Like firearms, not all knives are created equally. Just as the 1911, the Browning High-Power, the Uzi, and the Thompson transcended their roles as weapons to become historical icons, the Fairbairn-Sykes dagger, the KA-BAR, and the Gerber Mark II made indelible marks on the history of edged weapons. In the same spirit, one of the most distinctive and recognizable folding knives ever produced is the Spyderco Civilian.

In 1981, Spyderco’s founder, Sal Glesser, single handedly revolutionized the knife industry by defining the modern folding knife. First, he gave it the capability to be deployed quickly and positively with only one hand via his Trademark Round Hole in the blade. To ensure immediate access and make its deployment even quicker, he added a spring clip that keeps the knife poised at the top of the pocket. And finally he supercharged the cutting power of the humble pocketknife by adding scientifically designed serrations to the cutting edge.

Although commonplace now, these features set Spyderco knives well apart from the competition in the early 1980s. They also made them the tools of choice of savvy law enforcement personnel who appreciated them as both reliable tools and potent back-up weapons in officer survival situations. As a direct result of this dedicated law enforcement following, in the late 1980s, Spyderco was approached by agents of a U.S. federal law enforcement agency with a request to produce a special-purpose folding knife. These agents regularly engaged in undercover narcotics operations that made the carry of a traditional sidearm or even a backup pistol impossible. To give themselves a fighting chance if a drug buy went south, they wanted a folding knife that could be easily carried and concealed, but had the capacity to inflict massive damage with simple, gross-motor-skill tactics. They were not trained knife fighters, so they wanted a knife that would transform instinctive offensive and defensive actions into devastating fight-stopping tactics.

The Reverse “S”

Ever a patriot, Spyderco’s founder also enjoys a challenge; so he immediately went to work on the project. His design goals were simple: create a knife that has the capacity to create devastating damage when wielded by a person with minimal training using instinctive gross motor skills. After giving the challenge considerable thought, Glesser looked to nature – specifically the claws and talons of animals – for the solution.

Most conventional knife blades offer two distinctly separate functions: cutting with the edge(s) and piercing with the point. Although some advanced techniques of wielding a knife can effectively combine these two functions, typically they are separate actions.

An animal’s claw, however, operates very differently. Because of its hooked shape, the point of the claw makes contact first, even when powered by a simple gross-motor-skill swing. As the point penetrates, it pulls the target tissue into the concave of its curved shape. This “gathering” action is also similar to the shearing mechanics of the concave edge of a sickle. When translated to a knife blade, the result is an amazingly destructive dynamic that transforms a single, instinctive swing into a deeply penetrating thrust and a powerful shearing cut, all in one motion.

The claw-shaped blade, traditionally known as a “hawkbill” profile, was really nothing new and had been around in various forms for centuries. Although it was a good place to start, it had one major shortcoming: when extended to a longer blade capable of reaching vital targets in the human body, it also became prone to snagging – especially when directed at limbs or other targets with underlying bone. If the point penetrated beyond the bone, the blade hooks on the bone and the cutting action stops. To get the blade back, you must either retract completely and abandon the cut or radically articulate your wrist to contour around the bone. To Glesser, neither of these options was acceptable. Instead, he devised a better solution that combines all the advantages of a hawkbill blade with those of a conventional blade shape. The result was the Reverse “S” blade profile.

Conventional blades cut most efficiently when they make initial contact with the base of the edge (the “heel”) and the entire length of the edge is drawn through the target with constant or increasing pressure. This cutting action uses the full length of the edge and easily contours around bones. Glesser not only combined this cutting dynamic with the advantages of the hawkbill, he accentuated it by curving the heel of the edge outward into a convex shape. The resulting blade shape – an outward curving bade and an inward curving hook near the tip – resembled a backwards letter “S” and was dubbed the Reverse “S” profile. When executed with Spyderco’s scientifically optimized “SpyderEdge” serration pattern, it yielded an amazingly powerful cutting weapon.

The Evolution of the Civilian

The original Spyderco Civilian was released in 1990 and featured a GIN-1 (Gingami-1) stainless steel blade mated to a handle machined from aircraft quality aluminum. The satin-finished handle, which housed the knife’s sturdy back lock mechanism, had textured Kraton rubber inlays for a secure grip and a Kraton-inlaid pocket clip that offered right-side, tip-down carry. The Civilian’s specialized design and sophisticated blade grind were protected by a U.S. design patent and instantly established it as one of the most unusual and distinctive factory knives ever produced. Manufactured by G. Sakai in Japan only in limited quantities, it also became both an instant success and a status symbol among its intended audience of law enforcement officers.

Later versions of the aluminum-handled Civilian featured a gray Tufram handle coating and were made with GIN-1, G-2 (literally another designation for the GIN-1 alloy), and ATS-55 blade steels. The imposing Reverse “S” blades of these knives boasted Spyderco’s fully serrated “SpyderEdge” serration pattern; however, a special run of knives with plain edged blades in GIN-1/G-2 steel was also produced.

In 1992, the Civilian’s revolutionary design was officially recognized by the knife industry. It won the “Imported Knife Design of the Year” award at Blade Magazine’s prestigious Blade Show and International Cutlery Fair and was immediately catapulted to “classic” status.

In 1997, Spyderco simplified the Civilian’s design to make it easier and more economical to produce. Textured black G-10 handle scales and a single stainless steel liner replaced the original aluminum handle construction, and the signature blade profile again progressed through several different steels, including GIN-1/G2, ATS-55, and ultimately VG-10. Like the first-generation version, the G-10-handled Civilian featured a pocket clip configured for right-side, tip-down carry only. Initially, it used Spyderco’s standard 3-screw clip, as found on the classic Police model, but later a “half-moon” clip with a C-shaped base was developed specifically for the Civilian.

Although the G-10 Civilian remained the standard production version of the knife, several upscale variants with carbon fiber scales were also produced, featuring ATS-55 blades, both plain and serrated edges, and in both left and right-handed configurations. The G-10 Civilian also continued its incremental evolution over the years, adding a Boye Dent (a recessed scallop in the lock bar that reduces the possibility of unintentional lock release) and two clip mounting position options for right-side tip-up or tip-down carry. Still an active part of the product line more than 25 years after its initial release, it remains a unique and truly iconic folding knife.

The Matriarch

Although designed specifically for law enforcement, sales of the Civilian were never restricted to that community. As such, it also became popular among civilian self-defense practitioners. During the 1990s, sexual assault was extremely common in South Africa and Spyderco’s distributor there began recommending the Civilian as a personal-defense tool for women. Both the tool and the basic training he provided proved to be very effective, but unfortunately its price and limited production kept it from being available to all who wanted it. To solve that problem, the distributor suggested that Spyderco make a more economical version using the injection-molded fiberglass-reinforced-nylon (FRN) handles they helped pioneer. In 1999, Spyderco combined a hollow-ground Reverse “S” blade with the lightweight FRN handle of their best-selling Endura model to create the Matriarch – an inexpensive folder that offered the same voracious cutting performance as the Civilian.

In the early 2000s, the Matriarch was produced with both black and gray handles before it was ultimately discontinued from the line. In 2010, Spyderco brought it back with a full-flat-ground blade with both plain and fully serrated edges and a brown FRN handle. The brown-handled Matriarchs were produced as a limited-edition “Sprint” run and quickly sold out, but not before reigniting strong public interest in the design.

In response to that demand, Spyderco revamped the Matriarch concept by mating a serrated Reverse “S” blade with the highly evolved handle of their fourth-generation Endura. Unlike the solid FRN of the previous generations, this handle features skeletonized stainless steel liners for increased strength, molded FRN scales with an improved Bi-Directional Texture pattern, and a four-position clip that supports left or right-side tip-up or tip-down carry. Together with the blade’s round hole and the sturdy back lock, the Matriarch 2’s four-position clip supports all possible carry positions and makes every aspect of the knife’s carry, deployment, and operation completely ambidextrous.

The Emerson Opener

One of the disadvantages of a folding knife for personal defense is that it is slower to get into action than a fixed blade. While Spyderco’s round hole certainly speeds up the process by providing a purchase for quick one-handed opening, it still requires a practiced hand to get it right – especially under stress. To offer an even faster option, in 2013, Spyderco introduced a version of the Matriarch 2 featuring an Emerson Opening Feature, commonly known as an Emerson “wave.” This feature consists of an integral hook machined into the spine of the blade, just above the round hole. When the knife is carried tip-up in the pocket, this hook snags the lip of the pocket as it is drawn, automatically opening the blade. Since the blade opens as the knife leaves the pocket and does not require any secondary action, it is significantly faster than conventional one-hand-opening methods.

For many, the Emerson Opener version of the Matriarch 2 defined the ultimate personal-defense folder; but for armed professionals operating in environments where light discipline is a concern, its shiny satin-finished blade still left a lot to be desired. For them, and others who like the idea of “basic black” for their knives, an all-black version with titanium carbonitride-coated blade and hardware was added in 2015.

Size Does Matter

In many jurisdictions, the substantial blade length of the Civilian and Matriarch makes them illegal to carry. To provide a Reverse “S” option for these areas, Spyderco developed the Lil’ Matriarch – a scaled-down version of the concept based on the handle of their popular Delica 4 model. Introduced in 2012, it did not prove to be as popular as its bigger brothers and was discontinued in 2015. Despite its short commercial life, the shorter blade of this compact knife still packed the cutting power of the Reverse “S” profile and makes a potent defensive weapon if you can find one.

The Spyderco Civilian and the other knives of the Reverse “S” family that it inspired are some of the most visually stunning factory folders every produced. They are also incredibly potent personal-defense weapons that really do maximize the cutting power of a small blade through the advanced dynamics of their blades’ sinuous shapes. While no weapon is ever a replacement for sound training, the Civilian and Matriarch have performed as designed on numerous occasions, saving the lives and virtues of their owners when wielded with simple, instinctive combative skills. With that kind of pedigree behind them, they’ve certainly earned their iconic status.

Displayed to the right is the compilation of “Our World” cartoons for Small Arms Review magazine.

By David Lake

To be frank, there really is not much “new” coming to the gun market. The “new models” are frequently just re-packaged “old models.” We see new colors, new caliber choices, new textures and new camouflage patterns all too often. Granted, the manufactures of firearms and accessories for such are in the business of selling us product. It is an industry that fuels our hobby and profession and we consumers value our freedom to choose.

The AR-15 rifle is certainly not new. Though our generation has put it through the grinder, we have replaced and reengineered every part of the original system. This proliferation and variation has produced a fault to the original idea of the AR-15: parts compatibility. Too many companies are taking liberties with the design and function of the AR-15 and the components made for it. Much of what we have today is not reverse compatible with the AR-15 of old. Much of what we have to choose from on the accessory market is not compatible with current production AR-15s. This goes directly against the central idea and focus of the original designers, Stoner and Sullivan. The AR was created to be a modular system; a rifle that could be assembled without the need for any tuning or adjustment or fitting between parts. The gun would be infinitely repairable. This basic design rule is what has fostered the explosion of aftermarket upgrades and bolt-on enhancements.

Make no mistake, there needs to be constant advances and continual progress in technology and application. There is a company called American Built Arms (ABA) that has found the balance. They are able to maintain very strict standards of quality and consistency while carefully incorporating modern ideas and technology into their product, without compromising utility or purpose. A prime example of ABA’s abilities would be their artfully crafted Bolt Carrier Group. Its back to basics execution is actually held to original Mil-Spec dimensions but with more stringent tolerances. Tolerances today can be held to higher level of precision due to premium machinery and manufacturing processes. The surface coatings meet or exceed wear and abrasion and failure callouts from the old M16’s requirements. In fact, the high performance coating used on the bolt and cam pin, called Nickel Boron, has been used in aerospace and auto racing applications on high heat and high wear componentry. It’s more lubricious than hard chrome, and can be applied to very exact tolerances. Nickel Boron will also allow a rifle to be used without lubrication (this claim is neither supported nor denied by Small Arms Review). The bolt carrier itself has been given a smooth phosphate coating. One other point of interest is that ABA had chosen to add some weight to the carrier. This is a welcome improvement. The AR-15 of late has become an imbalanced system as we continue to change barrel length and gas port location, surface treatment, dimensional tolerance and caliber variation. One remedy for many of these problems we ourselves have created is the use of increasingly heavy buffers. In order to suit the needs of the many, ABA has made the carrier slightly heavier to improve function in the modern AR-15. It makes sense that if you know your customers have to buy H and H2 buffers, give them the weight they need.

The bolt group given us by American Built Arms spent 4 months in a rental M4 at a local training range. This rifle got used and abused. It was properly mistreated and rarely cleaned, if ever. Over a service span of an estimated 6,000 rounds, we have nothing to report. No news is good news.

The American Built Arms bolt group should be on your list of necessary upgrades to the AR-15. Without taking away from the genius of the original, ABA has truly improved the AR-15. Individuals and manufacturers alike should put this bolt group in their rifle.

Bolt
Carpenter 158 steel
Heat treated per Mil-Spec requirements
Shot Peened per Mil-Spec requirements
MPI tested material
Nickel Boron coated

Bolt Carrier
8620 Steel
Phosphate coated
Chrome lined bore
M16 style with more mass for better
functioning in semi or full auto rifles

Extractor
Aircraft quality E4140 steel
Heat treated per Mil-Spec requirements
Shot peened per Mil-Spec requirements
Manganese Phosphate Coated per
Mil-Spec requirements

Gas Key
4130 steel
Black Nitride
Gas Key Screws – 4140 steel properly staked per Mil-Spec requirements

Firing Pin
AISI 8740 steel
Chrome coated

Cam Pin
4340 steel
Heat treated per Mil-Spec requirements
Nickel Boron coated

By Dan Shea

SADJ has known and covered the products from U.S. Ordnance in Reno, Nevada for many years. Their US MK43 Mod 0 (M60E4) machine gun is state-of-the-art and the M2HB .50 caliber machine gun from their shops is known around the world for its quality. Over the last few years, U.S. Ordnance founder Curtis Debord, Sr. and Sales & Marketing Vice President Steve Helzer have been traveling to more and more countries with their products and, after many customer requests, decided to begin manufacturing the famous MAG 58, with U.S. M240 features incorporated. Wanting an outside observer, U.S. Ordnance asked SADJ to cover a full military specification style testing regimen. After we finished the full M240 testing, we started talking about the upcoming M60E6 machine gun.

Since the Danish Army has now fully adopted the M60E6, we decided it was time to bring this innovative and well thought out machine gun to our readers. We showed up with our woolies and repeated our foray into the cold Reno winter air and put the hammer down on two versions of U.S. Ordnance’s M60E6… and were pleasantly surprised.

The M60 General Purpose Machine Gun (the “Pig” in ‘Nam talk) was born in the post-World War II era and was actually inspired by the German MG42 machine gun, among other designs. The U.S. government was looking for a replacement for both the M1918A2 BAR and the M1919A4 LMG. Both weapons were very reliable and had served well in training and combat for 30 years. Both the Ordnance Board and Aberdeen Proving Ground had noted the advantages of some of the lighter weight weapons made by the Germans; notably the MG42 and FG42 machine guns, and began experimenting. Students of historical firearms will of course recognize the operating system of the Lewis machine gun as well. The first forebears of the M60 were somewhat odd designs in .30-06 caliber, and by 1951 the M60 GPMG was born as the T161. (Many of the tests, designs, and photos of these early M60s are archived online at www.smallarmsreview.com). Interestingly, there are a small number of these T161 machine guns registered in the civilian community in the U.S. It wasn’t until 1957 that the M60 was adopted into service by the U.S. Army, in caliber 7.62x51mm, as the Squad Automatic Weapon that paralleled the M14 rifle in caliber. Now, the service had maintained a battle rifle and machine gun in the same caliber.

This author has had the pleasure of meeting and interviewing some of the designers of the M60 back in the 1980s, and gained some insight into the thought process and requirement that the designers went through. One engineer explained that the M60 was designed as a modular system in which parts could be easily replaced and the receiver had a life that was specified to be 100,000 rounds. All military firearms have life cycles that are assigned to them, and these are expected replacement points. For example, the M249 receiver has a stated life of 50,000 rounds, and the M240 receiver is 60,000 rounds. The technical specifications on the M60 called for a 60,000 round life, but the designers had targeted 100,000 rounds. There are cases where the robust yet heavier M240 machine guns are known to have fired in excess of 2 million rounds without receiver repair, and the M60 had a receiver stretch gage issued to armorers. During the Vietnam War, U.S. troops gradually integrated the M60 into the fighting units but one tactic evolved that the designers had never foreseen: door gun use on helicopters as daily duty. It was not unusual for an M60 to be used on daily missions where the treelines around perimeters would be pounded for 5-6,000 rounds in a day before landing in an LZ. Clearly, many of these M60s would be facing terminal life at a month’s use, but they soldiered on. Quite a few of these worn out guns were donated to Central American fighters in the 1980s, and this has led to legends about how “Bad” the M60 was. The fact is, the M60 GPMG was a very reliable machine gun, and while it had its problems, it was quite popular and faithful to the machine gunner who kept it clean and properly lubed. Speaking as someone with long experience with the M60, this author can state without hesitation that the M60 was much easier to field. The rounded edges and lighter weight than its predecessor M1919A6, or the M240 that succeeded it, made it far more comfortable to carry, and it was simpler to work on in the field and operate under fire than the M1919A6. Of course, the M1918A2 was an Automatic Rifleman’s weapon in a squad, limited to 20-round magazines, so even though the M60 was to replace it as well as the M1919A6, it truly was used in a different role.

In the 1980s, Saco Defense (manufacturers of the M60 included Springfield Armory and the variations of Maremont Corporation, ending with General Dynamics) was involved in some JSSAP upgrade programs, and the “E3” was born. A lot of reliability changes were made, but one change that was global in effect on the system was moving the bipod from the barrel to the receiver group. It was a nightmare to try to change the barrel on the “Pig” under fire, keeping a low profile, because the weapon had to be supported and moved off of the bipod and a new barrel installed. This is why most operators report that they never changed a barrel in a firefight (although, to be honest, very few operators on a small unit level will EVER change a barrel in a firefight; it’s lost time and not something you think about in the heat of battle). With the advent of the M60E3, this changed. Another important modification was that in the E3 top cover, the feed cam was changed so that the cover could be closed with the bolt forward and then charged. With the old M60, the bolt had to be to the rear in order to close the top cover. Third, the E3 added a two notch operating rod; the second notch was intended to stop the “runaway gun” syndrome with underpowered ammo or when the M60 got very dirty inside.

The E3 was accepted, and upgrade programs began, yet by the 1990s the M240G and M240B were adopted and put into service, with a smaller caliber M249 “SAW” adopted as a belt fed automatic rifle at squad level in the U.S. Army and USMC. The M60E4 was the new competing generation, but it experienced a higher rate of rounds between failures than the M240, thus the services were willing to take the higher weight and length of the M240 series over the M60. (Note that this M60E4 was NOT the same as the M60E4 that is made by U.S. Ordnance today; U.S. Ordnance has a much better design and reliability record on theirs). The M60E4 was adopted in the 1990s by NAVSPECWAR for the Navy SEALS as the MK43 Mod 0, and with its shorter barrel and overall size and weight, has served reliably for over 20 years.

There are literally tens of thousands of M60 GPMG and M60E3 machine guns in service worldwide today. These modular weapon systems are getting tired, and the countries that have them in service are generally looking at replacement programs.

This has driven the duality of our Mil-Spec test design. With the adoption of the M60E6 by the Danish Army, a major Western military has now moved to the newest evolution, so SADJ decided that not only was it time to get this full testing done, but to add the upgraded M60 to the test and run it in parallel. The market for the M60E6 is not just new buyers, it’s complete upgrades to existing inventories in many countries.

As noted, U.S. Ordnance, the subject of this article, has been a military contractor for several decades, and supplies the U.S. M60E4 and U.S. MK43 Mod 0 machine guns, as well as the U.S. M2HB .50 caliber machine gun and a new quick-change barrel M2A2 variant. (We’ll be testing this soon as well). In their new plant in Reno, Nevada, they have the capabilities to manufacture almost any modern weapon system, and the MAG 58/M240 series was a project they recently dove into. That decision was made for them by the many requests from their customers around the world and since the demand was there they would apply their skills to the program and join the market. It was decided not to compete in the U.S. military market as FN Manufacturing and Colt have the longer term contracts; whereas the immediate needs of their foreign customers were an excellent starting point. However, U.S. Ordnance is the manufacturer of the M60 series machine guns and the current counterpart for the U.S. military, so it made economic sense to them to present the E6 upgrade to the U.S. military as well.

U.S. Ordnance has many strong points in their manufacturing capabilities, and they used them all through the production process. The modern U.S. Ordnance plant in Reno, Nevada has almost any capability from R&D to CNC, to “Cutting Chips,” to barrel making, and one of their strongest points is in their heat treating capabilities. They’ve been able to extend the life of many of their parts because of the deep study and knowledge they’ve put into this subject. For example, their operating rod on the M60E4 and E6 programs has a unique longevity for that part due to this knowledge base, and U.S. Ordnance’s induction heat treatment all the way through these parts has had the effect of reducing this wear point significantly. To be honest, it was this particular part that several of us kept checking – all us old M60 guys. That tower on the op rod just gets hammered, and the ones from U.S. Ordnance’s M60E6 program showed no wear at the end of the test. Very impressive, indeed.

This author has been involved with numerous tests over the years, so it was quickly decided to consult with several military and industry testing professionals to work up a regimen that answered the following questions:

1- Is the M60E6 up to Mil-Spec?
2- Will it perform through a U.S. Mil-Spec test?
3- Are the parts interchangeable for full function testing?
4- What are the Mean Rounds Between Failures compared to the old tests?
5- What is the barrel life and how is the dispersion testing?
6- What is the interchangeability with other M60 variants in existing national inventories? Can they be reliably upgraded to E6?

The tests were designed to answer these questions in a proficient and comprehensive manner. We invite our readers to understand that while this type of test sounds like fun, it is in fact a grueling and demanding task with many hours and many people working to keep the details in order to not invalidate the terms of the test. Since we know that U.S. Ordnance’s 100,000 square foot facility is ISO 9001:2008 certified, and are familiar with the production facility, we just went right to getting answers to the questions about the new M60E6.

One of the best ways to check on a production line’s quality control is to switch out the parts on different units and test them. Interchangeability is critical in a machine gun and it was decided to do this test indoors at the U.S. Ordnance facility instead of on the range. Several weapons were disassembled and interchanged, and function testing was fine. This is what was expected from a combat production weapon – that the parts will interchange and function without fitting or modification. U.S. Ordnance has over 15 years of experience as a company and the management/engineering team has experience going back to the 1970s; so this was no surprise and indicated to customers that they can have confidence in these weapons regarding the supply chain. Parts to U.S. Ordnance guns will work in any of their production weapons. This author has seen parts for machine guns made all over the world, and recommends that the end user gain his supply of spares from the Original Equipment Manufacturer, especially an OEM like U.S. Ordnance with very high quality control.

Perhaps more important to our test, was taking an original Maremont M60 GPMG and stripping it to the receiver, gaging it, and rebuilding it with modern U.S. Ordnance M60E6 parts.

The point of our test was to hammer down on a production E6, and an original “Pig” upgraded to the M60E6 form, and to do this in parallel at the range: Nose to nose, so to speak.

In addition to testing of 100 rounds per minute at intervals and 200 rounds per minute in sustained fire, there is a new test called “Hasty Defense.” This new protocol that USMC and Big Army are planning to implement is 1 minute firing at the cyclic rate of the weapon. In the case of the M60E6, that would be a 650-round continuous burst. Since we were using lightweight barrels, an adjustment had to be made for safety’s sake. We moved Hasty Defense to a 400 round sustained burst.

We chose to fire the Hasty Defense test as part of the main test at the very end of the test. Because of their work with the M60 series machine guns and M2HB machine guns, U.S. Ordnance has Stellite lining capability in-house and the E6 barrels were Stellite lined. Thus, before the final accuracy testing, we chose to “put the hammer down” and end with 400-round bursts. We’re trying to beat on these weapons in a methodical, repeatable test, and find out what they can handle.

Army TM9-1005-224-10, the Operator’s Manual for the M60 GPMG, calls for the following rates of fire:

Sustained: 100 RDS/M (4-5 seconds between burst) – Change barrel every 10 minutes.
Rapid: 200 RDS/M (2-3 seconds between burst) – Change barrel every 2 minutes.

What this Operator Manual describes is not a Mil-Spec “Test,” it’s simply the recommendation for the user for his barrel change times. Additionally, there is the “Hasty Defense” test previously mentioned. We chose to intersperse the Sustained and Rapid rates of fire throughout the tests, to achieve a more homogenous result on both weapons and simulate the changing rates of fire found in real use.

The Main Test: 25,000 rounds through each of two U.S. Ordnance M60E6s

The real benchmark to reach for is reliability. In U.S. government test wording: The machine gun shall demonstrate a Mean Round Between Stoppage (MRBS) of 7,500 rounds and a Mean Round Between Failure (MRBF) of 25,000 rounds over a minimum receiver service life of 50,000 rounds. Barrel life shall be 15,000 rounds minimum. This is a pretty aggressive protocol. As an example, while the U.S. Government specifies this, the results of the 1994 competition between the Saco Defense M60E4 and the FN M240 were more realistic: the M60 had 846 Mean Rounds Between Stoppages and 1,669 Mean Rounds Between Failures, while the M240 (which was adopted) had 2,962 Mean Rounds Between Stoppages and 6,442 Mean Rounds Between Failures. Neither weapon achieved this mythical MRBS or MRBF number.

While the M240 appeared about three times as reliable in these early tests, it’s important to remember that these weapons had very different end uses in mind and the M60E4 was a much lighter and smaller weapon and the E4 variant was not fully evolved. The U.S. Ordnance M60E6 was a much better contender in our tests, as the reader will note below.

In order to properly do the testing, a series of firings at set intervals were to be done with the two M60E6 machine guns; one off the combat production line from U.S. Ordnance, the other an upgraded Maremont M60. These machine guns would have to undergo the grueling test until they each reached 25,000 rounds, and the testers would have to rigidly observe firing, cleaning, and parts replacement requirements from the test protocol. Grueling on the testers as well…

Once the testing started, the protocol had to be observed. Barrel temperature had to be kept within certain ranges, and burst firing had to be kept to the details of the test. We found that the barrels needed to be cooled to about 100 degrees F in order to stay within our barrel change guidelines. Each M60E6 was supplied with three barrels and U.S. Ordnance had designed an air cooling system for forcing air through the barrels to shorten the process between firings. None of the testers like the idea of cooling barrels in water during a test like this.

The test protocol was the same as used by the U.S. military with some modifications due to the weather:

We used Mil-Spec 7.62x51mm NATO M80 ball ammunition linked 4 ball to one tracer (M62), in 200-round belts. This ammunition was Malaysian manufacture in the 1970s and both U.S. Ordnance and this author have used this ammunition extensively and found it to be extremely reliable. Due to recent lack of ammunition from the main U.S. manufacturers and the long delivery times, we opted to use this ammunition. Unfortunately, this ammunition is reaching the end of its life cycle and a number of ammunition related failures were experienced. (Primer and powder have definite lives defined by their chemistry; depending on how it’s stored relates to longevity). Since these failures to extract or fire, and some double feeds were readily identifiable as ammunition related, they do not count towards MRBS and MRBS. As a test matter to prove that theory, at the 12,000 round point, we switched to 2000s manufacture Lake City ammunition for 1,000 rounds and experienced no problems (but did note an increased cyclic rate).

Accuracy testing was performed at rounds 1, 10,000, 20,000, and 25,000. The first tests had a 5.5 inch spread on 8 rounds at 100 meters range. By the end of the testing, one set of barrels showed a 6.5 inch spread, the other set was 8 inches. A very acceptable performance and we were all pleased with this result and did not consider this
a serious degradation.

Many U.S. Ordnance employees are retired or former military. It is a company policy to draw as many veterans into their workforce as possible. This not only works towards their company culture, it is a big “thank you” from U.S. Ordnance to the veterans, and it ensures that the people building the weapons know a lot about those weapons. Jerry Pierson, Retired USMC Infantry Gunnery Sergeant at U.S. Ordnance, and a retired USMC Infantryman, described the production protocol that U.S. Ordnance goes through before shipping machine guns: “In production, accuracy on all raw barrels is checked from a fixture fired 10 rounds, then the barrels go to finish. Then, each barrel is tested on the actual gun for function, 50 rounds per barrel. Then, the gun is tested with 10 lb. belt pull firing 5 rounds simulating lifting a 200 round standard ammo can’s worth. In each shipment of 100-300 guns, one is randomly selected and removed for 1,000 round full test and inspection.” That should explain the quality checks that are being done, and reassure the
customer on that issue.

On to the Live Fire

Our firing rates were defined as follows:

200 rounds “slow” was a 7 round burst, then wait 10 seconds and repeat up to 200 rounds then change barrels and move to “Fast.”
200 rounds “Fast” was a 7 round burst, then wait 3 seconds and repeat up to 200 rounds, then change barrels and move to “Slow” again.
We marked the barrels M for the upgraded Maremont gun, O was for the new U.S. Ordnance made gun. This allowed us to keep the test parts with the proper M60E6s.
At 2,500 rounds, each gun was broken down for a quick field strip and general inspection, light cleaning and lube.
At 5,000 rounds, 10,000 rounds, 15,000 rounds, and 20,000 rounds, a full cleaning was done with inspection and minor parts replacement scheduled if needed.
At 10,000 rounds and 20,000 rounds, certain parts were scheduled to be replaced and this was done. These parts were: ejector, extractor, and the firing pin and recoil springs. This is
protocol, and we adhered to it as all testers do.

The U.S. Ordnance manufactured M60E6 experienced a few ammunition related problems; and one instance of an extractor that was replaced with a field extractor which had a problem (not a new extractor). At 20,100 rounds, part of a case broke off and blocked the bolt. Still, that’s an ammunition issue but we called this a Stoppage. In all, we had two stoppages in the U.S. Ordnance manufactured firearm, and no failures.

The Maremont upgraded M60E6 had some problems with the ammunition, until a lubrication schedule was instituted and extractor replaced. At 16,000 rounds, there was a small parts breakage on the right rear tower on the operating rod: the firearm kept running, but the part was replaced at this point. The only real stoppage attributable to the weapon was at 23,801 rounds; the extractor broke and was quickly replaced.

Mean Rounds Between Stoppages (MRBS) is determined by dividing the total number of rounds fired by the total number of stoppages. “A stoppage is defined as any unplanned cessation in firing or the inability to commence or cease firing attributable to the gun. All incidents shall be recorded and any considered as not chargeable to the machine gun shall be substantiated by the contractor.” During testing on the U.S. Ordnance manufactured M60E6, we had 6 total stoppages that were properly attributed to the ammunition. Ammunition issues (failure of ammunition) do not count in this type of test. We had one stoppage attributable to a part failure. The math on that is: 25,000/2=12,500. That’s 12,500 Mean Rounds Between Stoppages. For the upgraded Maremont gun, we had 14 total stoppages that were properly attributed to the ammunition. We had two stoppages attributable to a part failure. The math on that is: 25,000/3=8,334. That’s 8,334 Mean Rounds Between Stoppages.

Result? The U.S. Ordnance manufactured M60E6 system outperformed the U.S. specification of 7,500 Mean Rounds Between Stoppages by a factor of 1.5. The Maremont M60 upgraded to the M60E6 system outperformed the U.S. specification of 7,500 Mean Rounds Between Stoppages by a factor of 1.12. That’s outstanding and beats the old test data from 1994.

Mean Rounds Between Failures (MRBF). MRBF is determined by dividing the total number of rounds fired by the total number of failures. “A failure is defined as any stoppage which involves part replacement or requires in excess of one minute to correct; or involves any failed or damaged part detected during scheduled preventive maintenance, the replacement of which is not authorized at the crew or organizational level of maintenance as prescribed by Source Maintenance Recoverability Code and TM-9-1005-313-23P.” The MRBF numbers are the same as for Stoppages, since we only experienced ammunition related problems.

We’ve already mentioned the capabilities that U.S. Ordnance has at their facility. It’s necessary when supplying military grade firearms to stick to a specification for manufacturing process. However, there will be certain procedures that can be changed to produce a more durable product, as long as the R&D and production teams know what the issues involved downstream are.

U.S. Ordnance wanted to ensure full compatibility with all mounts and accessories, so the M60E6 will mount onto all M60, M60E3, M60E4 mounts, and will accept the M60D spade grip configuration, although if “D-grips” are the plan, it’s best to order M60D to begin with.

MIL-SPEC TESTING AVAILABLE

If you are a manufacturer of military weapons and want to have an unbiased test designed and performed for you, Small Arms Defense Journal can help. Our Editor-in-Chief Dan Shea will assist with this and explain protocols, help design the test system, and evaluate the costs. Contact us at info@sadefensejournal.com for further information.

U.S. ORDNANCE, INC.
300 Sydney Drive
McCarran, NV 89434
United States of America
www.usord.com
Tel: 775.343.1320
Fax: 775.343.1331
Sales: sales@usord.com
Marketing: marketing@usord.com
Support: support@usord.com
Training: training@usord.com

Photos by Shay Swetech
FFECREATIVE.COM
www.smallarmsreview.com

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

ATF’s Proposed Framework for Armor Piercing Ammunition Exemptions: What Happens Next?

There has been a lot of interest and media attention focused on a document the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) published in February 2015 relating to armor piercing ammunition. In this document, ATF proposed a framework for processing requests seeking exemptions from the restrictions imposed on armor piercing ammunition by the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). After receiving over 80,000 comments on its proposal, ATF announced on March 10, 2015, that the agency would not, at that time, announce a final decision on the standards for acting on exemption requests. The announcement, posted on ATF’s website at https://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2015-03-021015-advisory-notice-those-commenting-armor-piercing-ammunition-exemption-framework.html, states in part: “Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve further study. Accordingly,bATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework.”

Given the swift and widespread condemnation of ATF’s proposal in the firearms community and Congress, it is not surprising the agency was stopped in its tracks. This article will explain the proposal, the reaction to the proposal, and what ATF may do in the future on the armor piercing ammunition issue.

The Statute and Background

Ammunition capable of penetrating body armor was originally designed and manufactured for the military and law enforcement, not for use by the general public. Beginning in the late 1970s, however, law enforcement organizations became concerned that armor piercing ammunition had been introduced in the commercial market and therefore posed a threat to police officers. Legislation was introduced in Congress to address this threat.

Congress debated the restrictions on armor piercing ammunition for several years before passing a bill. Congress considered several approaches to regulating the so-called “cop killer bullets,” including a performance-based test that would have required ATF to test and evaluate ammunition to determine whether it would in fact defeat Level II body armor used most often by law enforcement officers. Congressional hearings indicate the Administration opposed performance-based testing, as virtually any rifle cartridge and a number of handgun cartridges will defeat Level II body armor. The Administration also believed that performance-based testing would require establishment of extensive testing criteria, be costly to administer, and likely be the subject of litigation. Bills requiring performance-based testing were dropped in favor of the composition-based test enacted in 1986 by the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-408).

As enacted by the 1986 legislation, the GCA prohibits the manufacture and importation of armor piercing ammunition (with exceptions for law enforcement and the military) and the distribution by manufacturers, importers, and dealers of such ammunition. The statute does not, however, make armor piercing ammunition contraband, as it is not unlawful for unlicensed persons to possess armor piercing ammunition. The GCA and implementing regulations impose marking requirements on armor piercing ammunition, including painting or dying the exterior of the projectile with an opaque black coloring and labeling the exterior packaging with the words “ARMOR PIERCING.” The law also imposes record keeping requirements on manufacturers, importers, and dealers in armor piercing ammunition.

The statute defines “armor piercing ammunition” in pertinent part as a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium. Only those rounds that can be chambered and fired from a handgun are subject to regulation. In 1986, when the bill passed, there were relatively few rifle cartridges with steel or other specified hard metal projectiles that could also be fired in a handgun. Indeed, ATF’s official list of “armor piercing ammunition” in 1988 contained only 12 cartridges.

The GCA at Section 921(a)(17)(C) gives the Attorney General the authority to exempt from the definition any projectile which he finds is “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.” In 1986, ATF used this authority to exempt 5.56mm (.223) SS109 and M855 “green tip” ammunition containing a steel core. In 1992 ATF used the sporting purposes exemption again to grant a request to exempt .30-06 M2 AP cartridges.

From 1992 until 2011, the armor piercing ammunition provisions of the GCA received little attention. However, the growing popularity of handguns built on rifle receivers, most notably the AR-15 receiver, resulted in a large number of rounds originally designed for rifles becoming rounds that “may be used in a handgun.” Such rounds that include a projectile made with one of the specified metals became regulated as “armor piercing ammunition” as soon as a handgun chambering the ammunition was introduced in commercial channels.

Exemption Requests

In 2011 ATF received approximately 20 requests for exemption, and that number subsequently grew to over 30 requests.

The reasons for the influx of exemption requests include pressure on the ammunition industry to produce alternatives to lead ammunition, as well as increased production of handguns designed to use conventional rifle ammunition. Even though the ammunition was originally produced for rifles, the fact the rounds can be used in a handgun brings the ammunition within the language of the statutory definition. Consequently, manufacturers of the ammunition requested exemptions so they may lawfully manufacture and distribute the ammunition in commercial channels.

Between 2011 and 2015, ATF solicited input from manufacturers and importers of ammunition, trade associations, sporting organizations, law enforcement and other interested non-governmental organizations on how the sporting purposes exemption should be interpreted.

The firearms and ammunition industries recommended ATF interpret the exemption language to make the manufacturer’s subjective intent controlling. Therefore, if the manufacturer designed and intended the ammunition to be used primarily in rifles for hunting or target shooting, then the fact the ammunition could also be used in handguns should be irrelevant. This approach would result in all the exemption
requests being granted.

By contrast, law enforcement representatives urged ATF to consider the intent of the criminal who uses armor piercing ammunition when interpreting the statutory exemption language. If ammunition containing a steel or other specified metal projectile was used in a handgun – the type of firearm most frequently used by criminals – then, from a law enforcement perspective, the manufacturer’s intent that it be used only for hunting or target shooting is irrelevant. Law enforcement representatives contended the availability of handguns capable of using the armor piercing ammunition creates a potential for diversion to criminals who could use the ammunition in handguns to defeat police body armor; the very threat the 1986 legislation was intended to address.

It was not until February 2015 that ATF finally published its proposal for addressing the armor piercing ammunition exemption requests.

ATF Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes Within the Meaning of 18
U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C)

ATF’s framework emphasized the importance of interpreting the statute in a manner that carries out its goal of protecting law enforcement officers from death or injury from criminal use of handgun ammunition capable of penetrating soft body armor. The agency concluded a specific projectile does not pose a significant threat to law enforcement officers only if the projectile is “primarily intended” for use in shooting sports and is unlikely to be encountered by law enforcement officers on the streets.

In assessing the competing views of law enforcement and members of the firearms and ammunition industries, ATF looked to the plain language of the statute and the statutory framework and found, its view, primary support for the law enforcement perspective in defining “armor piercing ammunition.” ATF provided the following justification for its reasoning: “It would make little sense for Congress to reject an approach focusing on a manufacturer’s design and intent to qualify the ammunition as armor piercing, and for the Attorney General to then exempt out ammunition based on such design and intent. In short, that approach would render the restrictions on armor piercing essentially ineffective, applying only to the small body of ammunition specifically created for the military – a result Congress clearly did not intend.”

In interpreting the “primarily intended” language, ATF considers the most relevant intent as that of a criminal who seeks to use armor piercing ammunition. According to ATF, the manufacturer’s intent that the ammunition be used for hunting or target shooting is irrelevant if the ammunition can be diverted to criminals to defeat soft body armor worn by police officers. For this reason ATF rejected adopting an interpretation that allows the manufacturer’s intent to be dispositive. ATF stated it is appropriate to consider the likely use of a particular type of ammunition in the general community, which leads to consideration of the types of handguns readily available to accept that ammunition. In other words, the characteristics of the handguns in which a specific projectile may be used will determine that projectile’s likely use in the community.

The framework set forth two categories of projectiles which would be eligible for exemption under the “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” language. Those projectiles are the following:

1. Category I: .22 Caliber Projectiles

A .22 caliber projectile that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) will be considered to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile weighs 40 grains or less AND is loaded into a rimfire cartridge.

2. Category II: All Other Caliber Projectiles

Except as provided in Category I (.22 caliber rimfire), projectiles that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition will be presumed to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile is loaded into a cartridge for which the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade is a single shot handgun. ATF retains the discretion to deny any application for a “sporting purposes” exemption if substantial evidence exists that the ammunition is not primarily intended for such purposes.

The framework defines “single shot handgun” as a break-open or bolt action handgun that can accept only a single cartridge manually, and does not accept or use a magazine or other ammunition feeding device. The term does not include a pocket pistol or derringer-type firearm.

Impact of ATF’s Framework on Pre-Existing Exemptions

The framework makes it clear that in applying the sporting purposes categories set forth above, the 5.56mm projectile ATF exempted in 1986 will not qualify for an exemption because cartridges containing this projectile may be used in handguns that are not single-shot. These cartridges are commonly used in AR-type handguns that utilize magazines. Accordingly, ATF proposed withdrawing the exemptions for the 5.56mm “green tip” ammunition, including both the SS109 and M855 cartridges.

ATF noted in the framework that this ammunition is widely available to the public and that, once the exemption is withdrawn, manufacturers would not be able to produce it, importers could not lawfully import it, and distribution by manufacturers and importers would be unlawful. ATF specifically sought comments from all interested parties on how to implement withdrawal of the exemption to minimize disruption to industry members while maximizing officer safety.

Under the criteria proposed in the framework, the exemption for the .30-06 M2 AP cartridges would continue because there are no multi-shot handguns that currently accept such ammunition.

Impact of the Framework on Commercially Available Ammunition

A significant number of cartridges originally manufactured for rifles would not be eligible for the exemption under the criteria proposed in the framework. For example, .223 and 7.62x39mm cartridges would not be exempted due to the availability in commercial channels of AR and AK-type pistols, clearly not single-shot firearms. Projectiles in .430 caliber would also not be exempted due to the availability of .44 magnum handguns which will chamber this ammunition. Finally, .458 bullets, very popular for big game hunting, would not be exempted due to the availability of multi-shot handguns in 45-70 caliber. All of this ammunition would continue to be subject to the restrictions on manufacture, importation, and distribution of armor piercing ammunition.

Reaction to ATF’s Proposed Framework

Reaction to ATF’s proposal was swift and overwhelmingly negative. Some examples of news headlines and commentary include “ATF to Ban Common AR-15 Ammo,” “ATF Move to Ban 5.56 ‘Green Tip’ Ammo Draws Fire,” and “Here’s How the White House is Justifying Trying to Ban Certain Ammo Without Congress.” Some commentary claimed the Obama Administration was attempting to use the armor piercing provisions to ban AR-15-type rifles without legislation.

Members of both houses of the U.S. Congress reacted strongly to the proposed framework, claiming it was inconsistent with the 1986 statute and violated the Second Amendment. The Members of Congress objected to ATF’s proposal to rescind the exemption for the M855 5.56x45mm “green tip” ammunition because it had qualified as sporting for decades and because ATF failed to offer any evidence that the rounds had ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer. The Members of Congress urged ATF to adopt a statutory interpretation that recognized the many legitimate uses Americans make of their firearms, including target practice, hunting, and shooting competitions. There were also allegations that ATF violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it did not publish the framework in the Federal Register, the official journal of the federal government that contains proposed rules and public notices.

Where Will ATF Go from Here?

Given the beating the agency took from industry groups and Congress, it is unlikely ATF will publish another proposal relating to armor piercing ammunition within the near future – particularly not before the 2016 Presidential election. What is unfortunate is the fact that the ammunition manufacturers who submitted exemption requests to ATF remain in a holding pattern while the rounds are still restricted as “armor piercing ammunition.” The ammunition may be lawfully distributed only to law enforcement agencies, the military, and for export. This is a harsh result for the manufacturers and importers who submitted the exemption requests, particularly as ATF’s proposed framework would have resulted in the agency granting a significant number of the requests.

One point worth noting is that ATF is not legally required to publish its interpretation of the exemption language for armor piercing ammunition in the Federal Register in the same manner as a proposed regulation. This is because the framework is an “interpretive rule” that is exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of the APA. ATF published the framework to solicit industry and public comment – a wise decision given the fallout from its proposal. We anticipate the agency will make good on its pledge to publish additional proposals based on the comments received.

Another important fact to consider is that ATF did not “ban” the M855 5.56x45mm cartridge (SS109). Congress banned this round when it enacted the armor piercing ammunition restrictions in 1986, as the round is made with a steel core. ATF immediately acted to exempt the round under the “sporting purposes” exemption and ATF recently published a proposal that, if adopted, would result in withdrawal of the exemption. Because ATF has put the proposal on hold, the M855 cartridge may continue to be lawfully manufactured, imported, and distributed in commercial channels.

Now to the argument that ATF must obtain or cite evidence of a round actually used against law enforcement officers before it classifies the round as armor piercing. Congress deliberately adopted a composition-based test for projectiles that does not take into account the capability of the ammunition to pierce body armor or its misuse against law enforcement officers. Consequently, if ATF were to not classify as armor piercing a round meeting the composition standards of the statute due to a lack of evidence showing misuse, claims could arise that the agency ignored the plain language of the statute.

The last point we wish to make is that it is virtually impossible for ATF to act on the pending exemption requests before it articulates an interpretation of the “sporting purposes” language. Industry members have urged ATF to act on the exemption requests on an ad hoc basis, claiming that a framework was unnecessary for the requests granted in 1986 and 1992 and is unnecessary now. Such an approach, however, would leave the agency vulnerable to legal challenge by any person whose exemption is denied because such denial is “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. Such litigants would have a very good chance of succeeding if ATF fails to articulate a rational basis for its interpretation of the exemption language. Conversely, if ATF grants each and every one of the 30+ exemption requests on the basis that the manufacturer intends the rounds to be used in rifles for traditional sporting purposes, the agency may avoid litigation, but it will incur the wrath of law enforcement and pro-gun control groups. Arguably, then, the only way forward is for ATF to come up with another rationale, publish it for comment, and gauge the reaction. But such approach
will likely take years.

Presumably, as we write this, ATF is reviewing the comments it received to its proposed framework. Perhaps ATF will find a proposal that strikes precisely the right balance between the competing interests of ammunition manufacturers to sell their products and the safety concerns of law enforcement officers. Until ATF finds that balance, manufacturers and importers of cartridges meeting the definition of “armor piercing ammunition” will have a very limited market.

About the authors –

Johanna Reeves is the founding partner of the law firm Reeves & Dola, LLP in Washington, DC (www.reevesdola.com). For more than ten years she has dedicated her practice to advising and representing U.S. companies on compliance matters arising under the federal firearms laws and
U.S. export controls.

Teresa Ficaretta is one of the country’s foremost experts on ATF regulations under the Gun Control Act, the National Firearms Act, the Arms Export Control Act and Federal explosives laws. Before joining Reeves & Dola in 2013, Teresa served as legal counsel to ATF for 26 years, followed by two years as Deputy Assistant Director in Enforcement Programs and Services. They can be reached at (202) 683-4200.

By Chris A. Choat

SureFire Introduces Their newest .30 Suppressor

SureFire, LLC, manufacturer of high-performance illumination tools, suppressors, and tactical products, has begun accepting orders for the latest model in its high-performance line of SOCOM Fast-Attach sound suppressors. The new SOCOM300-SPS is claimed to be the quietest suppressor ever built for .300 Black Out (subsonic and supersonic), .308 and .300 Win. Mag. This versatile suppressor is also very effective in suppressing the 5.56mm cartridge. The SOCOM300-SPS owes its sound-suppressing prowess to highly specialized baffles creating a longer dwell time within the suppressor and achieving unprecedented levels of sound attenuation. The suppressor is constructed of Inconel, an advanced high-temperature alloy, and stainless steel, and it typically adds only 6 inches to the length of a weapon. Computer-controlled welding enhances the suppressor’s overall durability, as does a corrosion-resistant coating of Ionbond DLC and Cerakote ceramic finish. In fact, the SOCOM300 SPS, like all SureFire SOCOM Series suppressors, is durable enough for full-time use and designed to typically outlast the weapon barrel to which it attaches. A precision indexing system ensures that the suppressor mounts to a compatible SureFire SOCOM series adapter, which also serves as a high-performance muzzle brake or flash hider when the weapon is unsuppressed – securely and with perfect alignment every time. This patented no-tools Fast-Attach system also makes the suppressor easy to remove after extended firing because the index tab is located in a low-carbon-buildup area. Like all SureFire SOCOM suppressors, the SOCOM300-SPS produces minimal and consistent point-of-impact shift compared with the unsuppressed weapon, regardless of the number of times the suppressor is attached and detached to and from the weapon. The SOCOM300-SPS suppressor is available in two colors-Black and Dark Earth, and has an MSRP of $1,075. It is available for purchase in states that allow suppressor ownership through authorized SureFire suppressor dealers. For complete product information visit www.surefire.com.

NIKON INTRODUCES NEW P-308 RIFLESCOPE

Nikon has expanded its lineup of precision .308 WIN riflescopes with the introduction of the all-new P-308 4-12×40 BDC 800. The new P-308 riflescope provides shooters with everything they need to hit their target, including a 4-12 magnification, a 40mm objective and fully multicoated lenses to ensure a clear view. The P-308 features Nikon’s popular BDC 800 reticle – a reticle specifically engineered for the .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm NATO round with 168gr HBT Match bullet at 2,680 fps. The P-308 is also fitted with exposed, spring-loaded Instant Zero-Reset Turrets with easy-grip course knurling, which make in-field adjustments easier by allowing shooters to reset their turrets back to zero after sighting-in. This new riflescope offering is waterproof, fogproof and shockproof. The P-308 is also optimized for use with Spot On™ Ballistic Match Technology. The Spot On program provides users with the exact aiming points on any BDC reticle for any load or ammunition at a specific range. Spot On is free online at nikonsportoptics.com/SpotOn, and is now free for mobile devices including iPad®, iPhone® and Android™ platforms. The suggested retail price of the P-308 4-12×40 BDC 800 is $249.95. Like all Nikon riflescopes, the P-308 is backed by Nikon’s Limited Lifetime Warranty.

Browning’s New 4-in-1 Survival Pen

Browning’s new 4-in-1 Survival Pen features an innovative combination of flashlight, cap light, writing pen and a tactical glass breaker with hardened tungsten carbide point. The body of the 4-in-1 Survival Pen is made from rugged aluminum. The pen features a lock on/lock off twist switch to prevent accidental operation of the flashlight and a pocket clip for easy access. The white LED has an effective distance of 22 yards, and four LR41 button batteries give the pen an 8-hour run time. Suggested Retail is $22. For more information on new Browning flashlights for 2015, please visit www.browning.com.

Armalite Introduces New Handguards

In a year full of exciting new product introductions, Armalite has added three new handguards to their list of stand-alone accessories. From the makers of the original AR, these new accessories will help bring your game up to the next level. Available for both the AR-10 and AR-15/M16 platforms, these handguards are backed by 60 years of AR manufacturing experience and are available now. These include the following: 3-Gun Handguard – perfect for those shooters looking for an ultra-light handguard with a slim profile for maximum comfort, minimum weight and fast handling. This handguard is free floating and includes a 2-inch Mil-Std 1913 rail section at the forward 12 o’clock position for mounting of sights and accessories. The KeyMod system is ready for the direct attachment of flashlight mounts, sights, scope mounts, rail panels and doubles as flush cup sling attachment points allowing the shooter to customize the rifle for any environment quickly and easily. It includes a barrel nut and mounting hardware and is available in 12 and 15 inches lengths. The Tactical Handguard – when the mission calls for the perfect combination of light weight gear that is durable enough to hold up under any environment, the Tactical Handguard is ready. This handguard features a full-length Mil-Std 1913 rail at the 12 o’clock position as well as the KeyMod system that is ready for the attachment of accessories or to be used as sling attachment points. It includes a barrel nut and mounting hardware and is available in 12 (AR-10 only) and 15 inches. The Versatile Sporting Rifle Handguard – The unique design of the Versatile Sporting Rifle Handguard is sleek, solid and ready to go from the range to the field at any time. Built for maximum comfort and durability, it features a forward and rear 2-inch Mil-Std 1913 rail at the 12 o’clock position. The KeyMod system at the forward position eliminates the chance of a snag in the field while allowing for the attachment of a sling for easy carry. It includes a barrel nut and mounting hardware and is available in 15 inch lengths. For more information, or to order yours today, visit www.armalite.com.

ARES SCR Rifles

The innovative and patented ARES SCR (Sport Configurable Rifle) is the first of its class of firearms that is not only legal almost anywhere in America, but is the first rifle to successfully combine the traditional lines of a hunting pattern rifle with the modularity of an AR-15 rifle. The ARES SCR blends strength, reliability, accuracy and rugged all-weather characteristics of America’s longest serving infantry rifle with the classic lines of an American sporter. Lightweight, accurate and featuring a Mil-Std 1913 flat top upper receiver that accepts most modern optics, the ARES SCR is designed to perform under the most demanding field, competitive shooting or tactical conditions. The multi-caliber, modular design permits the operator to instantly change calibers in the field by simply pressing two pins and exchanging one upper receiver assembly for another. Designed for optimal configuration, the ARES SCR accepts most Modern Sporting Rifle accessories and parts including magazines, upper receivers, barrels, bolts, handguards and optics, so it can be easily and effectively reconfigured for each individual shooter’s style and activity. Supported by a full line of performance accessories and manufactured of the highest quality aircraft grade alloys by American craftsmen, the weatherproof and dependable ARES SCR will provide a lifetime of accurate shooting pleasure for all Americans. See more at www.aresdefense.com.

KAK and Shockwave Team Up To Create a Superior Pistol Stabilizing System

KAK Industry, a leader in firearms component manufacturing, announces that is has secured the exclusive distribution rights to Shockwave Technologies’ line of Blade pistol stabilizers. KAK also reveals that it has developed a custom buffer tube for the Blade. The class 3 hard-anodized tube features 12 length-adjustment settings. Its anti-rotation and anti-thrust design mean that the Blade stays put without sliding forward or spinning. The tube is flush with the rear of Blade when it’s installed fully forward. When installed fully out, the assembly is incredibly rigid. Being of the castle nut design, the KAK Shockwave tube accepts all carbine buffer systems, Mil-Spec receiver endplates, and aftermarket endplates. These two innovative companies have combined efforts to bring a higher-quality, easier-to-use, more-affordable pistol stabilizing system to the market. KAK Industry will retail Blade pistol stabilizers, KAK Shockwave tubes, and package deals online as well as provide wholesale pricing to Web-based resellers and brick-and-mortar shops. These two new products make for the ultimate in a pistol stabilizing brace. Shockwave will also retail Blade pistol stabilizers, KAK Shockwave tubes, and kits through its website and other Internet channels. For more information you can contact them at www.kakindustry.com or www.shockwavetechnologies.com.

The iconic Lewis gun, invented by American Isaac Lewis, gained its fame in World War I as the then-new concept of a reliable man-portable light machine gun that the Germans nicknamed “The Belgian Rattlesnake.” Originally made in Belgium in 1914 before that country was overrun by Germany, the tooling was taken to England before capture where it was made by B.S.A. (Birmingham Small Arms) company. It was also made later in the United States by Savage Arms Company. But it was the British manufactured gun that saw the most service in World War I and the British who embraced it as a squad automatic weapon. Though ultimately replaced by the Bren gun as the primary light machine gun between the wars, the Lewis gun remained as secondary armament in the British inventory of small arm weapons and continued service well into World War II in many different capacities.

As an interesting aside, prior to U.S. entry into World War I in 1917, the army used some Savage made Lewis guns along the U.S. and Mexican border during that time in 1917, and the U.S Marines trained with the Lewis gun. When the Marines went to France in 1917 attached to the Army’s 2nd Division, the Lewis guns were taken away and the Marines were issued the French Chauchat M1915 in its stead.

Because the Lewis gun saw such wide service in two world wars, and had such an extended service life, gunner’s kits were a necessary accessory to keep them operational in the field. In World War I the gunner’s kit was a simple leather wallet that contained the bare essentials for the gunner. From lessons learned, the World War II era gunner’s kit was far more compete with a larger canvas carrier that allowed the gunner a wider range of field maintenance.

“C” Company, No. 200 Battalion, Machine Gun Corps (Battalion of Death) Belton Park Camp, Grantham, August 1918.

By Robert G. Segel

In July 2014, SAR members participated in a live fire of Vickers machine guns at the Bisley Range in the UK- this was to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the retirement of the Machine Gun Corps. This article can be found online at www.smallarmsreview.com Herein, Robert G. Segel, North American Representative of the Machine Gun Corps Old Comrades Association, tells of the start of the MGC on its 100th Anniversary.

The machine gun was the most deadly weapon of World War I. When the war broke out on August 4, 1914, every British infantry unit had its own machine gun section of two Maxim guns served by one officer and twelve other ranks. The section was divided into two gun teams. The men chosen to serve in the machine gun section were mostly marksmen with the rifle.

Although the machine gun officer had a certain amount of freedom relating to the training of his men, the Battalion machine gunner enjoyed certain privileges. The Commanding Officer of a Unit usually had the first and last word in placing of the guns in actual battle.

In the first year of the war the fire power of the Maxim gun gave vital support to attacking infantry and also in defensive actions. Even so, two Maxim guns supporting a battalion of eight hundred men, often on a wide frontage of varied depth, could not possibly be everywhere at once. The British High Command soon became aware of these limitations and it was decided to form a Corps of Machine Gunners.

The Machine Gun Corps

The Corps was created by Royal Warrant on October 14, 1915, with His Majesty King George V being Colonel-in-Chief. Its Infantry, Cavalry, Motor and Heavy branches grew into formidable self-contained units in every theater of war. The Corps served in France, Flanders, Russia, Italy, Egypt, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Salonica, India, Afghanistan and East Africa. The last unit of the Corps to be disbanded was the Depot at Shorncliffe on July 15, 1922. A total of 170,500 officers and men served in the Corps, which suffered 62,049 casualties of which 13,791 were killed and 48,258 wounded, missing or prisoners of war.

Very soon after the formation of the Machine Gun Corps the Maxim gun was replaced with the Vickers machine gun with the image of two crossed Vickers under the King’s crown being the insignia of the Corps.

The Corps was continually recruiting from picked men. Both as an armed body, and as an association of men, it was therefore unique.

The story of the Machine Gun Corps is a record of front line soldiers, of those who accompanied the first wave of every assault and who remained to cover every retirement. Throughout the war years not a single day passed but saw the members of the Machine Gun Corps in the front line.

Where other Corps and Regiments may have decades’ long records from which to cite their achievements, the Machine Gun Corps is possessed of but three swift years of combat history and only seven years of existence, being disbanded in 1922. These years are an epic of patience, cheerfulness, endurance, loyalty, sacrifice, courage and comradeship. Every month, indeed every day, the Machine Gun Corps had its Waterloo, its Balaclava, and its Rorke’s Drift. It was a Battalion with backs to the wall facing fearful odds, a company filling a breach; even a single gun team of six men, sometimes a single gunner alone among his dead, holding a vital flank.

There was a lad at High Wood with one arm hanging by a thread who carried ammunition to a heavily besieged post.

There was a driver at the Hindenburg Line who, the target for every hostile gun, shot through the stomach and belching blood, toppled his machine gun limber with its precious load of ammunition into a beleaguered line and perished among his mules.

There was a private on the Menin Road who, when officers and N.C.Os had become casualties, took command of his Company, added a Bar to his D.C.M. (Distinguished Conduct Medal) and gained his direct Regular Commission in the Field.

There was a signaler who, on many-times-mended lines, tapped out a message until overwhelmed by attack.

Or the lad at Arras who crept forward in the darkness, captured an enemy stronghold single-handed and turned the German machine gun against the enemy’s line, raking the parapets when the British attack developed at dawn.

There are, too, the records of the missing, whose last history is unknown beyond the tale of the steady staccato of their guns when everyone else had retired.

Thousands of such actions add luster to the history of the Machine Gun Corps.

Machine gunners knew the quality of comradeship: men in sodden Flanders beneath the scourge of Trommel Feuer; troopers who rode shoulder to shoulder at dawn before Damascus; Australian and New Zealanders on the beaches of Gallipoli; South Africans in the carnage of Delville Wood, Canadians cresting the ridge of Vimy. Men from the blue haze of an English countryside; the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh, from heathered hills and smoke-laden cities, wrestling with death on the Somme and Hindenburg line.

Bare-legged boys from shingled coves wading the mud morasses of Passchendaele; those whose cries echoed among the Dorian crags of Salonica and from the rocky peaks of the Khyber; men who found the enemy among the snow-capped heights of the Piave; and those who faced sand storms, thirst and privations in the deserts of Egypt and Mesopotamia.

Those who gripped hands at zero hour, and those who fell in mud and dust and rose no more – men of the Machine Gun Corps knew the quality of comradeship.

In this, the centenary of the formation of the Machine Gun Corps, we must take a moment to reflect upon their heroic deeds and ultimate sacrifices as a tribute to their courage and comradeship.

We shall ever tell the story
How their glory brightly shone,
Who throughout a hell of carnage
Set their teeth and carried on.

(Thanks to C.E. Crutchley for providing a vast amount of history pertaining to the Machine Gun Corps.)

Century C308 with assortment of ancillary gear such as extra magazines, web gear, and optics.

By Todd Burgreen

It is often said imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Century Arms is a major source of U.S. made versions of well known foreign weapons; thus allowing the firearm to be distributed in the US. For example, Century offers semiautomatic sporting versions of AK47s, Sterlings, PSLs, Golanis (Galils), AK74s, and the just introduced C308, which is being reviewed here. The C308 is a roller delayed operating rifle similar in pattern to the Spanish CETME and German HK G3.

The U.S. market is skewed related to foreign born designs due to importation bans and regulations creating artificial shortages. This makes it more worthwhile for Century and other manufacturers to go through the effort at re-creating arms that normally would not be available. A firearm must have enough historical significance, performance capability, and/or price point to generate sales to be worthwhile for a company to undertake the effort at introducing it. The C308 has all three.

The C308 employs a roller delayed blowback operating system that was featured in the legendary German MG42 machine gun and then downsized/tweaked in the closing stages of WWII in the form of the Mauser STG45 assault rifle. The STG45 was slated to replace the granddaddy of all assault rifles, the STG44, because of its simplicity of manufacture resulting in lower cost and greater production potential. The roller delayed STG45 concept was perfected in Spain in the form of CETME courtesy of German engineers who escaped there in the hectic days following WWII. The roller delayed blowback operating system uses recoil forces to manipulate the action and does not rely on gases to operate the weapon. There is no need to tap the barrel to bleed off gas directly into the action or via a piston. This operation method minimizes opportunities for dirt or carbon build up to affect reliability. The design also contributes to accuracy by having the barrel truly free-floated; furthermore the roller delayed blowback system avoids sharp recoil impulses derived from direct gas impingement or operating rod systems. The difference in recoil impulse of a rifle utilizing the roller delayed blowback method versus direct impingement or a gas piston of the same caliber and weight is noticeable.

Century Arms has prior experience with producing U.S. made roller delayed operating rifles with a CETME version and more recently the C93 chambered in 5.56mm. The C93 seems to have benefitted from the prior CETME manufacturing experience in lieu of no “teething” issues apparent in the early production runs of the C93. The 7.62×51/.308 Win. C308 is following this same path. The C308 is a blending of CETME and HK G3 surplus parts combined with new U.S. made PTR stamped receiver and barrel. The chevron flash hider derived from Century’s C39 AK series is installed on the 18 inch barrel via 5/8-24 threads generating an overall length of 40 inches. Total weight is 8.5 pounds. Sights are CETME based consisting of a hood protected front post and CETME style rotating leaf aperture rear sight. The C308 comes with an integral rail on the receiver for mounting of optics. The C308 arrives with two 20-round aluminum G3 magazines and one 5-round magazine. CETME magazines will not work with the rifle. This is not a deal breaker as surplus G3 aluminum or steel magazines can be had for $3-$10.

Century is quick to point out that their roller delayed CETME type rifles experienced quality control issues. Some users raved about their CETME rifles while other raged. The issues resided with receiver manufacturing, mixing of CETME and HK surplus parts kits, and headspacing techniques with the roller delayed bolt. Century decided to redo their roller delayed .308 Win. product line up with the C308 taking advantage of a recent find of surplus CETME parts. Stamped receivers from an experienced U.S. manufacturer, PTR, are used and bolts are culled so as to only use actions with standard delayed roller sizes avoiding worn out parts. All of these decisions simplify quality control and produces a better product benefitting consumers.

The C308’s rear stock is easily removed after pushing out two crosspins. The trigger group dropped away easily allowing for unhindered access to the bore for cleaning. The bolt carrier and recoil spring come out of the back of the receiver once the rear stock is removed and trigger pack lowered. The lack of hot gasses dumping into the action translates into a cooler running bolt. It is not untypical to find lubricant on the bolt carrier even if only applying a small amount before a lengthy firing session.

Accuracy with the C308 was more than acceptable with the open sights producing 2-inch groups at 50 yards. A word here is required about the CETME type sights utilized with the Century C308. The front sight requires a CETME tool to rotate for elevation adjustments as an AR type tool will not fit into the hole provided on top of the hooded front post. The front sight is also used for crude windage adjustment as the front sight is off center and placed on top of an eccentric screw; crude and eccentric being the operative words here. There can be no doubt that the Teutonic mind found CETME sights an aberration with the resultant HK rotating diopter sight the result on the G3. The rear sight has no means of elevation or windage adjustment. The rear sight can be rotated for specific target engagement distances marked on the rotating leafs. The C308 tested herein was sighted in for elevation with no issue. However, rounds could be brought no closer than a couple inches left of center at 100 yards. The receiver rail solves this issue for the American market who are similar to the Germans when it comes to the need to finely tune the iron sights on the rifles.

The C308’s receiver rail was taken advantage of by mounting a Leupold VX-R Patrol 1.25-4x20mm with illuminated Firedot SPR reticle. The SPR reticle is designed for instinctive, close-range/low-magnification situations, yet allows shooters to engage targets with greater precision at longer ranges than generally possible with non-magnified red optic optics or other reticle style low powered scope. With the Leupold mounted, properly sighted centered groups measured 2-3 inches at 100 yards with all ammunition tested. 100 rounds of Century’s HotShot Elite 7.62×51 brass cased 146 grain FMJ was tested with the C308 along with Federal, Black Hills, Wolf and Hornady offerings.

Steel cased ammunition was purposely chosen for use in the C308 along with the more traditional brass type. Generally speaking, steel case ammunition leads to problems with AR-10/AR-15 rifles operating reliably, especially as temperatures rise as volume of fire increases, due to steel’s malleability compared to brass interfacing with the chamber walls. The .308 case has minimal body taper. A quick visual comparison to Russian designed 7.62×39 and 5.45×39 cartridges that were designed to use steel cases illustrates this point with their more tapered case walls. The C308’s fluted chamber eliminates the concern of using steel case ammunition. The fluted chamber is incorporated in roller delayed blowback operation method due to the cartridge extraction process beginning almost as soon as the round is fired. A fluted chamber assists in the reliable extraction of an empty case by utilizing flowing gases to “float” in between case and chamber walls weakening the bond between the case and chamber walls enhancing extraction. Spent casings from the C308 are unmistakable due to the distinctive markings the fluted chamber causes.

The Century C308 operating controls differ from the AR, M1A, FN-FAL, and AK platforms that U.S. shooters are more familiar with. The C308 has a non-reciprocating forward cocking handle on the left side of the forearm. The rifle does not have a hold open feature after the last round is fired. Thus, any reloads starting with “click” or malfunction drills start with locking the action back with the cocking handle via a recess, removing magazine, inserting fresh magazine, releasing cocking handle and back into action.

The Century C308 was evaluated at Echo Valley Training Center (EVTC). In conjunction with the individual training bays, Echo Valley Training Center features multi-stepped target berms that are strewn with reactive steel targets, fluid drained automobiles, and moving targets at ranges varying from 150 to 350 yards. The C308 showed its true promise by performing in EVTC’s Jungle Walk Range engaging multiple targets, but also back at the prepared firing position line with targets placed out to 300 yards. Numerous drills were run involving magazine changes and moving between barricades simulating cover. U.S. P.A.L.M. (Primary Armament & Logistical Manufacturing) and High Speed Gear (HSG) accessories
assisted in T&E.

The US Palm Multi-Platform Attack Rack (MPAR) can accommodate up to six 30-round M4 magazines or up to five 20-round .308 magazines or any other combination of magazines and accessories you may need in a chest rig. The Gen 1 evaluated herein accomplished this via removable divider tabs within the general magazine pouch area. The Gen 2 MPAR achieves this flexibility via magazine inserts. There are two adjustable flap magazine/utility tool/mini smoke pouches as well on the MPAR. The large zippered main pouch can accommodate extra magazines or other larger pieces of gear. The bottom of the MPAR allows access to insert a US Palm custom level IIIA soft armor panel if the user desires. The main purpose of the MPAR is as a chest rig. The MPAR has a one-inch adjustable waist strap with dual side releases and two-inch QD shoulder straps. The MPAR is made from 500d Cordura and uses heavy duty YKK zippers. Available colors are Black, Multicam, OD, Ranger Green, Khaki, and Coyote.

HSG features its own patrol belt labeled as Modular Padded Belt System for use with its TACO magazine pouches. It is the one of the slimmest and sturdiest on the market measuring only .75 inches thick and 4.5 inches tall. The feature that makes it stand apart from other patrol belt designs is the use of Neoprene as padding material. The Neoprene adds a unique “gel” feel to the belt while adding a level of grip keeping it secure to user’s hips. The HSG belt has a removable HDPE stiffener sheet through the entire main portion for added stability where the MOLLE rigging is located. There are three access ports located around the belt for the attachment of subloads directly to the interior belt.

The HSG TACO magazine pouch – for rifle or pistol model – is constructed/assembled from a pouch of nylon, bound tight by shock cord, and given structure and retention by a U-shaped piece of polymer plastic. The ingenious combination of these three elements makes for a magazine pouch imminently adaptable while maintaining retention characteristics. The G3 magazines had no problem fitting inside the HSG TACO pouches. The cord and clip arrangement allows a user to expand and contract the shock cord for different magazine sizes. The HSG TACOs are designed in a way to allow for a full grip on a rifle magazine when extracting from the pouch.

The C308’s roller delayed action and other features share a distinguished pedigree. Roughly speaking, only about 60,000 HK91 rifles were imported before the 1989 Ban, less than 50,000 by HK, which causes them to be priced in the $2,500-$4,000 range depending on condition and accessories that arrive with it. (other accounts have this at approximately 250,000 HK91 imported, but the approximately 60,000 amount is verified). Century has done the right thing by stepping up their manufacturing techniques with the C308 in lieu of their first attempt with the CETME. The one tested here proved a very capable rifle as it was reliable and accurate. The use of magnified optics and red dot sights are the standard norm today. Century’s inclusion of a railed receiver easily accommodating optics is a huge plus that puts it in front of its illustrious German predecessor in this department. The economical and plentiful supply of G3 magazines is another plus. G3 magazines cost even less than the ubiquitous AR-15 magazine. The Century C308 will appeal to many by default due to it not being an AR as well as being chambered in the hard hitting .308 Win. thus offering something distinctive in an AR dominated gun culture.

An assembled prototype fitted with a 7-inch barrel. This PDW is so compact and balanced; the magazine is at the physical center of the gun. Handling and operating a weapon of this level can only be described as instinctive.

By David Lake

By now, Battle Arms Development should be on your radar and in your gun-related vocabulary. If you’re not familiar, then take note right now, Battle Arms Development (BAD) is one of the most forward thinking and capable manufacturers in America’s gun market today. Battle Arms always seems to bring new and improved items to market without much ado – they don’t celebrate every advance in function or ergonomics or performance and they don’t ever seem content to rest on their past achievements; they hold claim on many “firsts” and “bests” in the industry. BAD just continues to hand us really good products on a regular basis and their products never seem to disappoint.

BAD’s latest groundbreaking ideas are focused on the PDW (Personal Defensive Weapon). The PDW, by basic definition, is a carbine but made lighter, smaller, more adaptable and more capable than a standard rifle or carbine. The PDWs from different companies all seem to boast varied advantages. Some are indeed very small in their collapsed state; maybe only slightly larger than a pistol. Some feature calibers that are better suited to short barrels to optimize efficiency and power from a compact weapon. Some PDWs are feather-light and might maintain more common dimension and caliber and capability, but come at a significant weight savings over a typical battle-rifle. Whatever the genesis behind any particular PDW offering, they all seem to come at an inevitable compromise. Something is always given up in order to fulfill the requirements of the end user or target market: be that military, law enforcement, private security, or even the discerning consumer.

Now for some broad and general assertions: The AR-15 is the most widely used small arm (rifle or carbine) by America’s professionals and hobby shooters. Every agency and department has the AR-15. Every soldier and police-officer knows how to use the AR-15. Every citizen that would call himself an enthusiast has at least one AR-15. And every respectable armorer or gunsmith knows this rifle’s function and nuance inside and out. These are irrefutable arguments in favor of the AR-15. Any astute maker of small arms would be unwise to try at changing this trend. Yet, in the race to develop and exploit the growing demand for the PDW, many small arms firms choose to build their PDWs on a new and unfamiliar platform or utilize unproven technology or materials or even introduce new obscure calibers. These specialized calibers can range from the totally ineffective to the economically impossible. Some PDWs utilize pistol calibers, which are just pistols with a buttstock (not a demonstrable improvement). Some PDWs only wear the name as it is assigned and feature none of the qualifying criteria to be considered a proper PDW. Some are even heavier than the basic battle rifle upon which they’re based. The PDW should be an appropriate replacement for both carbine and sidearm without much compromise to the strengths of either. This asks much in the way of power and accuracy. This also demands that the weapon be as light and compact as possible, that the operation is fast and familiar and the construction is rugged and strong. A PDW in the hands of agency or security personnel may never be called upon to fulfill its lethal role. It may live its life and do its duty in total concealment under a vest or coat and must execute this role without becoming an impediment to the agent’s mobility and comfort. But if and when the PDW is taken to task, that weapon must become a decisive and crushing force.

If you have ever tried to decide between the capability of a carbine and the convenience of a sidearm, the PDW solves the problem.

We can believe that when Battle Arms Development steps up to a challenge, they will succeed as the images seen in this article well demonstrate: this is how BAD does the Personal Defensive Weapon. The basic AR-15 has been abbreviated to make it light, compact and concealable while the manual of arms of the ubiquitous AR is maintained. Parts interchangeability and serviceability remains common. Diagnosis and repair of malfunctions can come right from the old manuals. BAD has made improvements wherever possible, yet has not hobbled or otherwise handicapped the AR-15. The PDW presented here represents a collaboration between Battle Arms Development and Cross Machine. The lines that would divide concept, engineering and execution have been blurred over the many months of design, revision and prototyping. Suffice to say, Battle Arms and Cross Machine have been synergistic partners in this project. Herein, we will not discuss the specifics of the upper half, nor the caliber of the BAD PDW. It will be enough to recognize that the upper is short and powerful. The lower and the stock are on parade here today.

At first glance, the obvious “new” on this rifle is the stock’s design. It appears similar to the other PDW style stocks that are becoming increasingly common but, be assured; the only similarity is the purpose of that stock. The design of other PDWs tends to leave a gap under the users cheek when the stock is deployed. These also tend to require a special bolt group that either uses an integral buffer, or a buffer configuration that prevents normal service and disassembly of the rifle. The BAD PDW allows for a solid and proper cheek weld as it features an integral comb of molded textile carbon fiber that bridges that gap. The BAD PDW does require its own unique buffer; but this buffer interfaces with any standard AR-15 or M16 style bolt carrier, and does not alter normal function or operation. The tool steel shafts actually ride on ball bearings and Teflon, so the stock moves and feels like it is, well, on ball bearings and Teflon. And totally new to the market is that this PDW stock is actually part of the receiver. The receiver is created with the stock’s mounting structure machined right in. This saves weight, makes for a stronger and more compact design, and ultimately saves on cost. This is truly unique in the market.

To cater to the needs of the accessory market, BAD has also created an add-on PDW stock with all the advancements and beneficial features of the PDW receiver, but the stock can be attached to any AR-15 lower receiver. The add-on PDW stock assembly is, however, slightly heavier and larger than the integral unit. Both stocks, when collapsed, are the same compact length of 6 inches from the buffer’s face and both use the same specially designed buffer. When fully extended, the add-on stock is 10 inches long and the integral PDW lower will extend to 9.5 inches. The add-on stock, when joined to a receiver, weighs a little over 3 ounces more than the integral receiver.

The fit and finish of both units is perfect. The type 3 hardcoat anodizing is a durable and attractive protective finish. The rods are hardened tool steel that rides in Teflon bushings and are locked into any of 5 positions by steel ball bearings. The stock, when moving, encounters very solid and satisfying “clicks” as the ball bearings snap positively into the detent locations. The hardened locking button is cut on a wire-EDM machine. This locking button can be actuated by the knuckle at the base of the thumb of the “gun hand” while the shooter’s free hand can reach across and position the stock where it may be required. The butt plate is larger and smoother than most other DW stock applications. The most impressive feature of the BAD PDW and accessory stock is both are as solid as any fixed stock on the market. There is no perceptible wobble, shake or rattle in the system. They are expertly designed and crafted with an artist’s pride. Suffice to say that it is an over-achieving piece of engineering and is peerless in execution. Battle Arms assures us that the price of these units will be very competitive with the current offerings for items claiming similar capabilities.

Here at Small Arms Review, we know and recognize the trends in small arms design and development. We have seen them all come and go. We have seen established companies flounder as they refuse to keep up with the times. We have seen promising new startups fail only by their own misplaced enthusiasm. We can authoritatively say that the future will demand unconventional design and the use of advanced materials and a degree of risk taking in small arms design. The consumer is becoming increasingly well-informed and demands that his new gun be something special – and genuinely new. Numbered are the days of cookie cutters and rubber stamps churning out the basic black rifle in a new box with a new name. The new consumer won’t be fooled by yet another “AR.” Battle Arms Development does it right.