government, 16-inch Lightweight, or 18-inch Strength-to-Weight (S2W) barrel. The SLiM Rail, which is an acronym for Slim Lightweight Modular, will be available for individual sale at a later date.

Simultaneously, Daniel Defense is releasing the MK18 pistol and .300 Blackout pistol. A recent ATF ruling making it easier to possess an AR pistol, and extended approval times for NFA tax stamps, has driven demand for the pistol variant. The MK18 pistol is very similar to the MK18 factory SBR-popular in the law enforcement and special operations communities with a 10.3-inch barrel that is classified as an SBR (short-barreled rifle) under the National Firearms Act. The .300 Blackout pistol, chambered in .300 AAC Blackout, also comes with a 10.3-inch barrel. Both pistols are designed with a 1.15-inch diameter pistol receiver extension opposed to a Mil-Spec receiver extension and buttstock and are not NFA regulated items. For more information contact them at www.danieldefense.com

Savage Arms Expand Line of Suppressor Ready Rifles

Savage Arms continues to offer a broad lineup of suppressor-ready rifles for shooters and hunters who want to reduce firearm noise at the range or in the field. Savage expands its line of suppressor-ready rimfire firearms with three new rifles: Model 93 FV-SR in .22 WMR, Model 93R17 FV-SR in .17 HMR, and Model 64 FV-SR in .22 LR. These new models give hunters and plinkers accurate rifle platforms ready to accept after-market suppressors with ease. The popularity of suppressors continues its rapid climb as more shooters and hunters see the benefit of reducing firearm noise at the range or in the field. For years, Savage Arms has been serving these shooters by offering several firearms with threaded muzzles that easily accommodate aftermarket suppressors. For 2014, Savage expands this lineup with three new suppressor-ready rifles that deliver quality and accuracy, yet are priced to deliver value. The bolt-action Model 93 FV-SR chambered in .22 WMR and Model 93R17 FV-SR chambered in .17 HMR weigh 5.5 pounds. Other specifications include overall length of 35.25 inches, and barrel length of 16.5 inches. Each are equipped with a heavy, fluted barrel that improves accuracy and dissipates heat quickly, an easy-to-use oversized bolt handle, and a 5-round detachable magazine, as well as Savage Arm’s legendary, user-adjustable AccuTrigger. The 93R17 FV-SR has a rate of twist of 1-in-9 inches, and the 93 FV-SR has 1-in-16 inches. The semiautomatic Model 64 FV-SR chambered in .22 Long Rifle weighs 5 pounds. Other specifications include a rate of twist of 1-in-16 inches, overall length of 36 inches, and barrel length of 16.5 inches. It is equipped with a 10-round detachable magazine. All three rifles feature a 1/2-inch, 28-pitch threaded muzzle with a twist-off thread protector; buttoned-rifled, carbon steel barrel; one-piece optic/accessory rail; checkered synthetic stock and black matte finish. For more information you can contact them at www.savagearms.com.

New SAM7K Pistol With Sig Stabilizing Brace

Arsenal, Inc. is introducing a new configuration to their successful line of Bulgarian-made SAM7K 7.62×39 caliber pistols, now with SIG Sauer’s SB15 pistol stabilizing brace. The first variation of the SAM7K pistol was introduced in 2013, and became an instant success. The SAM7K pistol is manufactured with Arsenal’s exclusive forged then milled receiver, original Bulgarian hammer forged chrome lined barrel, flip-adjustable peep rear sight, and ambidextrous safety lever. The SIG-Sauer SB15 pistol stabilizing brace used on the SAM7K-03 is a veteran-designed aid that is made to improve the single-handed shooting performance of a pistol. By using the operator’s forearm, it provides a stable support to reduce felt recoil and minimize accuracy-robbing spin and shift. The stabilizing brace sits on the receiver extension, and the flexible cuff with two adjustable nylon straps allows the brace to be custom fit to any user. The receiver extension has a water proof storage compartment with a sealing threaded cap. It is accessible when the brace is removed or pushed all the way forward. The SAM7K-03 pistol is ideal for sport shooting, self-defense, and handgun hunting. The SAM7K-03 has an MSRP of $1,199 and is now available through their dealers and retail outlets. The SB15 Pistol Stabilizing Brace is manufactured and provided by SIG Sauer. This product has been reviewed by the BATFE and was determined that it does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to NFA control. SIG Sauer donates $3 of every SB15 sold to support the veterans of HAVA. You can find more information at www.arsenalinc.com.

Right side of the Phase I SPIW from Springfield Armory with the full complement of equipment for firing 60 rounds of point-target XM144 flechettes plus 3 rounds of area-fire 40mm grenades, with biped and bayonet. The ingenious double box magazine, featuring two 30-round stacks one behind the other, is described in the text.

By R. Blake Stevens

The APHHW Becomes the SPIW: Point and Area Fire Now Specified

By January of 1962, a set of formal military specifications for a flechette-firing weapon had been prepared and submitted to the Office, Chief of Ordnance (OCO) for approval. The specifications superseded the short-lived APHHW nomenclature with a new name for the project: the Special Purpose Individual Weapon; the SPIW.

In these specifications one important main addition was made to the original burst-fire flechette weapon concept: the new SPIW was to combine the point-fire characteristics of the flechette-firing APHHW with the area-fire potential of a weapon like the recently introduced M79 grenade launcher.

On March 22, 1962, the OCO approved the detailed forecast for the development of the SPIW. The object was to, “provide the individual soldier with a weapon system possessing the capability to engage point and area targets to a range of 400 meters.” The forecast ended by confidently predicting that the SPIW would be type classified “Standard A” by June of 1966.

Terminating the M14 Program: An “Acceptable” Risk

Scant months later all M14 rifle production was abruptly halted, and contracts with the three hapless civilian M14 producers, Winchester, H&R and TRW, were brusquely abrogated. As stated in U.S. Rifle M14,

… [M14] Production at Springfield Armory was scheduled to be phased out first, by September, 1963. All three commercial producers wound down in the first quarter of 1964, amid very bitter and acrimonious comment to the effect that the immense amount of time, energy and money invested in good faith in the M14-manufacturing “learning curve” had all been wasted.

Meanwhile, as America’s military involvement in Vietnam escalated dramatically in the middle sixties, a worried U.S. Senate Subcommittee again queried the Secretary of the Army, Cyrus Vance, about America’s shoulder rifle policy for the immediate future. With implicit reliance in the forecasts of his systems analysts and theoreticians, Mr. Vance testified: “Termination of production of the M14 prior to the availability of SPIW involved certain risks which, after consideration by the Army, are deemed acceptable.”

All the tests by all the agencies over the preceding two years had concurred that the SPIW concept was technically feasible, and that the approach to its development was logistically sound. Heartened by this response, the Army confidently accelerated the SPIW’s adoption date by a full year, to June of 1965.

Choosing the Four Contractors

By December 1962, ten formal written SPIW development proposals had been received from industry. Each posited a completely different design, but all ten promised an on-time and reliable hand-held point-and-area-target weapon which would meet the specifications. In February, 1963, contracts were awarded to two soon-to-be former M14 rifle producers, the Harrington & Richardson Arms Co., and Olin’s Winchester-Western Division. The third and fourth designs that were chosen already had head starts at both the soon-to-be-renamed AAI Corporation (formerly Aircraft Armaments Inc.), and at Springfield Armory.

What the “SPIW Must Do”
Some salient characteristics excerpted from the carefully prepared SPIW Technical Data Package (TDP), which was supplied to each potential contractor to govern their manufacture, read as follows:

The weapon shall:
… Be of minimum weight… the loaded weight including a minimum of three (3) area type rounds and sixty (60) point type cartridges excluding other accessories shall not exceed ten pounds.
… Be capable of shoulder firing without undue discomfort from recoil or blast.
… [Produce] no hazard from ejected particles to personnel…

Reading over just the few characteristics quoted above, one can begin to understand the enormity of the gulf that has historically separated weapons designers from those who think up the specifications. Those searching for the SPIW project’s Achilles’ heel need look no further: the mutually-exclusive requirements of great complexity within stringent weight and size limits effectively locked each competing contractor into an arcane series of trade-offs and compromises, virtually insuring the ultimate failure of the program right from the outset.

In an interview with the author, retired Springfield Armory engineer Fred Reed summed this up bluntly as follows: “The SPIW was the first of the programs to be doomed from the start by ridiculous specifications.”

The Four First-Generation Firing Models

Difficulties notwithstanding, firing models of each of the four competitors’ first-generation SPIWs were duly delivered for examination and trial in March of 1964, only one month behind schedule. Three of the four were subjected to a variety of tests throughout the summer. The fourth design never even made it to the firing trials; it was rejected almost immediately as being far too heavy, and unsafe.

The H&R SPIW and the Dardick Triple-Bore Tround

The H&R SPIW earned the dubious distinction of being the only contender of the four to be rejected out of hand as “dangerous to shoot.. It was built around an exceedingly ill-conceived refinement of the revolving open chamber principle, which had previously been unsuccessfully offered on the commercial market in pistol form by its inventor, Mr. David A. Dardick. Working for H&R on the initial phases of that firm’s SPIW project, Mr. Dardick adapted the special triangular plastic cartridges his pistol had utilized, called Trounds, to contain three of the standardized AAI flechette-and-sabot projectiles, grouped around a central primer and powder charge. The result was called the “5.6x57mm triple-bore Tround.”

In the Dardick/H&R SPIW, the only reciprocating part was a top-mounted gas piston, which cammed a revolving cylinder 1200 (a third of a turn) with each fired shot. The three open-sided chambers in the cylinder thus successively picked up the leading round of a belt of the taped-together Trounds from a drum magazine suspended below the standing breech, positioned it for firing, and then released the spent case, still in its plastic belt, down the other side of the weapon. When the chamber containing a live Tround was in the firing position, all three of its flechettes were automatically lined up with a triangular cluster of three smooth bores, which had been drilled in the weapon’s ponderously front-heavy steel barrel.

In the open chamber concept, the body of each plastic Tround itself plays a much more crucial part in containing the forces of the explosion than does a conventional cartridge case, completely supported in a normal chamber. Initial function firings of the H&R SPIW had produced excess bulging and splitting in the Trounds due to variations of only a few thousandths of an inch in the plastic tape which surrounded each Tround.

Another immediate and fundamental problem concerned the three-shots-at-once theory. The three “barrels” were in fact one common space: every time the H&R was fired, gas leakage began as soon as the flechettes left their Tround. The first flechette exiting the muzzle triggered a further dramatic drop in pressure. At best, this reduced the muzzle velocity and consequently the range and accuracy of the other two flechettes. At worst, the pressure drop just might leave one or both of the remaining flechettes stuck in their respective bores, waiting to act as a serious obstruction when the next shot was fired.

In any event, the H&R SPIW package weighed in loaded at a ludicrous 23.9 pounds: the specification, it will be remembered, read a maximum of ten. Examining officers at Aberdeen’s Development & Proof Services promptly turned thumbs down on any further testing of any part of the H&R SPIW design.

The Olin (Winchester) Soft Recoil SPIW

Firing the conventionally-primed Springfield XM144 5.6x44mm flechette cartridge, the recorded muzzle velocity from the Winchester’s 20-inch, non-chromed smoothbore barrel was 4,585 fps. The weapon weighed twelve-and-a-half pounds fully loaded. The rate of fire was around 700 rpm for both full-auto and burst modes of fire.

The innovative blow-forward grenade launcher was the only feature of the Winchester design to survive the phase 1 selection process. The point fire portion of the weapon was judged unsatisfactory. Indeed, it was discovered that the very advantages claimed for the “soft recoil” concept were difficult if not impossible to obtain when teamed with the Winchester’s low rate of fire: a recoil housing many times longer than that provided would have been necessary in order that a three-shot burst could be fired at 700 rpm before the recoiling parts abutted the rear of their housing and transmitted the recoil impulse to the shooter.

The Olin (Winchester) SPIW was consequently abandoned, but the blow-forward launcher was developed further under contract for the Springfield SPIW team, in favor of the Armory’s own initial launcher design.

The Springfield Armory Bullpup SPIW

If the first two candidates mentioned above were quick disappointments, the remaining two were not. Indeed, it is ironic in the extreme to consider that the Phase I weapons fielded by AAI and especially Springfield were prototype designs, which sprang in their complexity virtually from nowhere in terms of predecessors, and yet in some ways their performance was never surpassed or even matched in the following six, expensive years.

Aberdeen described the 1964 Springfield bullpup SPIW as “a conventional gas operated system which fires the XM144 cartridge. Main portions of the mechanism are housed in the butt stock.” The rifle fired from a 60-round double-box magazine and was gas-operated (conventional gas piston), with a front-locking, rotary bolt.

The Springfield point target magazine serves very well to illustrate the ingenuity of design born of sheer desperation that was to become the rule rather than the exception during the SPIW program. Springfield’s solution to the 60-round capacity specification combined two thirty-round, double-column stacks, one behind the other. (It was here that the bullpup concept came to the rescue, providing the least awkward place to mount such a box-like device.. In firing, the reciprocating bolt stripped rounds off the leading stack until it was empty and the follower appeared. This freed a device that had been depressing the rear stack of cartridges, allowing them to rise into the path of the bolt. The rear magazine had no feed lips as such: the bolt first slid the top round from the rear magazine forward onto the follower of the empty front one, and then fed it up into the chamber.

The designer in charge of development of the 1964 Springfield bullpup SPIW was Mr. Richard Colby. He had not chosen the unique double magazine design frivolously. Feeding sixty rounds of even the small, lightweight XM144 flechette cartridges from a single double-column stack had proven to be an impossible task: no magazine spring that could be reloaded by hand would provide enough lift fast enough to have the next round of a full magazine ready for feeding during 1,700 rpm burst fire. This is not to mention the fact that calculations for such a magazine revealed that it would be so long and unwieldy as to make shooting from the prone position impossible.

Both Winchester and, as we shall see, AAI answered the first-generation 60-round point target capacity requirement by using drum-type magazines, but in so doing both firms encountered many new and serious frictional forces inherent in a rotary feed system. This led to chronic feeding problems and consequent unreliability, which in Olin’s case contributed to the demise of the whole Winchester SPIW program. It is noteworthy that the point target ammunition capacity specification was eventually relaxed to a more realistic fifty rounds, but not until the perfection of the sixty-round magazine had eluded a further two years’ expensive development.

The AAI Corporation Primer-Actuated SPIW

The 1964 AAI SPIW was 39.9 inches long overall and weighed eleven pounds unloaded, or 13.3 pounds fully loaded with the required sixty XM110 flechettes and three 40mm grenades. Muzzle velocity from the AAI’s 18-inch barrel-and-stripper was 4,820 fps, with an actual measured cyclic rate of 2,400 rpm on three-round burst fire.

A Note on Rates of Fire

It is worth commenting that both the Springfield and AAI SPIWs had answered the “salvo” requirement by featuring blisteringly high rates of burst fire. The rate of fire for the Winchester, which was by far the slowest of the first-generation SPIW submissions, was 700 rpm, which is just over eleven rounds a second. Burst and full-auto fire from the 1964 Springfield SPIW was measured at 1,700 rpm, which translates to over 28 rounds a second; while the AAI burst fire rate was 2,400 rounds per minute, or an astonishing 40 rounds per second.

Phase I Results

The results of the phase I Aberdeen D&PS examinations and that summer’s firing trials, which had taken place at Fort Benning from April to the middle of August, 1964, led to a curiously mixed reaction. Army Weapons Command remained solidly behind the SPIW as a concept, and the SPIW designers themselves had long since recognized and accepted most of the erratic, not to say startling, behavior of their brainchildren as necessary trade-offs in the desperate attempt to meet the specifications. Nevertheless, a bewildering array of problems in almost every conceivable area of the endeavor was documented by the test teams.

By November of 1964, when all the results were in, one thing was certain: the carefully-planned scenario leading to the adoption of a successful SPIW by the following June was out the window completely. Even phase II of the initial TDP, which had confidently envisaged a short period of full-scale engineering development for the successful phase I candidate followed by its limited manufacture for final troop trials, was itself now out of the question.

Regarding the summer’s simulated mass production runs of XM110 and XM144 cartridges, no economical way had been devised to fabricate a satisfactory flechette round in quantity. The contractors complained that every component required extraordinary care in manufacture and assembly in order to ensure a reliable round. This meant a great deal of costly and difficult-to-inspect hand-work on each cartridge.

In general, reported user dissatisfaction with the two finalist SPIW designs (Springfield and AAI) as weapons was lumped into three basic categories: poor reliability, poor durability, and excessive weight.

As for system durability, the exasperated designers grew weary of trying to explain to adamant AWC test officers that every conceivable ounce had been shaved from these complex weapons in an attempt to meet the weight requirement.

As it turned out, no SPIW ever came within the ten-pound-loaded, point- and area-fire weight limit. As the program continued, this official weight requirement was ignored as much as possible, with weights for the two halves of the SPIW system thenceforth discussed separately.

The Second Generation SPIW Plan

Many of the SPIW’s initially startling idiosyncrasies, which had been abruptly user discovered in the first generation trials, were already the subject of much AAI research. The AAI engineers felt strongly that effective remedies were not only feasible but just a matter of a little more time and R&D money. This attitude was at length adopted by AWC.

In a move that coincided with the March, 1965 deployment of American troops into the combat zones of South Vietnam, AWC approved a re-orchestrated, 35-month, two-phase SPIW development plan under which AAI and Springfield were both to develop and fabricate ten complete second generation weapon systems. There was one difference: “Standard A” status for the successful second-generation SPIW was rescheduled for March of 1968, a postponement of almost three full years.

Another interesting difference in the new plan was that the Army had turned thumbs down on any further development of the bullpup concept, which Springfield had emulated in 1964, or even a rifle with a separate pistol grip like the early AAI models. From now on, all SPIWs submitted were to feature what AWC considered to be the increased pointability of conventional rifles, like the M14, or, to give it its due, the 1964 Winchester SPIW.

The busy program at AAI contrasted sharply with the mood at Springfield, where following the 1964 trials the Armory engineers had received virtually no feedback regarding their first generation design. Reasons for this brusque treatment were not long in surfacing: in a further reorganization disguised as cost cutting, Defense Secretary McNamara had already announced the termination of Springfield Armory as an official agency, to be effective by April of 1968.

Improvements in Flechette Cartridges The Fatter Springfield / Frankford XM216

Springfield in particular had experienced difficulty meeting the velocity requirement with their XM144 cartridge; in fact the unofficial word is that they never quite did. Be that as it may, both contenders redesigned their cartridge cases for more powder capacity before entering the second generation competition. Thus, Springfield’s XM144 was presently superseded by a completely new round, the somewhat fatter XM216. Both the XM144 and the XM216 were fitted with the “Primer, Miniature, FA T186E1.”

The AAI XM645, with One-Piece “Anvilless” Piston Primer

AAI’s XM110 had already left its dimples behind, to become the slightly longer XM645. Both new rounds were loaded with AAI’s still-standard flechette-and-sabot package for the upcoming second generation trials.

AAI had in the meantime also developed an ingenious one-piece piston primer to replace the more complex and prohibitively expensive first-generation multi-piece design. The AAI one-piece piston primer was yet another remarkable product of the SPIW program, in that it was designed to function without an anvil. In other primers, whether Boxer, Bloehm or Berdan, it is the action of crushing the priming compound against the anvil that causes ignition. No such anvil was present in the new one-piece AAI primer design.

Interestingly enough, no one was really sure just how the AAI anvilless primer worked. Some thought the priming pellet, which contained about three times more primer mix than usual, slid a bit when the piston was pushed in, thereby striking itself alight like a kitchen match. (As part of the manufacturing process the priming mix was very heavily compressed: a note on the drawing reads “Primer mix is to be compressed within a compaction pressure range of 129,000 psi to 172,000 psi. Piston-primer size must not be altered as a result of the compaction operation.”)

Others felt that the restricting front collar acted like an anvil. Still others pointed to the roughened, or finely threaded, internal sides of the primer cup itself, positing that the specially-compounded priming pellet set itself alight as contact here was abruptly broken by the firing pin blow.

In addition to remodeling their SPIW along more conventional lines, AAI was to set up a simulated mass-production assembly line to produce 130,000 rounds of its new improved XM645 piston-primed cartridge. Production contracts for AAI’s second generation cartridge case, and for new one-piece piston primers, were first let at this time to the Canadian government ammunition facility Dominion Arsenals in Quebec (initial headstamp DA 65).

The Last SPIW from Springfield Armory

The 1966 Springfield SPIW was exactly 40” long and was chambered for Frankford’s new, fatter XM216 cartridge. The 60-round point target ammunition capacity specification was still in effect, and due to the conventional nature of the new rifle the longish, front-and-rear double magazine of 1964 had been reconfigured. It was now made of clear Lexan plastic and, in a further burst of desperate ingenuity, featured two thirty-round stacks side-by-side. Springfield’s Preliminary Operating and Maintenance Manual (POMM 1005-251-12) for their 1966 SPIW described the functioning of this novel magazine as follows:

The left cartridge stack is depressed by the stack release mechanism when the magazine is seated in the magazine well, while the right stack remains elevated in the stripping position. When the last round is stripped from the right stack, its spring actuated follower raises the cartridge retainer actuator into the path of the operating rod. After the operating rod moves rearward after [the chambered] round is fired, it cams the actuator and retainer to [the] left side, releasing the left cartridge stack to stripping position.

All in all it appeared that, although the Armory SPIW team had taken the project to heart and made it a labor of love, the very tight timing and funding constraints of Secretary McNamara’s termination order were very evident in this second generation Springfield design.

The AAI Second Generation SPIW

AAI’s SPIW program had by far the longest pedigree of any of the four original contenders, due to that company having originated the flechette concept in the first place. The mood at AAI was therefore one of determination and conviction: while a number of features on Springfield’s second generation gun were brand new and born of desperation, AAI’s were mostly refinements of early ideas, which already had a comparatively lengthy firing record.

A parallel program of redesign had resulted in a very well-conceived new plastic-stocked AAI SPIW prototype, which soon emerged fully engineered for second-generation production. The drum magazine and action stroke were both slightly longer in AAI’s 1966 model SPIW, due to the extra 4mm in the length of the new XM645 cartridge case.

Results of the Second Generation SPIW Trials

A second generation engineering design test was conducted by the Infantry Board at Fort Benning from August 26 to October 31, 1966. These trials, or more accurately, comparative evaluations, were in a word disastrous.

The one supreme flaw in the SPIW program still, which AWC had steadfastly refused to face or even consider right from the outset, was the gulf separating the specifications from what was humanly possible to design and construct. The Board’s report on the 1966 comparative SPIW evaluations contained clear indications that this gulf had again proven too wide and deep to bridge.

A Frank Assessment by Colt’s Robert E. Roy

Meanwhile, AWC was trying to find a civilian firm willing to continue the development of the Springfield SPIW, which was to receive no further funding at the Armory regardless of the outcome of the second generation trials: that bastion was being adamantly wound down in response to Secretary McNamara’s termination order. A meeting was therefore set up at Fort Benning in October, while the 1966 evaluations were still in progress, to demonstrate the second generation SPIWs to representatives of a selected few companies who had expressed interest in taking the Springfield project over.

The real if inadvertent importance of this AWC demonstration was that it provided some highly qualified but uncommitted outsiders with their first real look at the SPIW in action. Among those attending was Mr. Robert E. Roy, then the Engineering Project Manager for Colt’s Inc. Colt’s had purchased the rights to the AR-15 from ArmaLite back in 1959, and had since shrewdly piloted the “little black rifle” all the way to quasi-adoption in the U.S. Armed Forces. With America’s massive buildup in Vietnam went more and more Colt-made M16 rifles: Colt’s had more at stake than virtually anyone should the SPIW be successful. They therefore took a very sharp and direct interest in these proceedings. A saboted flechette load in the regular 5.56mm case already existed, for example, as did experimental smoothbored M16s.

The Infantry Board was necessarily constrained to report its findings exclusively in terms of the requirements, but Colt’s was not so restricted: Mr. Roy wanted to know how the SPIWs looked and functioned in a real-world sense. The bottom line was, how long did Colt’s have until the SPIW put the M16 out of business. Mr. Roy’s confidential report to his superiors, excerpted as follows, soon calmed any fears on that score:

… It appears to me that the SPIW system is still far from fruition as an operational weapons system. The “all things to all people” approach that has been used in setting requirements for this weapon has resulted in many problems that appear almost insurmountable, since many of the requirements are at odds with each other.

… The normal tendency when [the flechette] strikes flesh or bone is for the shaft to bend slightly and then to tumble. It is this property that makes such a small, light projectile lethal. When the flechette tumbles, it has lethality comparable with the 7.62 NATO. The flechette does not always tumble, however, and if it does not tumble, it has very little stopping power and a person might hardly know he is shot…

In order to keep SPIW ammunition as light as possible, cartridge cases have been made to the minimum size possible. This makes it necessary to use relatively slow-burning powders in order to get the necessary energy for full velocity. The result is very high pressures at bullet exit. I would estimate bullet exit pressures are in the order of 25,000 psi.

The noise and flash produced by these weapons is far in excess of the M14 or M16 and at least the equal of our M16 Commando submachine gun without the noise-flash suppressor. I have fired the AAI weapon, and it is definitely uncomfortable to fire without ear plugs.

Present plans call for design finalization by early 1968 and initial production by 1969. After looking at the hardware available, witnessing the firing, and firing the weapon myself, I can’t see how this schedule can possibly be met. SPIW is still an R&D effort and will require at least one more complete redesign, and the solving of several basic problems before it can be seriously considered as a military weapon.

The Mountings, Tripod, Auxiliary, .303 Machine Gun, Mark III” or Sangster mount, attached to the water jacket of the Vickers Mark I water-cooled machine gun.

By Robert G. Segel

One of the rarest and most sought after accessories for the Vickers water-cooled machine gun is the “Mountings, Tripod, Auxiliary, .303 Machine Gun, Marks I, II and III” – otherwise known vernacularly simply as the “Sangster Mount.”

The large 51 pound Mark IV tripod was the standard service mount for the Vickers machine gun and was the appropriate base for controlled aimed fire, either direct or indirect, from an entrenched position. However, by 1915 in World War I, it was recognized, and there emerged a perceived need, for a small auxiliary tripod that could be clamped directly to the water jacket for use in the quick moving forward attack as well as an emergency tripod to be deployed quickly when rapid redeployment from a position was necessitated by incoming enemy fire, to a new position that required the gun to be put into immediate action.

On April 20, 1915, Charles Thomas Brock Sangster, a well-known British engineer and industrialist in the bicycle industry, applied for a patent for just such an auxiliary tripod and a patent was granted on June 8, 1916 (Patent No. 100577).

The use of this auxiliary tripod is stated quite clearly in the British Handbook for the .303-In. Vickers Machine Gun, September 1918: “This auxiliary tripod mounting, which is not intended to replace the Mark IV tripod, is for use as an alternative to it, and will in future be issued on a scale of 1 per machine gun to cavalry and infantry units.”

There were technically three Marks of the mount that ultimately saw service with the differences being slight design changes very early on and two variations of brackets to hold the legs when not in use. . The final, Mark III version with spring leg clamps was officially adopted on October 25, 1917. The Mark designation was not stamped or applied to the units.

The “Sangster” mount actually consisted of two components: the main tripod and clamp assembly and the leg holding clamp bracket. On the Marks I and II, the forward leg holding bracket was essential to hold the legs forward in a horizontal positon. Freeing the legs from the forward holding bracket would allow the legs to drop and be deployed. The Mark III version, the most common used and deployed, used a piston arrangement to hold the legs horizontally thus a simplified forward leg holding bracket was employed. The Mark III was deployed by slightly spreading the three tripod legs, which depressed a piston on the tripod head, allowing the unit to rotate and drop down to a vertical position, which then allowed the legs to be fully splayed. When deployed, the mount allowed a full free 360 degree traverse and a 45 degree elevation.

Again referring to the Handbook for the .303-In. Vickers Machine Gun, September 1918, the mounting consists of the following parts:

1) Three legs, each fitted at one end with a joint for attaching to the crosshead pivot, and at a short distance from the opposite end with a shoe which gives stability to the mounting when firing. The pivot receives the trunnion block to which the saddle of the rear gun band is connected by trunnion screws. The underside of the bracket is so formed that by the action of a spring plunger which passes through the center of the pivot, it admits of the legs being folded down in one direction, but held rigidly in the opposite direction.

A hinged clip – provided with a clamping screw and wing nut – with saddle, complete the rear gun band to which is secured a leather lining for gripping the gun.

2) The front gun band which is of steel (leather lined), is formed with two free ends (leather covered); these ends clip the legs of mounting when folded down. It is provided with a clamping screw and wing nut for securing it to the barrel casing of the gun in such a position that the legs of the mounted, when folded up, shall protrude about 1-inch beyond the spring clip.

3) Two leather straps are provided for transporting the gun with the mounting.

A number of auxiliary tripod front band mountings were issued to the Service that differed from the Number 3 description above and were known as the Mark I. These eliminated the leather straps and merely held the legs in the forward un-deployed position. Interchangeability of the front gun band Mark I among the different rear mounting Marks is not affected.

Warfare methods quickly changed and with the widespread issuance of Lewis guns in 1916, the Lewis was much better suited to be carried forward in infantry assault than the heavy and clumsy water-cooled Vickers. Though issued widely and generally well accepted, particularly in emergency situations, the bane of all foot soldiers is the amount of equipment they must carry and the weight imposed upon them. The 8 pound auxiliary mount was generally discarded to save weight as the need for emergency use was very rare amongst regular infantry. There are very few photographs actually taken in World War I that show the Sangster mount in use among the front line infantry either with the auxiliary mount deployed or just attached to the gun ready for use. However, cavalry units and members of the Motor Machine Gun Corps riding Clyno motorcycles with Mk IV tripods secured to sidecars used the auxiliary mount for rapid dismounting and quickly putting the gun into action. They were officially discontinued for use and declared obsolete in 1921 and scrapped. Few have survived making this a rare and important accessory for a Vickers in a collection.

By Robert G. Segel

Hiram Percy Maxim was the son of Hiram Stevens Maxim, inventor of the world’s first fully automatic machine gun, and was the nephew of Hudson Maxim, an inventor of explosives and ballistic propellants. Hiram Percy Maxim was an inventor in his own right and was an American radio pioneer and inventor and was co-founder of the American Radio Relay League. He is also generally credited as being the inventor of the Maxim Silencer, a firearm silencer that was viable and commercially produced along with motor exhaust mufflers, safety valves, air releases and every kind of pipe that emits a gas – as well as offering consultant services in noise abatement.

He explains his invention and philosophy in a Foreword to an undated Maxim Silencer pamphlet. In it he says, “The Maxim Silencer was developed to meet my personal desire to enjoy target practice without creating a disturbance. I have always loved to shoot, but I never thoroughly enjoyed it when I knew that the noise was annoying other people. It occurred to me one day that there was no need for the noise. Why not do away with it and shoot quietly.

“For nearly two years I sought for some way to check the powder gases from bursting into the air when the bullet left the barrel. This is what causes the objectionable report noise. I thought of every kind of a valve, vent, by-pass, expansion chamber, etc., and built some of them. None were satisfactory. It seemed quite a problem to find a hole through which the bullet could pass, but through which the powder gases could not pass.

“One morning after my bath I noticed in the bath tub the miniature whirlpool that forms over the drain hole when the plug is pulled and the water starts to run out. There was the familiar little hole down in the center of the whirl and it started me thinking that here was an exactly similar case to my powder gas and bullet problem. Here was water in a bath tub, the drain plug pulled out, and yet the water was able to run out slowly because it was whirling.

“Why would not the powder gases act the same way as the water, if they were whirled? The whirling would give them centrifugal action precisely as it did the water, and cause a “hole” to form in the center just as the hole formed in the water. In a flash I saw the “hole” for which I had been looking for nearly two years.

“I immediately made a little “whirling tube” which would catch the powder gases as they burst from the muzzle of one of my rifles and whirl it around vigorously. In the center I provided a hole for the bullet to pass through but considerably larger than the bullet so it could not touch. The gases had no escape except through this central hole. Being central they could not possible get out until they had slowed down. This of course meant that they must come out gradually and, in consequence, noiselessly. The first time I shot the rifle I was quite excited. I will never forget the sensation I experienced when I found it was quiet. That was the birth of the Maxim Silencer.”

The Maxim silencer was eventually used on all types of guns and the pamphlet goes on to provide numerous testimonies on how accurate their gun was even with the use of the Maxim Silencer. One such testimonial reads; “The .22 caliber Maxim Silencer I bought some time ago for my Stevens Pope Rifle, has given entire satisfaction. I have made 10 consecutive shots at 50 yards that could be covered by a ten-cent piece.”

While the vast majority of testimonials concerned usage with .22 caliber rifles and pistols, it was the end of the pamphlet that caught this author’s immediate attention: the fitting of a Maxim Silencer to a Benet-Mercié Automatic Machine Rifle Model of 1909. This experiment is likely the first time ever that a silencer was used on a machine gun. The pamphlet states: “Quiet Shooting Machine Guns. One of the most interesting gun experiments ever conducted was with various machine guns fitted with Maxim Silencers. The automatic machine gun shoot the regular high power military shoulder rifle cartridge at the rate of six hundred shots a minute. A nest of these guns squirts a veritable spray of death. It is impossible to advance in the face of them, and in the absence of heavy artillery to blow them out, they are invincible. The great trouble with them however, is that the noise they make is terrific. The noise discloses their location and makes it easy for the artillery to put them out of action. Silencers have been fitted and so constructed that they maintain their shape against tremendous pressures even when red hot. These Silencers eliminate the report noise. Only the bullet flight noise and the mechanical noises of the automatic mechanism remain. These are small noises and the result is that a nest of machine guns with Silencers is almost impossible to locate. They constitute the deadliest weapon ever invented by man, and unquestionably will figure in future wars if such things come again.”

Maxim was selling his first commercial models in 1902 and patented 30 March 1909. He regularly advertised in sporting goods magazines. While there is no indication of the date of this pamphlet, the very last sentence in the above paragraph seems to indicate that this pamphlet was printed sometime immediately after World War I, sometime in the 1920s due to the veiled reference to the war. Nevertheless, while these experiments with silencing machine guns were done by the Maxim Silencer Company, one can only guess at this point as to whether the military was also involved in these tests or in tests of their own.

The Daniel Defense rifle is a remarkably friendly design, with everything needed and nothing more. A real work horse.

By R.K. Campbell

When it comes to tactical gear – an overused term in today’s market – much of what is advertised as tactical doesn’t make the grade. I have lost count of the AR-15 type parts guns and gun show specials that I have seen cops attempt to deploy. The break in period to produce a reliable rifle from a disreputable beginning is often long and tortuous. This cuts deeply into both training time and the training budget. Armed professionals must realize that their life is riding on their gear. A rifle with gun show parts doesn’t always have the chrome lined barrel and chamber demanded for proper function. A failure to properly stake the bolt carrier keys is a common deficit among the parts guns. They may have a good name on the receiver but the internals are anyone’s guess. For confidence and superior function a good bet is the Daniel Defense rifle. The Daniel Defense rifle is a quality AR-15 rifle with good features. The company began to gain attention by securing government contracts by means of a difficult procurement process. They enjoy an excellent reputation.

Before we proceed let’s look at the tactical rifle. Professionals define the mission first; then choose the gear. Amateurs adopt a cheap solution and attempt to overreach their gear with unrealistic expectations. There are any number of incidents that have occurred that beg for officers and armed citizens to have a handy, powerful and accurate rifle on hand. These include the Texas Tower incident beginning in the 1960s and fast forwarding to take-over robberies by armed gangs as recently as yesterday.

The rifle gives a qualified user an advantage over a person armed only with a handgun (provided the person wielding the rifle has fortitude and initiative). If the adversary is heavily armed, at least you have a level playing field. You may extend your will past handgun range and you may use the carbine much more efficiently at any range. The AR-15 rifle is the logical first choice, given the many rifles available, availability of support gear, and service history. There are rifles better than others but most of the bad rifles I have seen have been parts guns with poor quality parts and assembly. You pay your money and you take your choice. But there are defining characteristics of a rifle that is intended for general patrol and defense use.

The .223 can be frangible at close range, offering excellent wound ballistics.

The rifle should be chambered for the 5.56mm/.223 Remington cartridge. (I know there is a qualified difference in the two calibers – Black Hills, Hornady and Winchester supply the ammunition I use in my AR-15 rifle and they know what they are doing.) Discussions of wound ballistics can get complicated, ugly and even psychotic quickly. The .223 offers excellent wound ballistics to 125 yards, give or take, depending upon the exact load and the barrel length of the rifle used. The cartridge generates sufficient velocity to insure that the bullet expands violently at modest ranges. This all but insures the bullet stays in the felon’s body in a crowded urban environment. In rural areas the advantage remains. A minimum of well directed rounds will achieve the incapacitation of the threat. The cartridge is very accurate in quality rifles and the high velocity and frangibility of the bullet limits over penetration and ricochet. Once the range is extended past 100 yards, upset and bullet fragmentation is less likely, but this is extraordinary range for civil use. With the proper load such as Black Hills Ammunition 77 grain open tip loads the .223 may be effective to 200 yards, but this is the exception to the rule. Most engagement ranges are short. The rifle should be light enough for constant carry during a stalk of felons in the open, in the woods, or in an urban environment and be short enough for deployment inside buildings. Magazines, slings and support gear should be readily available. The rifle should be equipped with a ghost ring sight that allows rapid engagement of targets at typical encounter ranges but allows accurate shooting with an accuracy standard no less than two MOA at one hundred yards. The rifle must be reliable in action with a minimum of maintenance.

The Daniel Defense rifle is a logical development from a company that has secured military contracts for parts consisting of upgrades for the AR-15 including the forend/rail system. The Daniel Defense rifle is a standard design AR-15 with gas impingement system and all of the AR-15 type controls including the ergonomically designed magazine release and safety. The advanced trademark forend is evident in the design. The Daniel Defense rifle is the modern flat top type with provisions for mounting an optical sight if desired. The rifle is supplied with efficient iron sights from the factory. These battle sights are well designed with excellent utility both for rapid acquisition of the target and for precision fire to 100 yards or more. The archetypical flash suppressor is present. A Blue Force Vickers sling was fitted to the Daniel Defense rifle during the evaluation. This is a well designed sling that offers good comfort and if need be an additional rest when steadying the rifle for off hand fire. The rifle slung easily when walking to the target stand at a long 100 yards. I recommend this sling as a step above the rest.

Length of pull can be important during different tactical applications including when wearing body armor or firing from behind cover. The Daniel Defense stock features three positions for adjustment. The engagements are positive and the stock rugged enough for duty use. The bore is chrome lined with a twist of 1 turn in 7 inches. The bolt was removed and examined; the carrier key is properly staked. Staking the carrier key is an elementary procedure that some makers seem to find to be too much trouble. I leave any rifle without the carrier key properly staked on the shelf and so should you. (If you own such a rifle have the carrier key staked properly sooner rather than later.) The two halves of the receiver fit tightly. Trigger compression is typical AR-15, breaking at 4.5 pounds. The rifle is supplied with a single thirty-round magazine. I supplemented the issued magazine with a set of Brownells AR- 15 magazines. These magazines have given yeoman service and continue to serve in the majority of my AR-15 rifles. Additionally, HK magazines are first class in every way, well worth their price. Good magazines take the worry out of being close.

Shooting

During the evaluation an X bipod from Montie Design was used. The three legged X bipod quickly pins together into a triangular rest yet folds easily for storage. This device is handy, light enough at 12.1 ounces, and offers an excellent steadying device for long range shooting. During the course of the test and evaluation well over 1,000 rounds of ammunition were fired in this rifle including 280 as quickly as we could load magazines – leaving the forend smoking. There were no failures to feed, chamber, fire or eject. The rifle was not cleaned for the first 500 rounds, but began the test well lubricated. We squirted lubrication in the bolt every few hundred rounds. Not ideal maintenance but a test of a hard use rifle. The handling of the rifle cannot be faulted. The rifle comes on target quickly and the sight and trigger combination make for excellent practical accuracy. During the evaluation the majority of rounds fired were Black Hills 55 grain blue box remanufactured loads; although we also fired a good amount of whatever was available including 55, 60 and 62 grain weight bullets. Additionally, several magazines of handloads that were recently put up on Redding dies were also used. The results were good on all counts. This rifle is more accurate than most anyone can hold in off hand fire. There is no discernible difference in off hand fire between these inexpensive practice loads and premium tactical loads. It is all about sight picture, sight alignment and trigger compression. When firing from the barricade or solid bench rest differences in accuracy were more apparent.

There is nothing wrong with the 55 grain FMJ load for all around use at moderate range. This loading breaks up on impact in the body given sufficient velocity and has a good reputation. Public safety and greater efficiency call for different choices. My rule is to practice with the remanufactured or generic loads and deploy the finest loads I am able to obtain. The Daniel Defense rifle digested the various tactical loads from 55, 60, 69 and 77 grain weights with good function and accuracy. It should be noted that the 40 grain varmint or blitz loads seem to have less momentum and one should not trust their reliable function in a less than perfectly maintained rifle. Penetration is limited with the 40 grain load which is useful in running coyotes away from the chickens but not in personal defense. I qualified function and practical accuracy with favored loads including the Black Hills 60 gr. JSP, the Black Hills 40 gr. A Max, the 60 grain A Max loading, the Black Hills 77 grain Open Tip, the Cor Bon 55 gr. JSP, Cor Bon DPX, Cor Bon 69 grain Match, the Hornady 60 grain TAP , the HSM 60 grain A Max and the Winchester 69 grain JSP. All proved accurate and reliable. A trained operator that understands catching the link during trigger reset, controlling the trigger and sights, is able to command the ground in front of the muzzle of the AR-15. Every rifle (or any firearm) has a certain reset. Rather than moving the finger from the trigger during reset a trained operator will keep his finger on the trigger and ride the reset.

The final choice in ammunition demands careful consideration from those who use the rifle. Two basic themes have emerged in .223 rifle loads for serious use. This is to increase wound ballistics with a frangible bullet and the other is to increase penetration for special purposes by use of a heavier bullet. Among the single most successful loads is the Black Hills 77 grain Open Tip. Proven in war time use this load not only offers good wound ballistics but gilt edged accuracy. Another contender is the Winchester 69 grain JSP. The 69 grain JSP expands and stays together like a .30 bullet. An interesting combination comes from HSM, a respected shop that produces custom loaded law enforcement loadings. They have developed a loading that gives excellent barrier penetration with the .223. This restricted design increases tactical and barrier penetration for specific uses. I found this loading accurate and in limited testing of tactical barriers, effective. The HSM load also showed good accuracy.

Naturally we wished to evaluate the rifle at long range. The battle sight offers good utility once learned and in trained hands. At first the front sight may seem wide for long range shooting but it depends upon the target. We do not wish to hazard short range speed by use of a smaller front blade. The front sight completely covers the 12 inch plate at 300 yards. Do the math; you have a challenge that limits shooters to a hit ratio of about fifty per cent. At 200 yards we were on the money at about eighty per cent on the twelve inch gong using the sling without a time limit, and at ninety per cent or better when going prone and using the bipod. If you anticipate firing the rifle often at long range then an optical sight is needed. Most of us will not have that need, and the rifle remains a great problem solver at moderate range. With the inherent accuracy of the type and the great handling and reliability of the Daniel Defense rifle this AR-15 is useful over a broader spectrum than most firearms.

The Daniel Defense rifle is true to the original AR-15 concept of a short, light rifle with plenty of power but light recoil and excellent hit probability. We fired the rifle extensively and did not break it under controlled conditions. A fighting man should not have a favorite weapon but work with what he has. But if you have a choice this is a rifle well worth its price. The Daniel Defense rifle is accurate enough for any mission and offers quality of material and production. That is all we can ask.

One hundred yard groups – three shot groups from a solid bench rest using Bushnell First Strike Red Dot.

The new Heckler & Koch VP9 pistol. (Heckler & Koch)

By Christopher R. Bartocci

Heckler & Koch has been on the forefront of firearms development throughout their history. This includes not only rifles but handguns as well. When most think of striker fired pistols with polymer frames they think of Glock pistols. There is no doubt that Glock has been the company who brought this system mainstream and has gone on to be the most popular handgun in the world for military, law enforcement and commercial use. However, there is some additional history that most are unfamiliar with and a firearm that not too many know about. The first polymer frame pistol was not manufactured by Glock; in fact Heckler & Koch predates Glock by about 12 years. Additionally, that same pistol was a striker fired pistol so you could say there was a pistol created in 1970 that had pioneered two of the major features that make Glock successful. That pistol was the Heckler & Koch VP70. The pistol was designed by Helmut Weldle and company co-founder Ales Seidel. Development of the pistol commenced in the late 1960s and was released for production in 1970.

VP is an abbreviation for Volkspistole or Peoples Pistol and the 70 denotes the year the pistol went into production. H&K offered two models: the VP70M, the M means Militar (Military) and the VP70Z, the Z means Zivil (Civilian). The main difference is the military version accepted a stock that doubles as a holster and a stock assembly. The other thing that this stock incorporates is the mechanism permitting the VP70M to fire a 3 round burst at a blistering 2,200 rounds per minute. The change lever is mounted in the stock. The lever is operated through a toggle lever mounted on top of the stock. The VP70Z will not permit the installation of the stock.

The VP70 pistol has an overall weight of 34.5 oz and an overall length of 8.6 inches. The VP70M has an overall length with the stock attached of 21.5 inches. The barrel is 4.6 inches and the overall height of the pistol is 5.6 inches. The pistol is chambered in the 9x19mm NATO cartridge. However, a small lot was manufactured in 9x21mm IMI for the Italian market where the military 9x19mm caliber is restricted from private ownership or any other military standard cartridge.

The frame is made from a polymer. It is fairly smooth and by today’s standards you would have put a rubber slip-over grip or some grip tape on it. This was a radical departure from the norm of the day when all military pistols were manufactured from steel frames. In fact it is safe to say that parallels can be drawn from the introduction of this pistol to the introduction of the AR-15. At the time the AR-15 was introduced, these aircraft age light weight alloys and polymers were too new and seen by many at the time as being flimsy and cheap compared to the wood and steel guns of the time. The VP70 was right there with the AR-15 in this space age look and synthetic materials. There is a manual safety on the pistol, a cross bolt safety located in the same location as a magazine release would normally be found.

The VP70 was also a striker fired pistol. The firing pin was drawn straight back and released. The pistol fired from a direct blowback operation; in other words there was no mechanical locking mechanism. By today’s standards, a 9x19mm caliber pistol has too much power behind it to work in this fashion. Some form of locking system would be used such as a Browning-type locking system. Direct blowback is commonly used on lower pressure cartridges such as the .22 Long Rifle, .32 Auto, .25 Auto and .380 Automatic. In order to delay opening of the slide too soon on a blowback pistol with a 9x19mm cartridge, the slide must be quite heavy leading to a larger and heavier pistol. Also, by bypassing a locking system, this enables the much higher 2,200 rounds per minute cycle rate as compared to a Glock 18 at 1,200 rounds per minute. The firing pin is made up of a firing pin with a spring located on front of the firing pin to work as an anti-slamfire mechanism. It basically prevents the firing pin from setting off the primer by the force/inertia of the forward movement of the slide during firing. Inside the rear of the firing pin is a firing pin spring guide rod, bushing and firing pin spring.

Perhaps the most direct cause of the pistol’s failure in the market was the double action only trigger pull. The trigger pull was outrageous: reported between 18 and 20 pounds. The trigger pulls straight back into the frame unlike the camming action of pistols such as Glock and HiPoint (low quality striker fired 9mm firing from direct blowback). To be honest, the trigger feels like that of a staple gun. This extremely heavy trigger made it very difficult to shoot accurately, especially under stress. This author can imagine that this was designed to mimic a revolver trigger. There has been an aftermarket spring made to reduce the trigger pull but unfortunately too little, too late. The Colt All American 2000 suffered a similar fate due to the outrageous trigger pull.

The barrel is fixed into the frame. The recoil spring slides over the barrel similar to that of a Walther PPK. The pistol’s barrel has several departures from the traditional H&K pistol barrels. The rifling is conventional land and grooves. The lands, however, are much deeper than normal. In fact, as the projectile passes down the bore, the bullet never catches on the grooves. Hot gas/pressure passes between the gap in the groove. This lowers the overall pressure inside the barrel permitting a lighter slide to be used with the direct blowback design. When examining a projectile fired from the VP70, you can visually see the scorching on the bullet between the land impressions.

The magazine looks like a cut down Uzi magazine. Cartridges are fed from both right and left side rather than one through the top like a Glock magazine. The magazine held 18 rounds of 9x19mm ammunition.

Although revolutionary in many ways, the VP70 was a failure. Some may say it was due to the unconventional new use of the polymer frame and others will say it was due to the extremely heavy trigger pull. The pistol went in to production in 1970 and was discontinued in 1989. Nearly 12 years after HK’s idea of a polymer frame, it would resurface and be perfected by Glock as well as a refined trigger mechanism. What is that saying: What is old is new?

The New VP9

In June of 2014, Heckler & Koch introduced their first striker fired pistol since the VP70, the VP9. The first model is in 9x19mm with more calibers surely to come. According to H&K, they wanted to develop a new family of pistols that would compete with Glock and also be at a lower price point to make the gun more affordable in the U.S. market with a retail price of $719. This is not a new concept for H&K. They brought out the USP-series of pistols in 1994 under the same pretense as providing an affordable pistol to the U.S. market. Those pistols as well had a similar MSRP but two decades later the pistols now sell for more than $1,000. So the initial price of the VP9 will be $719 but we will wait a few years and see if the price is stable or it creeps up the same way as the USP-family of pistols did.

The VP9 takes a couple of features from other H&K pistols bringing them into one. The striker mechanism was taken from the VP70/P7. They took the frame of the P30 and added several new features to the VP9. Unlike the VP70, the VP9 does not fire from the direct blowback method of operation; it uses the Browning type, modified linkless locking recoil-operated system.

The 9x19mm caliber VP9 weighs in at 26.56 ounces. The empty magazine weighs 3.28 ounces. The length of the pistol is 7.34 inches with the barrel length being 4.09 inches. The sight radius is 6.38 inches with a height of 5.41 inches. The width of the grip will vary depending on which grip inserts are used. The steel magazine holds 15 rounds of 9x19mm NATO ammunition.

As previously stated, Heckler & Koch pioneered the polymer frame pistol with the VP70 in 1970 and then in 1993 they introduced their USP pistol, which was their second polymer frame pistol. The product line has expanded from the USP to the P30 series. The VP 9 frame is very similar in appearance to that of the P30. The replaceable back strap and side panels allow the pistol to be custom fit to any person’s hand. The texture of the grip is excellent and the ergonomic profile is very comfortable. Like all good military grade pistols, there is a lanyard loop. There is a higher grip saddle that translates into lower effective bore axis. This aids in faster target acquisition, less felt recoil and faster follow up shots. There is an ambidextrous slide release and with no manual safety: this makes a truly ambidextrous pistol. On the left side of the frame is the disassembly lever. The slide is retracted fully to the rear and locked open. The lever is turned 30°, the slide is pulled back enough to disengage the slide release and the slide is slid off of the front of the frame. On the front of the frame is an extended Mil-Std 1913 rail rated to handle tactical flash lights, laser sights and other accessories weighing up to 5.6 oz with no impact on performance. The first accessory rail introduced by H&K on the USP pistol was a proprietary rail not compatible with any other known rails. It was not until the HK P30 series that H&K replaced their proprietary rail with the Mil-Std 1913 rail.

The barrel is manufactured from cannon grade steel like all other H&K barrels. The cold hammer forged barrel is rifled with polygonal bore rifling which has become a trademark of Heckler & Koch. Unlike conventional button or broach cut rifling, there are no sharp lands and grooves. The smooth edges on the polygonal rifling do not wear like standard barrels. With the polygonal rifling, the bore is slightly tighter providing a better bullet-to-bore seal, increasing velocity. Additionally, due to no sharp edges, there is no copper being cut so the barrel is much cleaner as well. The polygonal rifling ensures a long service life. Similar H&K P30 barrels have been subjected to endurance tests of more than 90,000 rounds in 2010 and still shoot within specifications. Like any other polygonal-type rifling, the shooter cannot use lead/hard cast ammunition. The VP9 does not use the chamber fluting found in the MP5 and the P7 series of pistols.

The pistol is provided with a captive recoil spring that is easily removed and installed. The recoil spring is a flat spring offering the longest lasting recoil spring-type in the industry.

The slide has numerous features that you would come to expect from H&K. The slide is machined from a single piece of premium grade steel and finished with a high strength carbon-nitride corrosion resistant finish. There are serrations on the front of the slide, both sides that act as a gripping surface for actuation of the slide. There are also rear slide serrations. Added to the rear of the slide are patented charging supports. These extend slightly out both sides of the rear of the slide making for easier grasping of the slide in order to retract it. The rear sight is a low snag rear sight that is drift adjustable for windage. The front sight is low profile as well. Coming from the factory, the test and evaluation pistol came with non-radioactive luminescent three dot sights for quicker target acquisition. You may hit the front and rear sights with a flashlight and they will glow for some time. The factory does also offer tritium sights as well. The extractor also functions as a loaded chamber indicator. When loaded, the extractor protrudes outward where the top of the extractor is painted red. If no light is available, the shooter may feel with their right trigger finger the extractor protruding from the side of the frame.

The VP9 uses a striker fired mechanism. This too premiered to the industry in the VP70. But also in the interim was use with the famous H&K P7 series pistol. The P7 went into production in 1976. The trigger mechanism was quite different from the VP70. The P7 was a “squeeze cock” pistol. When the pistol was carried, the striker was not in a cocked position. When the pistol was held, a cocking mechanism or squeeze cock grip located on the frontstrap of the pistol was squeezed into the frame. This retracted the striker to the cocked position. If the cocking mechanism was released, the pistol would decock safely. If the trigger was pulled the pistol would fire. When cocked, the striker would protrude from the rear of the pistol indicating it is cocked. When the cocking mechanism is released, the striker would move inside of the slide indicating the striker was no longer cocked. The similarities between the P7 and the VP9 stop in the fact they both are striker fired with a cocked indicator. The firing operating system is also different from the P7, unlike the blowback operated VP70 and the recoil operated linkless mechanism of the VP9: the P7 is uniquely gas operated – one of the few pistols in the world that are. The VP9 also has a passive firing pin block mechanism. The firing pin block halts the ability of the striker to be able to connect with the primer unless the trigger is pulled all the way to the rear. This is probably the most significant safety enhancement over the VP70. This prevents accidental or unintentional discharge from the pistol being dropped on its muzzle or back of the slide. This was a problem with M1911-type military pistols. If dropped from a minimum of 5 feet on the muzzle, the inertia from the firing pin was enough to set off the primer.

Perhaps the finest selling point of the VP9 is the trigger pull. The trigger does have the trigger safety latch similar to that of the Glock that prevents any rearward trigger movement unless the latch is pulled to the rear to unlock the rearward movement of the trigger. Unlike other striker fired pistols, the VP9 trigger has a shorter, light take up with more of a single action quality with a short positive reset. Most striker fired pistols give a more double action only feel to them. This is not really the case at all with the VP9. The trigger pull on this test and evaluation pistol broke at 5 1/4 pounds. The trigger has consistent pretravel and breaks consistently.

The magazines are similar to the ones found in some of the USP pistols and P30 family of weapons – manufactured from steel with a corrosive resistant finish. For law enforcement, military and those who maintain residence in unrestricted states, the VP9 has a capacity of 15 rounds of 9mm ammunition. For those in states that restrict magazine capacities, magazines are offered in a 10-round capacity. The magazines drop free from the pistol when the magazine release is depressed.

The pistol is covered by the standard Heckler & Koch limited lifetime warranty. This pistol is supposed to be cost effective with long term durability with its cost effectiveness noted when subjected to a total life cycle cost analysis.

The test and evaluation pistol was modified with the large front and back strap to cover the large size hands of the author. The pistol felt rather comfortable. The charging supports did make a difference in the ease of manipulating the slide. There is no doubt that with gloves or in any harsh conditions the slide would be easily manipulated. The slide serrations are easily manipulated with gloves or wet, muddy hands. The ability to tell from the striker hole in the frame if the pistol was in fact cocked was a positive feature. If you are to see red in the hole, you know you have a cocked pistol. The loaded chamber indicator was an excellent addition as well. Being used to Beretta and Glock pistols, it was nice to see this important feature added.

The trigger pull was excellent. It was noticeably shorter and smoother than any of the striker pistols out there. Not saying it was better compared to any particular striker fired pistol but it was different. Any pistol when shot enough, the user will become used to it and learn to manipulate it effectively and accurately. The VP9 certainly had high marks in this area. The short travel made rapid follow-up shots easy and effective.

For reliability the pistol was fired with 500 rounds of Pierce Ammunition 124gr Ball 9x19mm NATO caliber ammunition. There were no misfires or malfunctions. Pierce is a Buffalo-based New York company who has gained reputation for high quality ammunition. Pierce Ammunition is a full service loading facility with ballistic labs for cartridge development. They manufacture a wide variety of calibers as well as numerous loads per caliber. Additionally, several other types of high performance ammunition were tested for reliability. These included Hornady Critical Duty ammunition, Federal Hydra Shok and HST, CCI Gold Dot, Remington Golden Saber as well as Black Hills Ammunition 115gr Barnes TAC-XP in +P configuration. The pistol ran flawlessly regardless as to what ammunition was fed to it. Several types of +P and even some +P+ Winchester Ranger ammunition were also tested. Due to the strength of the polymer frame, higher pressure ammunition did not affect the durability or reliability of the pistol. With a combat pistol, whether it is law enforcement, military or self defense, the pistol must be able to fire anything it is given. The VP9 demonstrated reliability with a wide variety of popular military, law enforcement as well as commercial loads available in the market place today.

Accuracy was more than acceptable. The pistol was primarily fired at 15 yards off hand. Groups were consistently 2 inches. The trigger was exceptional for a striker fired pistol. This aided for sure with accuracy but also with rapid fire. The loaded chamber indicator was easy to use and functioned as advertised. The pistol did not have a magazine disconnect so this worked to its advantage as a combat pistol. Magazine changes were quick. The ambidextrous magazine is actuated and the magazine drops free from the pistol. The cocked indicator at the rear of the slide was certainly an interesting feature. However it was not found to be very useful due to the fact you are concentrating on the sights. When the trigger was pulled you could feel the striker being compressed, which basically gives you the same assurance. The serrations on the slide were very useful under adverse conditions and enabled the user multiple options to actuate the slide. The charging supports were a very nice addition as well.

Perhaps the most appreciated feature of this pistol was the replaceable back strap and side panels. Due to the Sasquatch size hands of this author, many pistols have a fairly small feeling. Having the ability to custom fit the pistol to the shooter’s hands is really a large benefit. The grip angle was comfortable and the distance the slide was from the “beaver tail” of the frame was also perfect. There was no way for the slide to catch the web of the hand of a shooter with large hands.

Will the HK VP9 make for some competition in the American LE market? Well, that is the real question. It appears to be a trend that H&K will bring out a new pistol for the American market (USP) with a emphasis on competitive pricing. The first year or so the processes are in fact competitive but then they begin to creep their way back up making their weapons cost prohibitive for most law enforcement agencies. In 1993, this author bought a brand new USP9 Variant 1 for $609.99 and today this exact same firearm sells for between $800 and $900 for a new USP9. Used ones can be had for the price of the pistol purchased in 1993/1994. Looking at some of the unique features, this pistol is certainly a contender for American LE market. There will be no real interest until the pistol is offered in .40 caliber, then we shall see. There is also a very large trend throughout law enforcement to go back to the old .45 Auto caliber cartridge.

The commercial market will greet the VP9 with open arms. As of this time, this is the most affordable pistol in the H&K line up. There are many shooters out there who really would like to own a H&K pistol but it is way out of their budget. Like with the law enforcement market, I expect the 9x19mm variation to have limited interest but the .40 whenever it comes will be the top seller followed by the .45 Auto variation when it comes available. This author is sure that eventually the market will see many additions to this family of weapons including compact versions. The VP family of pistols will become competition for the Glock series and Smith & Wesson M&P series pistols. Only time will tell if the new H&K pistol will defeat that proven family of weapons.