After the release of “Lord of the Rings” and “Harry Potter,” movie studios were trying to release their own big fantasy hits. Many of these failed to excite the audiences on that level, including “Eragon” and this month’s film, “The Golden Compass.” It is based on the “His Dark Materials” trilogy, a book series that is known for its anti-Catholic and anti-religious perspectives. Needless to say it was controversial, but there were other problems that helped the film fail at the box office.

One of the characters in the movie is Lee Scoresby, played by Sam Elliott. One of his weapons of choice is a pair of Colt Single Action Army Pistols. Also known as the Colt 45, it is the gun of the cowboy and is one of the greatest handguns of all time. It was tough, easy to use and load and dependable. It shoots the .45 Cartridge, though there are a few other calibers available, like the .38 Colt and the .357 Magnum. To load, simply open the loading gate and pull the hammer back two clicks. For safety reasons, some cowboys would only load five rounds rather than six, because the hammer was always resting on the firing pin.

In 1872, the United States Army held a competition for a new handgun for its soldiers. In the end, it was the Colt that emerged the victor, and a legend was born. It saw action in the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War and was used by range hands, sheriffs, marshals, outlaws and Native American warriors during the golden age of the American West. It was not the only gun in the west, but it became the most iconic, with men like Jesse James, Billy the Kid, Bat Matterson and Buffalo Bill Cody being among the men who used it. Both sides supposedly used it at the gunfight at the O.K. Corral, and it was used by the troopers who rode with Custer at the Little Big Horn.

This gun is popular in movies, especially Westerns. Some of the most memorable films include “Gunfight at the O.K. Corral,” “Tombstone,” “A Fist Full of Dollars,” “Open Range” and “Shanghai Noon.” It is seen in countless John Wayne movies, like “Rio Bravo,” “Rio Grande,” “The Sons of Katie Elder,” “The War Wagon,” “True Grit” (1969), “Rio Lobo,” “The Shootist,” “Fort Apache,” “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon” and “Big Jake.” They were even in more modern themed films like “The Expendables,” “The Expendables 2,” “The Mummy” (1999) and “Red Dawn” (1984). These are all good movies, and I recommend all of them.

“The Golden Compass” is a mixed bag. The effects are well done; however, there are twists that are weird, and the ending battle is actually laughable. The anti-religious themes in the books were not really present in the movie, taken out in order not to offend people. Many critics argue that this hurt the film, but there are other problems with the film that play an equal part in its downfall. Some of the acting is not that good, and there are points of the film that came across as poorly done, especially the ending. If you are interested, check it out, but it just wasn’t for me.

SAR would like to thank the movie wizards at Bapty, Ltd in London, UK, for their help in this article.

It has been a hero’s journey of sorts for the legendary AA-12 “Sledgehammer” automatic shotgun. In literature and mythology, the “hero’s journey” occurs when the protagonist springs from humble beginnings, encounters numerous obstacles, stays in the fight through challenge after challenge and emerges evolved and enhanced. That the hero of this story is steel and polymer versus flesh and blood, makes the story no less compelling.

Sol Invictus Arms, LLC, is a new gun manufacturer located in Melbourne, FL, born of Tactical Superiority, Inc., a multi-million dollar company that builds high-quality OEM parts used in nationally known firearms. The fledgling Sol Invictus will specialize in small arms for law enforcement and military, as well as in resurrecting and updating historic firearms of yesteryear. I had the opportunity to test the AA-12 full-auto and speak with Sol Invictus Arms’ CEO Mike Conn about the semi-auto’s redesign.

The Full-Auto AA-12

Shouldering the AA-12 in its full-auto form is vastly different from swinging up a modern tactical shotgun like the Mossberg 500 or even a bullpup variant like Kel-Tec’s KSG. For starters, the gun is heavy. My biggest initial concern was being able to keep it aloft long enough to shoot. The gun is designed for military use, with stainless steel construction that makes it tough to damage or foul, even under the most adverse conditions. Unfortunately, the military has also balked at the weight issue.

For those of us used to deer or duck hunting with a semi auto or pump shotgun, the AA-12 is truly unique and just a little unnerving. Sure, you’ve read that the recoil is mild but what does that really mean? The AA-12 spits out about 5 rounds per second (or 300 a minute). At that speed, with a drum that holds just 20 rounds, the whole experience is over in a flash, leaving you with a sensation akin to your first intimate physical encounter. You feel a delicious afterglow accompanied by an adrenaline-infused rush of thoughts like, “wait … what? That was cool … I think … .”

The day I shot the AA-12, we were using standard 00 buck shells, but one of the gun’s strengths is that it supports a wide variety of projectiles, including the Frag 12, a high explosive armor-piercing round.

Having shouldered a variety of shotguns over the years, ranging from an Ithaca 10 ga to a Browning Citori 12 ga and a rare Parker 28 ga side-by-side, I understood the kick I might expect and how to nestle the stock into my body for maximum recoil management. The AA-12 doesn’t feel exactly like a hunting shotgun or even a tactical variant. It looks more like a Tommy Gun, with the round drum dangling from its frame (it is, however, also designed to use an 8-round stick magazine) while the gun’s hard synthetic shell gives you a sense of bulk that most shotguns don’t have. The weight is distracting, but only until the shooting starts. Then it becomes an asset that seems to assist in absorbing what should be a significant kick.

When the gun fires, you immediately feel the push-back that is typical of an automatic, but the sharp smack against your shoulder, so familiar to generations of hunters, is oddly absent. Even wearing high heels (I had NOT planned to shoot that day), I stayed easily upright and was able to comfortably lean into my shooting. I shot the gun in two bursts … tentative at first, being a novice at shooting an automatic. But once I confirmed the muzzle was not rising dramatically and that the kick to my shoulder was nothing compared to your average duck hunt, I pressed the trigger with more confidence. While it took only seconds to expend the 20-round drum, the overall experience could best be described as exhilarating. I wanted more. Unfortunately, on that particular day, I was one of about dozen people shooting. My chance came and went.

But it left me eager to not only shoot the full-auto AA-12 at the next available opportunity, but to try out the semi-auto version. Sol Invictus Arms assures me that the recoil and overall operation of the semi-auto version will feel “comparable” to the original model. If that’s true, then the fledgling manufacturer may have more than a one-off successor to a mythical beast—they may have a winner. And, indeed, the story continues to unfold.

The AA-12 Semi-Auto

The new variation of the AA-12 will roll off the production line before 2019; a semi-auto model that combines the fun and ease of the full-auto design (and yes, it is truly a “fun” gun to shoot) with the mass appeal of a semi-auto. Orders are already being taken for this limited run production, according to CEO Mike Conn.

Conn says the AA-12 was a logical project for the company to pursue, given its mythic role in video games such as “Call of Duty,” “Medal of Honor,” “Combat Arms” and “Grand Theft Auto,” in television shows like Justified and Breaking Bad and such films as “GI Joe,” “The Expendables” and “Predator.”

Conn notes the gun was the brainchild of Maxwell George Atchisson—a prolific designer of firearms and firearms accessories—whose original design was dubbed the Atchisson Assault 12 Gauge. The drum-fed automatic shotgun (which can also be stick-fed) spent a number of years as a curiosity, never really living up to its inventor’s vision before Atchisson sold the patent to Jerry Baber’s Military Police Systems in Piney Flats, TN, in 1987. Baber began limited production and eventually brought on board German-born machinist Boje (boy-A) Cornils (cor-neels) who became a co-owner of the AA-12 and is now widely considered to be the genius behind making the legendary gun commercially viable. Working from his shop down the road in Russellville, TN—in a facility that had once repaired Model T’s—Cornils assembled and refined the AA-12s, making over 150 changes and enhancements to the gun, which became legendary for its manageable recoil and maintenance-free performance (Baber claimed that cleaning was only necessary after 10,000 rounds).

Baber served as “front man” for the AA-12, trumpeting its benefits to the world, especially the military community, where he had brief flirtations with the Marine Corps as well as several robotics companies that envisioned a role for the unique firearm in unmanned warfare. Meanwhile, Cornils labored in virtual obscurity, refining the weapon and patenting the parts necessary for the open-bolt and gas-block design which contribute to the shotgun’s robust reliability with the multitude of differing ammo types the platform is designed for. That, coupled with the gun’s recoil spring design, which absorbs significantly more kick than the average shotgun, serve as a testament to Boje’s engineering skills.

While Cornils’ lack of name attribution on the AA-12 redesign may have made the German craftsman feel left out, it was probably for the best, especially when Baber began telling news outlets that the U.S. military was “brain dead” and “pathetic” for not adopting his weapon for combat use.

In fact, a 2009 article in The New Yorker seemed to make light of Baber’s fascination with a “robot army,” painting him with an unflattering brush that probably didn’t endear him to the Army any further. But Mike Conn acknowledges there is still legitimate interest in the warfighting capabilities of the AA-12.

“We’ve had some requests to make full autos for law enforcement, and we’ve had conversations with SOCOM members about what we could do to change the original full-auto design and make it viable for the military. The military likes the fact that it has virtually no recoil. It pushes you, but it doesn’t give you that smack and a bruise that you can get from a standard 12 gauge,” Conn explains. “But it’s heavy—it weighs 10 pounds—and the military is used to something lighter. The other issue is that it doesn’t have a selector switch to take it from semi to full auto. You just can’t tell a bunch of 18-year-old kids in training, ‘if you squeeze the trigger this much, it fires one round, but if you squeeze it this much, it shoots continuously … .’ That just doesn’t work.”

Conn says that once the new semi-auto model has hit the streets, his company will look at ways to modify the automatic design for military use.

Preparing for Civilian Consumers

After much negotiation for the AA-12’s engineering plans, Boje Cornils and Sol Invictus came to an agreement, and Sol Invictus ended up moving his entire shop and all of his equipment to their facility in Melbourne. “We even set up an office for him here so he can come down whenever he’s feeling creative and continue to design,” Conn says.

The purchase included numerous hidden gems that Sol Invictus wasn’t anticipating, which dovetail perfectly with the company’s desire to reengineer and re-release firearms of yesteryear.

Marketing Director Michael Rivera pops open a battered gun case housing a crude but oddly familiar revolver. “It’s a Thunder 5,” he says, turning it over in his hand. “It’s the precursor to the Taurus Judge and the Smith & Wesson Governor. The blue prints for it were included in Boje’s collection, along with hundreds of others … parts for the FAL rifle, for 1911s…stacks and stacks of stuff, old school … hand drawn. We still haven’t gotten through everything.”

But they will…just as soon as they complete the AA-12’s journey toward civilian ownership.

Reverse Engineering

Sol Invictus engineers and designers have been using the AA-12 blueprints to reverse engineer the semi-automatic version.

“We’ve got a full-time engineer getting the blueprints into CAD and CAM,” Conn explains. “Getting this shotgun rolling off the assembly line is our first priority before we move on to some of the other projects that have evolved through Boje’s collection. Because we didn’t get any of the molds, we’re building everything from the ground up. We’ve sent the stock out to a place that is creating precise three-dimensional drawings by scanning it with a laser. Once those laser scans are done, we’ll give them to a plastic mold maker and get those molds made. Meanwhile, Boje is remaking molds for some of his cast parts. We’ve got other companies that are building additional molds in order to meet our time schedule for deliveries in late December.”

 “We’re also changing parts in the design that probably didn’t make sense in the first place, and we’re machining parts here in our shop that were cast on the old version of the gun. There was a lot that Boje wanted to do with this design that Jerry didn’t want to bother with.” Conn admits that the biggest time-eater has been building all the molds, whether for plastic or metal components. But he also stresses the importance of getting it done right the first time.

“We’re taking into commercial production something that was previously hand-fitted. This gun has to be consistent from part-to-part. We’ve got to make sure we have all the necessary tolerances that will allow these guns to work every single time. It is a tremendous investment of time, money and sweat equity, but we are getting it done.”

Conn says, adding that they are about three weeks behind where he hoped to be, but remain optimistic that the first semi-automatic AA-12s will begin production before 2019.

Design Modifications

Among the changes to the original design is the addition of a functional firing pin along with a hammer in order for the mechanism to fire from a closed bolt. 

Like any hero’s journey, the road continues to be fraught with complications and challenges to be overcome.

Conn notes, “There are more than eight different major structural changes involved in taking the gun into a semi-auto design, and we’ve worked with engineers to create overlays that show the differences. We’ve also been in contact with the ATF to make sure all our T’s are crossed and I’s dotted.”

Sol Invictus plans to pay tribute to the creative genius who refined the fully automatic AA-12 and paved the way for the new semi-auto model by releasing the limited production run under the name “Boje Signature Model.” A nice tip of the hat to a man who has labored in anonymity for far too long.

The new semi-auto carries a price tag that is not for the faint of wallet, coming in at $3,000 with A-frame sights and $3,250 for the Picatinny rail version with optic. Sol Invictus has established two pre-order portals where customers can gain more information regarding the AA-12 and place an order for the shotguns.

armslist.com/store/6850

gunbroker.com/All/search?IncludeSellers=4581887

And, of course, the company welcomes phone inquiries and orders at: 321-428-4466.

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V22N10 (December 2018)

The bloodiest conflict in human history brought unthinkable hardships and suffering to the Soviet peoples. The Eastern front of World War II, forever known as “The Great Patriotic War,” instilled a horrific lesson. Victory can be won with tragic heroism and sacrifice, but ultimately without technical and tactical innovation, it is a cruel waste of life. This lesson was already being learned partly through WWII and in command style and tactical abilities—the Red Army in 1945 was a far cry from the Red Army of 1941. Nonetheless, the war’s atrocities and the shock and awe of fighting a technologically and tactically superior force still haunt the region to this day. New developments were still needed in every aspect of modern warfighting, including small arms design, to offset loss of life in future conflicts and to prepare the Soviet Union for emerging threats in the new atomic age.

When Hitler’s fascist forces invaded the USSR in June 1941, the largest invasion in history, patriots came from all walks of life to do their part in answering the call to defend their motherland. One such patriot was a peasant from Kurya, in the Altai Krai region of Western Siberia. Born on November 10, 1919, Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov had a particular mechanical aptitude and was conscripted as a tanker into the Red Army in 1938. With the peace broken in 1941, Kalashnikov’s direct action was limited as a tank mechanic, but he was quickly elevated to command a T-34 tank in the following months.

In October 1941, Kalashnikov’s company came in contact with the flank of a German line near the Bryansk, a small town, as part of a greater Soviet counter offensive to slow the charge of the German Army Group Center’s blitz toward Moscow. Suddenly, his tank was struck with a loud blast, and a ringing echo shrieked in his ears paired with a dizzying flash of bright light. He fell unconscious, shell shocked and with lacerations from shrapnel across his body. His body was recovered from the knocked-out tank and transported east toward a field hospital.

“In the hospital, I seemed to re-live everything that happened during the months of my participation in the fighting. Again and again, I returned to the tragic days of getting out of that environment. The dead comrades rose before my eyes. At night, in a dream, automatic machine guns often occurred, and I woke up. There was silence in the ward, interrupted only by the groans of the wounded. I lay with my eyes open and thought: why do we have so few automatic weapons in our army, easy, quick-fire, trouble-free?” – Mikhail Kalashnikov

Motivated by a burning sense of purpose to equip Soviet soldiers with better firepower, he started designing small arms in 1942, once recovered from his wounds. In three months, working from a railway shop in Kazakhstan, he produced the PPK (pistolet-pulemyot Kalashnikova—machine pistol of Kalashnikov) as his first production sample, and in 1942 he submitted his design to a government trial. Although it did not progress, his skills as a weapons designer caught the eye of Soviet authorities, and they saw to it that he was placed where his talent would be demanded. Though never developed past prototype phase, by 1944 Kalashnikov had designed two self-loading carbines and a support machine gun.

In 1942-1943 the Red Army came in contact with a new German Machine Carbine, known as the MKb42h (H-Haenel/Schmeiiser), firing a unique 7.92×33 Kurz (short) intermediate cartridge. In the Eastern front, Germany was testing the weapon in small batches and later fielded the MP-43, an improved design off feedback from the test reports. Following the MKb42h were the MP-43/1, 43, & 44 (machine pistol) and final iteration, the Sturmgewehr StG44; although changes from the MP to the StG series (a name change requiring Hitler’s approval) were only minor, such as barrel diameter and a stock design. 

By 1943-1944 the MP and Sturmgewehr were in limited use due to production shortfalls. Germany equipped entire units with the rifle, rather than spreading several rifles to many units across the army. Combat reports from test units noted the drastic improvement in firepower over the K98k, reduced reload time, increased ease of firing while moving and increased range over the only comparable shoulder-fired automatic arms, the MP-38/MP-40 submachine guns. This gave the Germans an edge in highly mobile warfare across urban environments.

The first examples of the German automatic carbine MKb42h and ammunition were reported to have been captured near the Leningrad region in 1942. They were sent in secret to the Soviet Army small arms proving range at Shurovo outside Moscow for testing and evaluation. The results of the testing surpassed all Soviet expectations, and after studying captured 7.92×33 in 1942-1943 the Soviet Union requested their own intermediate cartridge.
Shortly thereafter, the Soviet high command requested its own intermediate cartridge comparable to the 7.92×33. In 1943, engineers produced 7.62×41, the first Soviet intermediate cartridge. It was adopted the same year as the M43 and entered production in March 1944. 

The Soviet Union began work on assault rifles capable of using the new intermediate round as early as November 1943. The research and development group was quickly issued an official state request to produce a rifle in the M43 round for the upcoming 1944 trials for a new general purpose service rifle. Designers Tokarev, Korovin, Degtyarev, Shpagin, Sudayev, Simonov, Aleksandrovich, Ivanov, Prilutsky all submitted designs for the new “Avtomat.”

Alexei Sudayev, designer of the famed PPS-43, led the initial competition with the AS-44 prototype. In 1944, the AS-44 (Avtomat Sudaeva) satisfied the specified tactical and technical requirements of the trials. A small batch was order at the Tula Arms Factory for further military testing in 1945 as part of state mandate (GAU No. 3131-45) to field a new assault rifle in the M43 caliber. Alexei Sudayev died in August 1946, and development of his prototype was halted.

The M43 intermediate cartridge was updated in 1946 at the Ulyanovsk machine building plant with a shorter casing by 2mm. The round was also modified from a flat backed lead core projectile to a boat tailed steel core projectile. The new 7.62×39 retained the M43 designation. 

In 1946, a second competition was launched with updated tactical and technical requirements (TTT) of the 1945 GAU No. 3131-45, and interested designers had to adjust their prototypes for the new caliber.

In October 1946, after reviewing design sketches of 16 present entries, the commission narrowed selection down to 10 designs, including Kalashnikov’s work, and requested revised drafts. That same month, the Ministry of Armaments of the USSR sent Kalashnikov to the Kovrov weapons plant to make his prototype with the assistance of a design team.

Kalashnikov’s first sample was the AK-46 No.1 with help from the Kovrov team. The AK-46 No.1 is a select fire, short-stroke, gas-operated system. The fire control group consisted of a safety lever and a separate semi- and full-auto selector lever on the left side of the receiver. More noticeable features are the left side charging handle and receiver construction. The receiver was manufactured in two sections, a lower and upper receiver very similar to the StG. The upper portion was removable via two non-captive pivot pins just rearward of the magwell and a pin securing the pieces together held at the upper rear of the receiver. The AK-46 had a small dust cover rearward of the bolt, and the bolt carrier charging handle was on the left side of the carrier. The bolt design carried over from his earlier semi-auto carbine from 1944.

In December 1946 the first round of tests commenced, conducted at the NIPSVO (scientific and test range of shooting and mortar weapons) with 5 samples of Rukavishnikov, Korobov, Bulkin, Dementyev and Kalashnikov rifles. By May 1947, new samples of the Kalashnikov assault rifle, named AK-46 No. 2 with fixed stock and AK-46 No. 3 with an under-folder stock were produced at the Kovrov factory. The AK-46 no.2 was the second iteration of Kalashnikov’s prototype. The upper receiver and lower receiver were redesigned. The upper receiver did away with the short removable dust cover, closing the excessive openings to eliminate ingress of foreign debris. An ejection port was added on the right side as well as a left-side charging handle with a cover tightening up openings for dirt to get in to the receiver. The upper receiver also had a magwell extension. The bolt did away with a directly attached charging handle; instead the upper has an attached left-side charging handle attached to a track with an arm that engages the bolt carrier. The lower safety and separate mode selector were made more ergonomic, making it easier to manipulate compared to the No.1 AK-46.

The AK-46 No. 2 was tested in August 1947 against Sudayev’s AS-44, Shpagin’s PPSh 41 and the StG44 as comparative controls. At the time, the AK-46 was not showing signs of promise. Kalashnikov along with the design team at Kovrov were redesigning the entire weapon both in construction and operation, borrowing ideas from his rival, Bulkin, to create a new prototype. Design aspects included gas piston/bolt carrier, recoil spring assembly, a long receiver dust cover, a rear trunnion attached using three rivets and possibly a modified selector/safety from the AS-44. By November 1947, the first three samples of Kalashnikov’s new design were made at the Kovrov factory, known under the factory index KB-P-580 and closely resembling what we know today as the AK. Final testing knocked out Bulkin’s and Dementyev’s prototypes, leaving Kalashnikov ultimately the last contender in the competition. Kalashnikov’s rifle also did not meet the requirements for full-auto accuracy but was chosen due to improving promise overall and was recommended for production.

In January 1948, the Kalashnikov assault rifle development package was sent to the Izhevsk plant along with the designer himself for initial production, changing the city forever.  Early AKs struggled with full-auto accuracy, not meeting the standards of the competition, so work was done to improve the production model’s accuracy without delaying the production date. There were a total of 228 changes to the design and another 214 changes to ease manufacturing for serial production. Serial production of the AK was finally mastered at the Izhevsk plant in early 1949, updating the manufacturing facility and processes to manufacture the new weapon. The Izhevsk machine-building plant’s priority was to develop the weapon with the simplest design, but with the most modern production techniques. The High Soviet Minister of the USSR finally adopted the “7.62-mm Kalashnikov assault rifle” on June 18, 1949—the work of many engineers, designers and gunsmiths over years of development, in the form of what is commonly called the Type 1

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V22N10 (December 2018)

Hearing protection is of paramount importance, since lost hearing cannot be recovered. Typical gunfire measures 150 to 160 decibels, with 140 decibels being the commonly accepted threshold for hearing damage. Cost-effective and readily available foam earplugs provide some attenuation, but that alone may be insufficient (Ylikoski et al., 1995). In addition, environmental factors such as an overhead awning or a barricade can cause reverberations and amplify noise to unsafe levels.

Impetus

The author experienced the amplification effect during a sporting event, when he fired through a tube with his 7.62x51mm rifle and head inside. Despite having tightly fitting foam earplugs, one shot dazed the author and caused temporary deafness in one ear. Other shooters with 5.56x45mm rifles also reported discomfort and disorientation, despite having their heads outside the tube.

This experience prompted the author to seek more robust hearing protection. “Doubling up” with foam plugs and a passive headset helped dramatically, but it also blocked conversations and range commands. MSA Supreme Pro-X electronic hearing protection overcame this by reproducing conversations while providing a passive noise reduction rating (NRR) of 18 decibels (Wonderling, 2015). This article examines both its passive noise protection and active ambient sound reproduction characteristics.

Fit

The MSA Supreme Pro-X is an ear cup design available with both headband and neckband options. The headband version places the band vertically over the head. Although one can wear baseball caps under the ear cups, this arrangement is incompatible with wide-brimmed hats. The neckband option places the main headband behind the skull and features an overhead net as an added measure to keep the ear cups in place. However, the cups still limit how tightly a hat can be worn, therefore chin straps may be necessary. The neckband option is also compatible with some helmets. The thin ear cups did not prevent the author from shouldering his rifles.

Ear cups come with standard foam cushions that can be upgraded to gel seals. Gel seals provide superior comfort and soundproofing, especially for bespectacled users. In addition, MSA offers a hygiene kit that replaces both the seal and the acoustic absorbent. Part number 10061294 replaces the standard foam cushions, while part number 10082377 replaces the gel seals. The head- or neckband cushion and overhead net can be removed for washing.

Electronic Controls

Three buttons on the left ear cup control the electronic sound reproduction. Tapping the middle power button turns on the electronics, while holding it turns them off with a long “beep.” If no buttons are pressed for four hours, the electronics emit a warning tone and automatically shut off. Pressing any button resets the four-hour timer. The “+” and “-” buttons control volume, with sound reproduction capped at 82 decibels to prevent hearing damage. The two highest volume settings amplify environmental sounds. A 3.5mm audio input jack is located at the rear of the left ear cup for use with radios, mobile phones, MP3 players or other devices.

Two forward-facing microphones, one on each ear cup, collect ambient noise for sound reproduction. Pro-X utilizes AAA batteries loaded in the right ear cup via a water-resistant cover.

Audio

The Supreme Pro-X works very well in conjunction with foam earplugs. At high volume settings, one can easily hear conversations and range commands through foam earplugs with little discernible delay. This allows for clear communication while maintaining a high degree of protection. It should be mentioned that, when a firearm is discharged 5 meters away under an awning, the Pro-X will reproduce the gunshot echo. This is notable even at the lowest volume setting. While a nuisance for range use, this serves as a testament to the sensitivity of the microphones.

The dual microphones offer credible stereo sound. One can easily discern direction from high off-boresight sources. The author felt oscillations in directionality with a source directly ahead reproduced at the highest volume setting. This effect is not noticeable when used in conjunction with foam earplugs.

The audio quality of the reproduced sound may not rival that of studio recordings, but it is quite good for everyday use. Voices are reproduced faithfully, so that different speakers can be identified by voice. When listening to the Trauermarsch of Mahler’s Fifth Symphony, the author noted a “scratchy” treble and the removal of bass elements, whether the music was electronically reproduced or played directly through the audio jack. However, this quibble is inconsequential given the primary role of the Pro-X for hearing protection.

Noise Reduction

MSA Pro-X is certified to an NRR of 18 decibels for the headband version and 19 decibels for the neckband version (Wonderling, 2015). This is comparable to foam earplugs (Ylikoski et al., 1995).

The author performed some rudimentary qualitative comparisons. Against the high-pitch noise of an electric leaf blower, the Pro-X seems as effective as foam earplugs, while “doubling up” provides further noticeable—but not significantly greater—attenuation. Against high-pressure gunshots, as achieved with .300 Winchester Magnum ammunition or a short-barrelled 5.56x45mm rifle, the author also felt that the thin ear cup design of the Pro-X did not attenuate as well as deep cup designs. Nonetheless, the Pro-X with foam earplug combination seemed to deliver markedly superior attenuation while facilitating a high degree of situational awareness.

The following plot shows attenuation with respect to frequency from the user manual.

Conclusion

MSA Pro-X offers an excellent combination of hearing protection and situational awareness. Environmental sound reproduction faithfully reconstructs the human voice and provides a good sense of source direction, even when used in conjunction with foam earplugs. The passive hearing protection provides an NRR of 18 decibels and combines with foam earplugs to give superior protection. The Pro-X is an excellent investment to protect hearing, especially for the author who enjoys his Shostakovich as much as his rifles.

References

Wonderling, J. (2015, July 6). “MSA Declaration of Conformity in Accordance with ANSI/ISEA 125-2014 IAC-09-014-ANSI-Z04_r1.” Cranberry Township, PA: MSA. Retrieved from http://s7d9.scene7.com/is/content/minesafetyappliances/IAC-09-014-Z04-ANSI_CAL_r1

Ylikoski, M., Pekkarinen, J.O., Starck, J.P., Pääkkönen, R.J., & Ylikoski, J.S. (1995). “Physical characteristics of gunfire impulse noise and its attenuation by hearing protectors.” Scandinavian Audiology, 24(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.3109?/01050399509042203

Introduced in 1964 as the Ruger 10?/22 carbine, this remarkable 54-year-old rimfire self-loader has achieved the feat of continuing to evolve unlike any other firearm in its class. Over 6 million units have been produced, without any apparent end in sight. What makes the ?? extra special among the others? The answer is quite simple—reliability, robust overall construction and adaptability to changing times. Perhaps it is the third element that truly counts, since there are other early models in this category that can also boast reliability and a robust overall construction, primarily those designed by John Browning in the early part of the post-war era and produced by well-known U.S. and European gun makers. However, as the decades passed by, most of these vintage classics lost their luster. They simply faded away and were forgotten, while the 10?/22 stood its ground better than ever.

Needless to say, as one of the millions of 10?/22 fans, it is difficult not to be lured in by this amazing little carbine and join in with the fun of creating the epitome of a modern-day tactical 10?/22. Many dress-up kits have hit the market in the past ten years, ranging from CNC-machined aluminum chassis to polymer clamshells. Among these entries, the Nordic Components (NC) AR22 (also used by Ruger on their SR-22 model) stands out for its aesthetics and acceptance of genuine furniture and accessories made for the AR-15 rifle. Its aluminum construction is very well made and finished; it is far superior in material and styling to any other chassis. The NC chassis is therefore the ideal candidate for this project, particularly when complemented by polymer furniture from Hera Arms and Magpul for the Ruger 10?/22, hence the term “NC HAMR” came to designate the ideal formula for constructing these project guns.

To create the perfect and long-lasting tactical firearm of truly unique design, you have to build it yourself using the right components and accessories. Many 10?/22 owners probably own more than one and have tried dress up kits to make their pet gun stand out from their shooting buddies’. This is what makes personal builds more desirable and exciting: the combination of parts and accessories made by various companies to create an extraordinary firearm concept, either to broaden an owner’s gun-building expertise or simply as a pastime. Whatever the reason, there is no denying that customizing the 10?/22 is quite addicting.

Each NC HAMR project can be made unique with Hera Arms CQR AR furniture. After completing an article on the “Futuristic AR” featuring Hera Arms CQR furniture (SAR V21 N8 issue), the attention of this article now shifts to the possibility of adapting this furniture to the NC chassis, which has been perfectly tailored to accept AR furniture. Nonetheless, prior to installing the CQR stock into the NC chassis, we should ascertain whether it will actually fit. The CQR stock comes with an integral pistol grip, and the possibility that the stock, grip and grip screw will not line up properly with the chassis is a major concern. I have both the first and second (current) versions of the NC chassis. The CQR stock fits almost perfectly to the first version, with just a tiny gap between the top of the grip and the chassis. The grip screw lines up properly once the stock is fully seated. The grip screw was tightened, and no major problems were noted.

The second version of the NC chassis, however, is a different story. For some unknown reason, Nordic made changes to the dimensions of the chassis in the web area. This section appears to be wider, and the bottom of the chassis—parallel to the grip—appears to have been raised by a few thousandths of an inch, leaving a larger gap between the chassis and grip. The good news is that the grip screw still lines up properly. The drawback created by this gap is that it will force the seam at the back of the grip to open up when the grip screw is tightened. To remedy this issue, some fitting at the internal radius of the beavertail (where the web of the chassis will rest) is necessary to allow the chassis to seat properly, thus minimizing the chance of the beavertail section opening up when the screw is tightened. In addition to this fitting procedure (if you are using the current NC chassis or the Ruger SR-22), a cross screw (6-32 x 1 inch) must also be added just below the beavertail to prevent the back of the grip from opening up when the grip screw is tightened. The screw head should be flush fitted to the grip. The opening at the back of the grip is the result of the gap between the chassis and the grip. When the screw is tightened, the grip is pulled up, closing the gap between the grip and chassis, which in turn causes the reduced section of the grip (just below the beavertail) to buckle up and a seam to open below it. The installation of the cross screw in this critical area is a must to eliminate this problem.

One of the best design features of the Nordic chassis is the incorporation of a “forearm adaptor.” The adaptor allows the use of a wide range of one-piece or two-piece forearms, metal or polymer. Switching to various weapon configurations is quickly and easily achieved by acquiring spare adaptors with pre-assembled forearms. Adaptor and grip filler for the NC chassis is available from Iron Eagle Tactical. This allows preferred accessories from different brands to be combined with ease, maximizing the potential for the NC HAMR formula to create the epitome of a modern-day tactical 10?/22. There are dedicated dress up kits (mostly two-piece polymers) that can transform the 10?/22 into the P90 format. The CQR stock system, however, is more distinctive and practical; it still allows the host weapon to be operated in the same way but with much improved ergonomics. For the 10?/22, CQR furniture offers this basic advantage plus compatibility with other polymer furniture, such as that from Magpul, something not possible with other P90-style kits with one basic setup.

The CQR stock/front grip set is used in combination with the classic YHM four-rail pistol forearm to create a “Compact Carbine” format utilizing the Dlask Arms custom 9 ¼-inch heavy barrel. The CC version meets the minimum legal overall length of 26 inches when used with a fixed stock like the CQR. The CC will take virtually any high-capacity magazine made for the 10?/22. However, for the mini PDW type, the front grip was positioned closer to the magazine chute to mimic the placement of the P90 front grip. Moving the grip in this manner will require fitting its top rear section to match the contour of the forearm adaptor. In addition, the back section of the grip must also be trimmed down and the bottom loop removed until most available banana-type magazines can be inserted and removed freely. Trimming this section of the grip will expose the hollowed-out section inside and therefore require filling with J-B Weld epoxy steel resin. Once dried, the epoxy-filled section can be sanded clean and painted with the same color as the grip or, in this case, a two-tone black/OD green accent.

Naturally, not everyone fancies short-barreled guns or metal handguards. In this case, let us substitute a Magpul MOE polymer handguard. To complement the two-tone CQR stock with the addition of the Magpul ¼-inch-high cheek riser, the MOE forearm is also made two-tone (OD green and black combination), and the overall contrast is quite stunning. The riser fits snuggly to the stock; it is a perfect fit. Installation of the cheek riser to the CQR stock will require drilling and tapping of the stock all the way to the top wall of the aluminum buffer tube for a 4-40 socket head screw. The two holes for the riser screws must be drilled precisely at the center of the cross rib on each end of the riser underside, which is a beefed up section of the part. The screw holes at the top of the riser will be counterbored to allow the screw head to sit flush. The vintage M60 LMG flash hider and Fabsports full-profile MACOV with newly introduced magazine coupler is a great touch up for this ultimate rimfire tactical package. The 10?/22 is truly a phenomenal design that can readily adapt to changing times. From classic to hi-tech, it is a hands-down winner. Note: Parts or accessories mentioned or shown in the article but not listed in the sources section below can be purchased directly from Brownells.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

rugerfirearms.com
hera-usa.com
magpul.com
nordiccomp.com
wolverinesupplies.com
dlaskarms.com
fabsports.com
brownells.com
ironeagletactical.com

The AKM (Kalashnikov Improved Assault Rifle) is the second version of the AK-47. It was adopted in 1959 by the Russian Army. Built with a receiver stamped on a hydraulic press, it is lighter, more reliable and cheaper to manufacture, but a little less rigid than the AK-47 receiver.

History

The history of the AK-47 is quite well known, and it is inseparable from the birth of the at the time new multi-purpose Soviet cartridge, the 7.62x39mm M43. This caliber was imagined almost at the same time as the German 7.92x33mm ammunition, which the Russians tested after seizing the Sturmgewehr 42 on the battlefield. They also officially tried the USM1 US carbine chambered in .30 carbine (7.62x33mm).

The concept appealed to the Russians, and they set to work as early as 1942 to define their own intermediate rifle caliber adapted to an assault rifle—less power and speed but more capacity and compactness to make the weapon-ammunition package more effective in combat. It took a long time before arriving at the perfect caliber and at the concept of the assault rifle. A 7.92x41mm cartridge was designed and tested in a dozen different weapons. The results were not ideal; the weapons were too heavy so studies resumed. New tests were scheduled for the beginning of 1946 with the appearance of Mikhail Kalashnikov and the presentation of his work. He made a prototype submachine gun which was rejected by the evaluation commission. Then he designed a semi-automatic rifle, inspired by the M1 Garand rifle, called the AK-46 or AK N ° 1. The commission studied three rifles made by Bulkin, Dementiev and Kalashnikov. The latter was evolving his assault rifle, cleverly using the best solutions designed by the weapons engineers of his time. He finally won the official tests with his weapon that offered the best compromise between reliability, lightness, endurance and precision.

Production began in Izhevsk in the Urals during 1947 with press-formed receivers Type I that posed many manufacturing and quality problems. This led to mass producing machined frames Type II before being able to switch to stamped receivers from 1951 on.

The AKM Loses a Kilo

The AKM (Improved Kalashnikov Assault Rifle) was adopted in 1959 after studying numerous evolutions and having multiple tests. Despite the competition from other rifle prototypes, sometimes well designed and cheaper to produce, the Russian Army chose the AKM. The main evolution came from its press-formed receiver—lighter, cheaper to manufacture but a little less rigid. It was stamped from a 1mm-thick steel sheet and reinforced by front and rear blocks riveted to the receiver. The front block supported the barrel held in place by a transverse pin, unlike the AK-47 which had a barrel screwed into its machined frame. The cost and time required for manufacturing were also considerably reduced. Indeed, the machining of the steel blocks of the AK-47 to make receivers required more time, skilled workers and more raw materials.

Kalashnikov’s stock and grip were redrawn and lightened. Stock and handguards were made of birch plywood, which were lightweight and inexpensive. A compensator was added on the thread to reduce muzzle rise in automatic fire. The thread also allowed you to install a suppressor. The rear sight measured 800 to 1000 meters maximum, which was very optimistic. It was adjustable in height while the front sight was adjustable in height with the tool provided in the cleaning kit, but also in drift by a gunsmith with a hammer.

The main improvement concerned the weight, which was reduced by 1kg, being lowered from 4.3kg to 3.3kg by the lighter receiver being manufactured from sheet metal, by the slightly less heavy bolt, and by the modified wood. The AKM was black matte parkerized while the AK-47 was blued. Improvements were also made to the barrel and to the gas ports to increase reliability.

A new bayonet was designed to be attached to its rigid sheath, forming a cutting tool for barbed wire. The AKM could be equipped with many accessories; for example, the PBS silencer and the NSPU night-time scope. The 6G15, an adaptable grenade launcher under the barrel, was also developed for the AKM which launched front-loading 40mm VOG-25 grenades.

Auto-Sear also for Semi-Automatic Fire

The operation of the AKM is well known and often copied, with its bolt that locks in the steel block in front of the receiver, called the trunnion, by two lugs. This steel reinforcement is riveted into the housing and supports the barrel. Some manufacturers prefer the screwed in barrel. The front sight and the gas block are also each fixed on the barrel by two transverse pins.

When the bolt carrier approaches the chamber, the bolt rotates about 30 degrees to the right to lock into the receiver, with its two lateral lugs. The front of the bolt is thus in contact with the end of the barrel, and the cartridge is chambered. When you press the trigger, expanding propellant gases activate the piston / bolt carrier. The carrier moves back a little, which causes the unlocking of the bolt (by the action of the milled rail in the carrier that rotates the bolt to the left) and then the rearward motion of the bolt-carrier assembly ensures case ejection.

The trigger mechanism is equipped with an auto sear. This auto sear locks the hammer in the armed position when the bolt moves back, in addition to the hammer lock by the trigger. When the bolt advances, it hooks the auto sear, which unlocks the hammer. This allows hammer activation of the firing pin once the bolt is in the front most position, against the chamber. This operation is valid for semi-automatic shooting and for automatic shooting. Hence the importance of the presence of this trigger on all Kalashnikovs. This type of system also exists on the military M16 or M4, but in the full-auto mode only.

An Izhmash AKM Dated 1962

The AKM has a three-position selector that has the particularity, like the other rifles derived from the AK, to place the automatic fire position in the middle of its movement, just after the safety position. The safety selector closes the receiver and does not allow dirt to enter. It blocks the carrier from retracting, and the hammer and all the trigger mechanism from operating, cartridge chambered or not. When the magazine is empty, the bolt remains closed; it has no last round locking stop to keep it open. The trigger is well designed with its hook on the top of the hammer, far from its axis, which allows it to obtain a nice and functional release weight, around 2.0kg to 2.2kg, while the military rifles generally have heavier detents.

Disassembling the AKM is very easy for routine maintenance but also for the replacement of the barrel, a stock or a handguard. Pin punches and a gunsmith’s hammer are sufficient to disassemble most of the parts including the trigger, plus a screwdriver for the bakelite grip screw.

We had the opportunity to test a Russian military version of the AKM from l962, in its original configuration with all its parts and old wood. It bears its manufacture date next to its serial number, the EY42xx, and next to the triangle with arrow inside logo of the manufacturer Izhmash. Its sling also has its period markings; it is therefore the sling put into service in the Russian Army with the AKM. A weapon 56 years old still in excellent mechanical form. Its condition was not perfect at the time of purchase so its owner has made the choice to give it a facelift by polishing the wood (stock, handguards), which has removed the protective varnish but has given back the wood their original coloring.

Installation of Anti-Rise Muzzle Brake

After severe use over the years, the metal parts looked like new after a good cleaning, polishing and two coats of black paint (housing, guide rod gas borrowing, top housing cover). Successive cleaning and retouching had made the receiver look very worn; it was necessary to remove the painted fittings to obtain a uniform surface and color.

This AKM is chambered in the original caliber, the 7.62x39mm Kalashnikov, and it has the famous muzzle brake bevel cut intended to thwart the rise during automatic fire. A Russian pouch for AK or AKM for three magazines, a cleaning kit in the stock, plus the maintenance rod in place under the barrel, completed the set. A proper bayonet remains to be found.

We made our tests at 100 and 200 meters, using the metal sights, followed by the Aimpoint M4 sight and then the Aimpoint T2 sight, mounted lower. These two Aimpoints are made with 2 MOA red dot diameters. All our tests took place without any negative shooting incidents, 100% reliable chambering and ejections. We used a Millett brand firing support to stabilize our AKM. For our tests, we fired factory ammunition but also reloaded ammunition in order to be able to use powerful and quality cartridges with powder and non-corrosive primers— a bit aggressive for the barrel and the bolt. We had the opportunity to fire ammunition with brass cases from PPU Serbian FMJ ball 123 grain, then Wolf steel cases, green cartridges of former East Germany and Russian military cartridges also with steel cases.

.311 and .308 Bullets on Lapua Cases

To continue our tests, we proceeded with reloads on this cartridge with the use of Lapua cases using boxer primers, known for their quality. The die sets come with two calibration rods. It is necessary to install the rod for .30 caliber bullets beforehand to remove primers and full sizing. We chose to reload ammunitions so that we could test several types of bullets—123 grains in .311 caliber and 125 grains, 150, 168 and 200 grains in .308 caliber. For the .311, we used Sellier & Bellot bullets n ° 2907 standard Kalashnikov, then the Hornady .308 in 125 grains, IMI .308 in 150 grains FMJ, Lapua Scenar .308 in 167 grains and Sierra HPBT. 308 in 200 grains. All our reloads were made with Vihtavuori N120 powder; the manufacturer gave several loads depending on the bullet weight. As soon as it was decided to increase the bullet weight, it is imperative to lower the powder load to remain in admissible pressures. The capacity of cases does not allow exceeding certain limits for reasons of volume, the bullets above 125 grains coming easily in contact with the powder.

The results were correct with the factory ammunition as with the reloaded ammunition. Even if the AKM was not at the level of that of the M16, they were very accurate with match ammo. We obtained scores on targets with five cartridges at 100 meters from 85 to 97mm (3.34 to 3.81 inches), then from 113 to 158mm (4.44 to 6.22 inches) at a distance of 200 meters. These scores are honest with respect to some with surplus ammunition or with poorly prepared rifles, but they are not really at the level required for NATO assault rifles.

In automatic fire, the rifle is very lively and moves a lot, so it must be properly controlled. The bolt requires a powerful movement backwards to overcome the hammer resistance to put it in a cocked position.

Present-Day Kalashnikov Group

The latest versions of Kalashnikov rifles can be seen on the Kalashnikov Group website, with an interesting 9mm Parabellum model built on an AK receiver, or a Saïga rifle chambered for a new caliber, the 366 TKM, consisting of a 37mm (on the basis of the 7.62×39 M43 case) and a 9.55mm bullet of 168, 201 or 231 grains. This ammunition was introduced by a Russian manufacturer named Techkrim (a company specializing in sports ammunition and non-lethal ammunition). The other models are still produced, such as the AK-74, still in service in the Russian Army, as well as the Saiga civil versions, now very widespread.

All these AKs are produced on the historic site of Izhevsk, capital of Udmurtia, located in the Urals, which is a major industrial, commercial and scientific center. The history of the city dates back to the spring of 1760, when a dam on the Ij River was built simultaneously with the adjacent metallurgical plant. The development of Izhevsk was due to the installation of the armaments factory which began its activity in 1807. The city had developed its specialization in the field of defense, metallurgy, war weapons and hunting rifles. The first production for war was destined for the Napoleonic Wars of 1812. Izhevsk was a major strategic problem at all times, especially during the Russian Revolution. At the time of the First Five-Year Plan, the city grew rapidly thanks to new industries, such as motorcycles, machine tools and chemistry. In December 1934, Izhevsk was proclaimed capital of the Udmurt Republic.

Important Production Capacities

During the Second World War, the importance of the city as a weapons production center was considerable. The Izhevsk factories could equip an aviation division and an artillery division in one day. The post-war period is characterized by the development of the industrial base with a significant production of arms, motorcycles, automobiles and machine tools, renowned worldwide. Mikhail Kalashnikov is one of the architects of these successes, alongside other engineers. Izhevsk has always been a city of mechanical industries, famous for the arms factory established in 1807. It is, of course, in this factory that the Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle was developed and manufactured as its later versions. The Izhmash group also produced cars, IJ brand, as well as motorcycles. The concentration of defense factories in Izhevsk made it a very closed city during Soviet times, and foreigners were not allowed to enter it.

The Kalashnikov Armament Group took its name in 2013 in tribute to its engineer Mikhail Kalashnikov, who died that year. The first private investors arrived in the group suffered heavy losses. Kalashnikov was able to rectify its accounts by proposing new models, but especially by diversifying in particular sectors like clothing and knives. The group is developing its equipment and presents many new products: electric motorcycles, observation drones, non-lethal weapons and robotic destructive tanks. This initiative was taken by CEO, Alexeï Krivorouchko, who arrived during this first wave of privatization. In January 2017, Kalashnikov Group announced that it wanted to increase its workforce by 30%, with the creation of 1,700 additional jobs.

For the past 30-plus years, the name Curtis Higgins and S&H Arms of Oklahoma, Inc., have been at the forefront of quality machine gun conversions of Heckler & Koch (HK) semi-auto rifles and carbines. The business started in 1986 manufacturing thousands of registered HK autosears prior to the May 19, 1986, ban on new machine guns and conversions. Since the 5/19/86 Day of Infamy, Curtis and his company have converted innumerable HK 93, 91 and 94 rifles into fully transferrable select fire versions of the models 33, G3 and MP5 (for more info: curtis@sandharms.com). While several other manufacturers also made the autosears, the S&H conversions were coveted due to the flawless cosmetics and functioning of the weapons. S&H was also known for its autosears for the FNC and, to a lesser extent, autosears for the Ruger 10/22. To this day, S&H is known as the premier gunsmithing facility for HK machine guns.

1986 also was the year S&H entered the suppressor market with MP5 muzzle suppressors, HK MP5SD integral suppressors and a variety of integral rimfire suppressors for Ruger .22LR weapons, the Ruger 77/44 and the Marlin .45 Camp Carbine. Curtis licensed his integral Ruger rimfire designs to John’s Guns.
Small Arms Review recently received S&H’s latest suppressed weapon, an integrally suppressed upper receiver chambered for the popular AAC .300 Blackout cartridge, an improved version of the SSK .300 Whisper originally designed by J.D. Jones.

Designed for a 9-inch barrel, the .300BLK’s popularity has risen dramatically due to the simple conversion of the AR-16/M16 weapons simply by changing the barrel with its associated gas block. Even the M249 belt-fed machine gun is set up for this cartridge. For many purposes, the .300BLK cartridge is ideal: .30 caliber bullet, short barrel, subsonic and supersonic loadings with bullet weights ranging from 110 grains to 220 grains. The loadings using bullets 150 grains or less are supersonic while those with the heavier bullets are generally subsonic.

The S&H Model 30 is a complete assembly consisting of an integrally suppressed upper receiver with an overall length of 28.8 inches and a ported 16-inch, 1:5 barrel. The ports bleed excessive propelling gas into a sealed chamber in the rear of the suppressor.  It weighs 89.7 ounces (5.6 pounds). It utilizes the bolt, charging handle and lower receiver of the user’s AR-15 or M16. For our evaluation, we used a Bushmaster select fire AR-15 lower receiver with a standard buffer intended for 5.56 weapons.

The unit is a conventional direct impingement gas system which mounts easily on an AR-15 or M16 lower receiver using the bolt assembly and charging handle from the host weapon. The handguard has a full-length Picatinny rail and has as standard equipment easy-to-use, flip-up sights. The 1.5-inch-diameter suppressor outer tube extends rearward over the barrel over 15 inches back to the gas block and approximately 5.5 inches forward of the muzzle. The baffle stack in this forward section contains five conventional baffles. The exit hole in the front end cap is configured to use a standard 3/8-inch hex wrench for disassembly. The large chamber surrounding the barrel is fed by four ports in the barrel several inches forward of the gas port. This permits proper usage of this chamber rather than relying on reverse gas flow at the muzzle.

The entire suppressor can be disassembled by the user for cleaning and maintenance. The only tools needed are a 5/32-inch hex wrench for the handguard and a 3/8-inch hex wrench for the front end cap. For total disassembly, a special spanner wrench from S&H is needed to loosen the retaining nut that tightens the suppressor outer tube onto the threaded barrel end. Removal of the baffles and spacers from the front section is somewhat tedious. Unlike firearms with moving parts, suppressors generally perform better if they are not cleaned (with the exception of rimfire suppressors). From the writer’s experience examining suppressor designs, it is estimated that performance degradation will not become apparent for many tens of thousands of rounds, and cleaning is not recommended.

Of major interest to users is the sound performance of the system. Sound measurements were made in compliance with MIL-STD-1474D (Section 5). Two Larson-Davis model 800B sound level meters were used, each with its Larson-Davis model 2530 random incidence ¼-inch instrumentation microphones. These are compliant with rise/response times less than 20 microseconds. Measurements were made at the reference location (one meter left of the muzzle 90º to bore axis, 1.6 meters above grass) and at the simulation of the shooter’s left ear (SLE, 8cm rearward of the receiver, 18cm left of bore axis). By using two sound meters, it is possible to obtain both location readings for each shot. Because MIL-STD permits the use of weighting and because weighting is the industry standard, measurements were made utilizing C-weighting.

Five rounds of 125-grain Black Hills supersonic, five rounds of Gemtech 187-grain subsonic, five rounds of TNQ 220-grain subsonic and five rounds of Remington 220-grain subsonic ammunition were used, and the results averaged. In addition, velocity was measured both at the muzzle and at 25 yards using a Labradar radar chronograph. Velocity at greater range was not possible due to constraints of the range used. Sound levels and velocities are shown in Table 1.

While performing sound testing, several malfunctions were noted with the Gemtech 187gr, the TNQ 220gr and the Remington 220gr subsonic ammunition. The 125gr Black Hills supersonic functioned flawlessly.  Because of malfunctions with the subsonic ammunition, high-speed video was taken, concentrating on the ejection port to document actual bolt travel and rearward bolt velocity. Video tests were performed on a 3-shot burst with the camera operating at 10,000 frames/second. The TNQ 220-grain subsonic was not photographed due to having only enough ammunition to perform sound and velocity measurements. The high-speed video of the bolt opening showed normal rearward travel with the supersonic ammunition but only approximately 66%–75% rearward travel with the subsonic ammunition.  Opening bolt velocity was 3750mm/second with supersonic ammunition and less than 2,000mm/second with subsonic. The subsonic bolt travel was enough to permit case ejection at the 4 o’clock position but not enough to feed the next round from the magazine.

Sound levels with all varieties of ammunition tested were below 140dB at the reference location with the subsonic ammunition showing averages around 130dB. Readings at the shooter’s left ear location were in the upper 140dB region, probably due to some ejection port noise and gas leakage in the region of the gas block. Supersonic readings were somewhat higher than subsonic. The reference location is a good indicator of perception by the target in the far field.

Velocity readings were as anticipated for the ammunition used. All subsonic ammunition had a muzzle velocity just under 1,000 feet/second, and all exhibited a drop of approximately 50 feet/second at 50 yards. The Remington 220gr subsonic exhibited the greatest round-to-round variation in velocity with a standard deviation of around 30. The TNQ 220-grain subsonic showed the least variation.

Quantifying flash requires a light meter capable of holding the intensity of the single brightest light peak. Lacking access to such a meter, there are two methods of evaluating flash: long camera exposure (about 1 second) on a dark night or high-speed video. High-speed video offers the option of performing filming in daylight with a black background for contrast. It also offers the option of looking at bullet stability. With a ruler in the field of view, a reasonable estimation of the intensity can be made. Figure 5 is the single frame showing the greatest amount of flash.

Firearms have little value if they are not accurate. A lead-sled was used as a bench rest, and a target was shot at 50 yards. It was decided to utilize the Black Hills 125gr supersonic ammunition because its greater kinetic energy is most likely to be used for neutralizing targets. The supply of this load was limited without enough to zero accessory optical sights. As a result, the flip-up iron sights on the weapon were used. The front post (.058 inch) is approximately 6MOA wide. The group size is under 3MOA (target grid is one inch).

In all, SAR’s testing of the S&H M30 integrally suppressed upper receiver was very positive. While it is a larger suppressor, it is also very successful for 300BLK suppression and accuracy. Curtis should be proud of his continued success in providing a good product for the end users.

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V22N9 (November 2018)

“You only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down…”
-Adolph Hitler

With this prediction, Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa, his invasion of the Soviet Union, on Sunday morning, June 22, 1941.

In four months, his army carved hundreds of miles east from Poland, through Russia, to the city of Tula. Tula straddled the roads and rails 120-miles south of Moscow and blocked the advancing Panzers’ path to victory. On October 29, 1941, Tula was now the door to Moscow.

Late in the 1500s, Tsar Fyodor I first settled gun-makers in Tula near the iron ore deposits by the Upa River. In the years that followed, Tula courted foreign gunsmiths and engineers to the city, and it became the center of Russian iron working and armaments. Peter the Great visited in 1712 and founded the state armory. By 1720, more than 1000 workers were producing 20,000 muskets a year. Tula gained a reputation for high-quality arms, often with ornate decoration, but the meat and potatoes continued to be military guns, like the Berdan rifles produced beginning in 1879. It was a city built by iron.

Arms production for the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905 and WWI swelled Tula still more. Most of the guns used in the Red Revolution and the fighting to follow came from Tula. When Hitler attacked, the City of Tula had a population of 272,000.

Hitler had confidently declared Russia would be defeated in three months. He was sure the Red Army would crumble if they lost the western industrial and agricultural heartland. An eastward retreat would be a suicide march into the wilderness. Hitler’s blazing victory would be so swift that no winter clothes for the troops, anti-freeze or low-temperature oils for engines and guns need be considered.

To Hitler the invasion of Russia was inevitable. It was Germany’s destiny and his to lead it. Communism was the mortal enemy of National Socialism and, moreover, the lands to the east were vital to a German future. There was no other choice.

There were strong voices against it at the time. Despite the German victories in Europe, England remained stubbornly unbowed, and opening a new front seemed foolhardy. Many of Hitler’s economic advisors warned the acquisition and administration of so much territory would be more a drain than an asset. And, this assumed they won!

But, the pessimists were lesser men; men without vision … Hitler knew better. Hitler knew the Reds were soft. The brief Winter War of 1939–1940 in which the Soviets failed to subdue Finland convinced him. The German high command, flushed with victory and bedecked with new medals, were aware that Stalin’s purges of Soviet officers had wiped away the Red Army leadership. They agreed. All were arrogantly unaware of the lessons Stalin had learned. In the wake of the Finnish disaster, he was already recalling thousands of fired officers and over-hauling Soviet equipment.

In the snowy forests, the Finnish Suomi KP/-31 submachine gun had taken a heavy toll on the Reds. True, the Soviets had their old-style PPD designed by Vasily Degtyaryov. It was serviceable, but there were never enough. Russia would need millions of guns.

Georgy Shpagin redesigned his friend’s PPD to produce the PPSh-41. The initials stand for “Pistolet-Pulemyot Shpagina,” or, in English, “Pistol, Machine, Shpagin.” The 41 is for the year of adoption—1941. Like the PPD, the PPSh is blow-back operated and fires the Russian 7.62mm pistol round. This was modeled after the German 7.63mm cartridge and could fire the German cartridge as well. The reverse was not true as the more powerful Russian round could damage the German guns. The PPSh wasn’t in production when the Germans stormed the Russian border, but by the time they reached Tula, the gun was being stamped out in Moscow. The PPSh incorporated a copy of the Suomi 71-round ammunition drum. Eventually over six million were made. With its 900rpm fire rate it was hugely popular and easily maintained by even ill-trained soldiers. Even German soldiers were happy to be issued captured PPShs, converted to 9mm.

Degtyaryov and Shpagin worked together as friends and protégés of Vladimir Federov for many years. The clique of Soviet arms designers were all favorites of Stalin, surviving the purges and enjoying many honors. The Degtyaryov plant at Kovrov was named in honor of Degtyaryov.

One of the most successful machine guns developed in the Soviet Union, the gas-powered 12.7mm DShK heavy machine gun, was created there. Degtyaryov originally designed it to feed from a 30-round drum. Shpagin devised a belt feed, and the “Dashka,” as it became called, was a much-loved staple in WWII and is still in broad use today. At Tula, the guns were dug in; their crews huddled behind the shields of their wheeled mounts.

Behind them, weapons were going directly from factory to the front line. The “Sveta” got its nickname from its initials “SVT.” SVT stands for “Tokarev self-loading rifle.” Working at Tula, Fedor V. Tokarev, another Stalin favorite, improved his SVT-38 into the SVT-40. It fired the rimmed 7.62mm from a detachable 10-round magazine. A million and a half SVTs were made including over 50,000 sniper versions. Many SVTs had already faced the Germans in the opening days of Barbarossa, but the ensuing Blitzkrieg saw most of these lost. Production at Tula and Izhmash was only curtailed in favor of the easier to make M91 rifle and the PPSh submachine gun.

Stalin believed Hitler would not attack Russia. Even when the biggest invasion in history tore into his lines on June 22, 1941, Stalin believed the attack was unauthorized, and Hitler would quickly rein in his renegade Generals.

At that moment, Hitler was the only power on earth that could rein in the German invasion. He had no intention of doing so. The German Blitzkrieg roared from success to success.

The German attackers swept the stunned opposition aside and plunged deep into the enemy rear areas. From there they dashed to the sides, cutting off the Russian front lines from hope of resupply and reinforcement. Then they wrapped them up into confused pockets of isolated and demoralized men, convinced, quite rightly, they had been abandoned and written off. In the first week of Barbarossa Germany captured 400,000 Soviet soldiers and the city of Minsk. Then the cities of Leningrad and Kiev came under the gun and in between another 600,000 Soviet soldiers were trapped and captured.

The majority of Soviet soldiers met Hitler’s forces with the Mosin-Nagant Model 91 “three-lined rifle.” The three lines measured the bore; each “line” being .254 of a centimeter, adding up to 7.62mm. The bore diameter would be used in most Soviet small arms, apparently in an effort to make barrel production more efficient. This bolt-action rifle, was another Tula development, an amalgam of Russian Captain Sergei Ivanovich Mosin’s rifle and Belgian Emile Nagant’s magazine. It was first issued in 1892. Almost 40 million were eventually made at Tula and other Russian arsenals. Some were even sub-contracted to Westinghouse and Remington in the U.S. The M91 served in the Russo-Japanese War, the Revolution, the Civil War and throughout WWII. A few even served in American and British hands. Most were long infantry versions, but shorter models were made and several sniper versions were produced.

Supporting the M91s were the Degtyaryov DP light machine guns. These were widely issued by the end of the 1930s. The distinctive 47-round pan magazine provided reliable feed at the cost of being awkward and hard to reload. But, the DP was reliable and easily manufactured even in improvised factories. Unlike its German counter-part, the MG-34, the DP did not have a quick-change barrel and relied on a low 600rpm fire rate to moderate over-heating.

In a series of pincer movements, the Germans elevated their encirclements to a near art form. Even the German commanders were astounded at the huge numbers of captured enemy soldiers and equipment. There was no mechanism to cope with the volume, but the cynical policy of starving the prisoners eased the pressure.

 Still, within a month, German commanders were starting to feel nervous. Their successes meant their resources were being devoured, but the Soviets seemed to have been underestimated and kept conjuring men and equipment out of nowhere. Resistance was stiffening as the Soviets learned of the savage German behavior, the flamethrowers unleashed on civilians, the massacres and the roving death squads. And, underlying everything, was a simple, noble, Russian love for their motherland.

Among the captured weapons were many Tula-made Maxim Model 1910s. Tsarist Russia first fielded the recoil-operated Maxim gun in the Russo-Japanese War and began to make their own in 1905. The Russian Model Maxim 1910 is easily recognized by its ribbed water-cooling jacket. During WWII, a distinctive tractor radiator cap was added to allow insertion of snow when liquid water was not available. The Model 1910 earned the term “heavy machine gun” with its shield and wheeled mount.

The Model 1910 fires the 7.62mm Russian rimmed cartridge from a 250-round belt at 600rpm. Although the gun was later superseded by the SG-43 Goryunov, it remained in production until after the war.

Field Marshall Gunther von Kluge led the Army Group Center in Operation Typhoon, the German operation to take Moscow. Hitler’s predicted three-month deadline for victory passed quietly, and the advance continued. Not until October 1941 did German scouts finally see Moscow through their binoculars. Twelve miles ahead, they saw a city bristling for battle and eerily empty. Stalin had sent government and industry 500-miles to the south-east and across the Volga River to the city of Kuibyshev. While Muscovites panicked and fled, Stalin looked at his private train ready to take him to safety and decided to stay in the besieged capital; a decision that likely saved the nation.

Winter came early in 1941, the cold stabbing the German soldiers through their summer uniforms. It would be the worst winter of the century. The Germans split up and raced to the flanks, hoping to surround Moscow and hit from several directions. Sweeping ahead to the south on October 7, the renowned German Colonel-General Heinz Guderian was approaching Moscow on the road from Orel with his proud 2^nd Panzer Division. Ahead, the city of Tula was already writhing under German artillery shells. Von Kluge and Guderian expected this dot on the map would quickly be a minor memory. Guderian was ordered to take Tula.

 But, the ancient Russian ally, winter, would not be ignored. A layer of snow fell and then melted, turning the road to mud. Tanks and infantry transport sank, and the morass devoured German fuel and straining machinery and exhausted the men. Additionally, numerous partisan groups badgered the German supply lines and rear areas.

Ahead, the glow of Tula’s industry could occasionally be glimpsed. As well as being the manufacturing center of many Soviet arms, Tula was also the birthplace of the Soviet TT-33 semi-automatic pistol. The two “Ts” in “TT” stand for the gun’s designer, Tokarev and the Tula arsenal. Tokarev, a Tula native, improved on John Browning’s design with an improved system of holding the recoil spring. Overall the gun is made to be easier and simpler than a Browning to clean and fix. The 7.62mm ammo is held in an 8-round magazine, and the gun could fire the German 7.62mm if any were captured.

Another Tula product was the Nagant M1895 revolver designed by and named for Emile’s brother Leon Nagant. This remarkable gun was produced at Tula from 1895 through both World Wars. It fired seven shots of a unique 7.62mm rimmed cartridge. The full-length brass cartridge surrounded the bullet. The gun pushed the cylinder forward to seal the gap between cylinder and barrel. This eliminated flash, preserved the power of the burning gases and facilitated use of a silencer if desired. The various secret police services made use of this.

 Stalin appointed General Georgy Zhukov to take over the Western Front, including Moscow’s defense, on October 10. Twelve days later, German elements neared Tula, and V.G. Zhavoronkov, the First Secretary of the city, assumed combat command of Tula and formed the 1500-strong Tula Workers Regiment.

 While the new regiment trained, everyone else fit to work was drafted to build defenses. Trenches, barbed wire, minefields and anti-ditches began to ring the city. Homes and factories were strengthened and stocked with weapons, ammunition and Molotov “cocktails;” bottles of gasoline to be thrown at tanks. Anti-tank weapons were in short supply, but Degtyaryov had also designed two models of light anti-tank rifles. The bolt-action PTRD and the semi-auto PTRS-41 both used the same 14.5mm cartridge. Unfortunately, they only penetrated the German tanks under ideal conditions. The semi-auto PTRS-41 only functioned well when it and its ammunition were well-bathed in oil.

 A layered perimeter was established. When the temperatures dipped, wood from the rubble was burned to soften the frozen ground. Belts of wire were thickened and ditches deepened.

Entire factories had been disassembled, crated and shipped east. Several production lines from the Tula arms factory went with them, but production did not stop. The remaining lines worked night and day.

The Soviet Army bolstered the Tula Workers Regiment. Throughout the fighting, women, children and the elderly would carry supplies to the front, carry messages and help the wounded. While the defenders prepared and scrambled to plug their gaps, they couldn’t know Stalin was already assembling reserves to the east.

On October 24, Guderian’s drive on Tula began. By October 28, he was less than 20 miles from Tula. The lone, muddy road remained a huge problem, and only one battalion of infantry had enough fuel to keep up with the dwindling tanks. The pace had to slow; without the infantry, the Panzers were prey for the often suicidal Soviet anti-tank squads.

On October 29, the German tanks ground over the small towns south of Tula, smashing through the thin resistance. Dusk found the Germans tired, grimy and mud-covered but only two miles from Tula.

“Take it!” Guderian was ordered. He attacked immediately in the hope of surprising the Soviets and breaking into Tula. It didn’t happen. The Soviet defenders lashed out with their M91s, SVTs, PPShs, DPs, anti-tank guns, Maxims and Dashkas. Mortars and artillery piled on to bring the shaken Germans to a standstill. Guderian’s attack was suspended until dawn. The attack had failed, but the idea was right; Tula was strengthened and reinforced under cover of darkness.

The sun rose unseen behind low, dark, clouds. The German artillery barrage lit them up at 5.30 a.m., the shells mingling with rain. When the bombardment stopped, the tanks, confined to the few roads by even more mud, made contact with Tula. The German infantry pressed forward with them. By mid-afternoon, the fighting fell to a stalemate. Then, the Soviet T-34 tanks arrived, their broad tracks able to negotiate the soft ground. Their 76mm guns pounded the 2nd Panzers and drove them back. The infantry could only follow.

A last-gasp German attack late in the afternoon fared no better. Soviet forces in a defended cemetery blunted it, and when the Germans shifted into a factory area they did no better. By nightfall, the unhappy Germans were digging their own defensive positions.

During the overcast night, still more reinforcements joined the now hopeful defenders, bringing their strength to more than two dozen tanks. A fresh rifle division deployed, and more anti-aircraft guns were wheeled into front-line service. The Germans held back Soviet infiltrators all night.

 The night brought a new horror. The Katyusha multiple rocket launchers were a terrifying surprise. These were nick-named “Stalin’s organs” because the grouped launching tubes resembled the pipes in a church organ. As the rockets howled and exploded, the thin morning light revealed ghostly Soviet fighters through the mist, smoke and drizzle.

The Luftwaffe sent planes, but the Soviet 732^nd Anti-aircraft Artillery Regiment shot down several and disrupted the attack. Their 85mm guns were then leveled to engage German ground forces. When the rare Soviet aircraft did appear they strafed the Germans with 7.62mm and 12.7mm aircraft machine guns made at Tula.

The Germans could barely hold, and attack was out of the question. On November 1, the Soviets counter-attacked from Tula again. The counter-attack stalled as the Germans, now trapped in the mud, fought with their backs to the wall, attacking tanks on foot with small arms and grenades.

Again, the front gelled. Seeing his attacks stopped, but realizing the Soviet counter-attack was also stopped, Guderian shifted north to bypass the city, continue the advance to Moscow and cut off Tula from further resupply and reinforcement.

The Panzers met rigid resistance. At the same time, another push toward Tula was stopped by the unshakable 156^th Rifle Regiment of the NKVD. By November 3, the battle lines were again locked in trenches and foxholes.

Over the next two days, the 413^th Rifle Division reinforced Tula. More importantly, a cold front pushed away the drizzled weather. The frigid air froze the mud, and the German vehicles and men could move. It also brought new suffering to the Germans. Emergency supplies of winter clothing were miles behind in the vast muddy traffic jam stretching back to Poland. The cold hit record lows.

On November 15, the Germans struggled again to push around Tula and regain the initiative. Despite several counter-attacks mounted by the Soviets, by November 17, it looked like the attack might succeed. Then the T-34 tanks arrived to catch the German infantry unsupported. Their 37mm anti-tank guns were useless against the T-34s. The German commanders watched dumbfounded as their men ran for their lives. Reinforcements stabilized the situation, but the sense of foreboding was inescapable.

On November 18, Guderian’s attack lurched north toward Moscow. German tanks detached to attack Tula from the north. Tula was nearly cut off as German forces seized the road from Moscow.

 Too little, too late—The German forces were simply exhausted of everything. By December 5, Guderian was looking for an exit.

The next day, the prepared Soviet counter-attacks by fresh Siberian troops with hundreds of new PPShs and dozens of new T-34 tanks bled out the last of German energy and material. The temperature dropped to -36F. Oil froze in German engines and guns, grease froze on artillery ammunition, optical sights frosted and fogged, and metal parts, reportedly including rifle bolt handles, became brittle and broke. The Siberians had seen worse and shrugged it off.

Soon, there were plans to withdraw and consolidate and counter-attack. These came too little in the cold and confusion. Moscow did not fall. On December 20, Guderian flew to Hitler’s headquarters to plan a withdrawal. On Christmas day Hitler fired him.

There were many battles ahead, but Moscow was safe, and the German adventure in Russia was turned. The defenders of Tula were largely responsible; Hitler was stopped at the Iron City’s door.

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V22N9 (November 2018)

During World War II, the U.S. Ordnance Department began a research and development program for a new lightweight infantry rifle. After the war ended, progress was slowed due to reduced post-war funding for the project.

Early weapons developed during the program were based on the M1 Garand rifle, which slowly evolved into the T44 series of rifles, ending with the T44E4. One of the more serious competitors facing Springfield Armory’s T44E4 was the Belgian-designed Fusil Automatique Leger or FN FAL rifle.

During 1954, the U.S. placed an order with Fabrique Nationale of Herstal, Belgium, for 3,303 FN FAL rifles in 7.62mm caliber. The weapons were distributed to the using services for testing and evaluation. Although the Belgian-made rifles were marked T48 they were a combination of 2,270 FAL Canadian pattern, 833 semi-automatic light-barrel T48s and 200 heavy-barrel T48E1 models with bipods.

The Inch-Pattern FN FAL

A meeting was held at the Office of the Chief of Ordnance on May 10, 1954, to brief representatives of the Springfield Armory on the policy for the T48 rifle program. On May 26, 1954, Armory officials attended a conference held at the head office of Canadian Arsenals Limited. The group distributed translated drawings and manufacturing data to prospective contractors who were invited to submit bids for production studies. It was established that engineering information would be exchanged between the United States, Great Britain and Canada with Canadian Arsenals Ltd acting as the clearing house. Spare parts requirements for a normal one-year maintenance program were compiled for 500 T48 rifles to be manufactured in the United States.

High Standard T48 Rifles

The U.S. Ordnance Department charged the Springfield Armory with the job of converting the FAL rifle from the metric to the Imperial system of inches. After a brief study, it was determined that converting the Belgian drawings to inches would not be an easy task. Other concerns were U.S. Ordnance specifications for materials, heat-treating procedures, manufacturing tolerances and other manufacturing operations. The Springfield Armory was busy with the T44E4 rifles and numerous other projects, so it decided to turn the task over to a commercial entity. Bids were taken for the project, and the contract was eventually awarded to the High Standard Corporation. As part of the agreement, High Standard was to manufacture at least 12 functional FAL T48 rifles from their final drawings to verify the results of their conversion efforts. Canada adopted the inch-pattern FN FAL and assisted High Standard with their drawing conversions from metric into inches. The rifles were to be delivered by September 1954. The High Standard T48s had a uniquely shaped “square” trigger guard, a U.S. specified flash suppressor and a receiver mounted guide for loading the rifle without removing the magazine.

Initial testing found the T48 rifle proving superior to the U.S. T44, and consideration was given to dropping the T44 from the competition. However, outperforming the FN rifles in the arctic testing phase gave the T44 a new lease on life.

T48 rifles made by High Standard along with Springfield Armory’s T44 rifles were tested under arctic conditions during the winters of 1953, 1954 and 1955. The rifles were also concurrently undergoing testing at Fort Benning, Georgia. Results from both locations reported that the T44 rifle was proving superior. Fort Benning reported that the T48 rifles were experiencing functioning problems under dusty conditions. Similar problems were encountered with the FAL rifles during desert testing by Great Britain. To address the problem, a small delegation of Americans who represented the U.S. contractors, visited the Royal Small Arms Factory in England and the Fabrique Nationale factory in Liege, Belgium. The problem was traced to the FAL’s close tolerances between the bolt carrier and the receiver. The Belgium engineers suggested the incorporation of “sand cuts,” or longitudinal grooves, machined into the bolt carriers, which solved the problem.

The Harrington and Richardson Arms Company (H&R) and International Harvester both submitted bids to manufacture 500 inch-pattern T48 rifles. Harrington and Richardson was chosen to produce the T48 rifles while the Springfield Armory would manufacture the T44E4 design, as well as the heavy-barrel T44E5 rifles for the trials. The cost to manufacture the inch-pattern T48 rifles was $2,392.00 (1955 dollars) each. The T48s made by H&R differed slightly from those made by High Standard. The High Standard T48s were a straight inch-scale transfer from the FN caliber .30 lightweight drawings. While the H&R-made T48s were patterned after the Canadian prototype C1 models which were essentially inch-corrected Canadian EX1 rifles. The 500 H&R rifles were primarily for production and cost studies. The inch-pattern U.S. version of the FN FAL, designated as the T48 rifle, used the Canadian magazine design that included a reinforced magazine lip. This modification applied to all inch-pattern FAL rifle magazines made the magazines non-interchangeable with metric FN FAL rifles.

The Hand Arms and Equipment Unit of the Armory was ordered to prepare Ordnance drawings, provide manufacturing information and technical data to the Boston Ordnance District for use in administering the contract number DA-19-020-ORD-3436 for the caliber .30 T48 rifle to H&R.

A representative from the Springfield Armory attended a four-day conference held from May 16 through May 20, 1955, at the Royal Small Arms Factory in Enfield, England. The conference initiated by the British government was the first in a series to promote cooperation and eventual tripartite NATO standardization of the Belgian FN rifle.

After the first 100 U.S.-made Harrington and Richardson T48-FAL rifles were ready in September 1955, 10 were randomly selected for testing at the Aberdeen Proving Center. The Harrington and Richardson T48 rifles were initially experiencing a few problems with small parts failing and stoppages. After these problems were addressed and solved, testing resumed. Subsequent trials found that the updated T44E4 rifle had fewer malfunctions than the T48 rifles even after the modification of adding sand cuts to the bolt carriers of the T48. The Harrington and Richardson T48 rifles were unable to qualify in the accuracy test. This problem was traced back to excessive machining tolerances on the barrels, partially because of a drawing error.

Despite there being no formal contract between Fabrique Nationale and the United States, the company granted the U.S. the complete rights to produce the FN T48 rifle domestically at no cost. There was a catch to the agreement. A royalty would have to be paid on any FN weapons given or sold to another country under a military aid agreement.

After most of the early problems in both rifles had been solved, a final head-to-head, full-scale test between the U.S.-designed T44E4 and the Belgium-designed, U.S.-built T48 rifles was scheduled for the summer of 1956. The stakes were high; it was expected that one of the rifles would be chosen as the new U.S. infantry weapon, replacing the M1 rifle. Tests were administered at both Fort Benning and at the U.S. Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia. There was a great deal of skepticism on behalf of those involved in the testing about the United States Army adopting a foreign-designed infantry weapon for its forces. Many felt that the U.S. was simply going through the motions of testing the FAL rifle to appease Canada, Great Britain and other NATO members, who were pressuring the U.S. to adopt the Belgian FAL rifle. On the other hand, there was great political pressure from the U.S. and the Springfield Armory to adopt the U.S.-designed T44E4.

After the trials had been completed, Fort Benning reported that both rifles were suitable for army use, failing to decisively choose one design over the other. The Marine testing at Quantico slightly favored Springfield Armory’s T44E4. It seemed that no one was prepared to select one rifle over the other, as it was becoming a very sensitive political issue. Others were outspoken about the adoption of either rifle, stating that neither one represented any real improvements over the old M1 rifle and emphasizing that the search for a truly modern, lightweight infantry rifle simply had not been realized.

Nearly a year after the final trials, the U.S. Government finally concluded that the T44E4 was a full pound lighter than the T48, contained fewer parts and had a single-port gas system that didn’t require adjustments. The similarities between the T44E4 and the M1 Garand rifle would ease both training and manufacturing requirements. Despite pressure from the other NATO countries for the U.S. to adopt the Belgian-designed T48 rifle, on May 1, 1957, Secretary of the Army Wilbur H. Bruckner announced that the T44E4 and T44E5 were being adopted as the Standard U.S. service rifles as the M14 and M15 respectively. An Ordnance Committee meeting held on November 14, 1957, finalized the adoption of the M14 and the heavy-barrel M15 rifles as Standard. At the same meeting the M1 rifle, the Browning automatic rifle, the M1 carbine and the M3A1 submachine gun were classified as Limited Standard items.

With some reluctance from the European allies, the U.S.-developed 7.62x51mm T65E3 cartridge was officially adopted as the standard small arms round of the NATO alliance in 1954. Before long, many other allied countries began to seriously consider the FN FAL rifle. Being that most of the NATO countries had reluctantly adopted the U.S. cartridge, they expected the U.S. to also adopt the FN FAL rifle so that not only would NATO have a common cartridge but a common service rifle as well. However, there was no NATO requirement established for a standard infantry rifle; each country was free to adopt whatever rifle it wished.

The Belgian FAL rifle, in slightly varying configurations, was adopted as the standard service rifle by over 90 countries. The FN FAL would become the most prolific rifle among the NATO alliance. The U.S. M14 rifle would have one of the most short-lived tenures of any previous U.S. service rifle. Within a few years, after the last M14 rifle was made, the weapon began being phased out of U.S. service to be replaced by the small caliber 5.56mm M16 rifle. Many of the NATO alliance countries were somewhat bewildered by the United States’ decision to adopt the diminutive 5.56mm cartridge. Great Britain was stunned in light of the U.S. handily rejecting their .280 caliber cartridge back in 1954 on the grounds that it did not have sufficient power for a U.S. infantry weapon.

Where Are They Now?

The T48 rifles now repose in several U.S. military storage depots, many never fired. Most are the T48 rifles that were made by Harrington and Richardson. There are, however, more High Standard T48s made than have been reported in the past. There are seven standard barrel T48s and six heavy-barrel T48E1 rifles in storage at the Springfield Armory National Historic Site in Massachusetts. Although most of the T48 rifles were produced in a semiautomatic configuration, they do have a full-automatic capability and as such are considered machine guns. There are at least two documented original NFA-registered T48 rifles in private collections.

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V22N9 (November 2018)

George Fosbery is best remembered for his Webley-Fosbery “Automatic” (self-cocking) revolver and his “Paradox” shotgun rifling system. He arguably also deserves credit for one of the most significant firearms design elements in history; the multi-lugged rotating bolt with integral claw extractor and plunger ejector. This is usually credited to Eugene Stoner as part of his revolutionary design for the ArmaLite AR-10 (1956), which of course evolved into the ubiquitous and important AR-15 pattern, but in actuality, Stoner borrowed from Melvin Johnson’s 1941 rifle bolt. This bolt and barrel extension solution allows for a consistent and accurate lock-up and a lightweight receiver, since the extension and bolt bear the pressure of firing and no additional locking surfaces or over-building are required. The vast majority of modern self-loading rifles utilize either this system or the AK twin-lugged bolt and trunnion approach.

Clearly in 1891, when Fosbery first patented this design, he was not anticipating today’s trends in rifle design, but it is intriguing that he arrived at the same solution to the problem of locking mechanisms as Johnson (1939) and Stoner (1956). Even more interestingly, whereas Johnson machined an ejector groove in his bolt (for a receiver-mounted ejector), Fosbery’s bolt has the later Stoner-type plunger ejector built into it. The designs are so similar that it is tempting to imagine the involvement of a DeLorean somewhere in the design process!

As an important caveat, it is quite possible that Stoner or Johnson never saw Fosbery’s patent or his gun. The two designs are not in fact identical, the Fosbery having six radial lugs, Johnson and Stoner opting for (effectively) seven. Fosbery also placed the extractor within a lug, rather than omitting that lug as modern Stoner bolts tend to. The lugs themselves also differ in profile, although there is a reason for this and another interesting historical ‘echo’ to note. In recent years, Knight’s Armament Corporation developed a radiused bolt lug profile similar to that seen in the original Fosbery bolt. This was done to meet a specific user requirement, whereas in the Fosbery it was likely done due to the inherent weakness of square lugs, given the metallurgy of the day. Fractured lugs are still a failure point today, albeit in extremis.

The gun itself is not well documented, and the present author has not been able to locate the relevant patent, which published references state was ‘No. 11,339’. Nor is it known when this example was constructed. Ian McCollum’s working theory is that it was built as a rifle and modified several times to serve as a testbed for different ideas. The trigger guard/magazine housing has been altered, and notably, the barrel has been replaced by a 1909-dated Winchester 16 bore shotgun barrel. What profile the original barrel might have had is not known, but the bolt and barrel extension are certainly scaled for a large cartridge. Clearly a magazine of some sort was originally fitted, but it is not clear how this would have functioned. The trigger mechanism intrudes into the space that would surely be required for a cartridge to feed.

In any case, the design came to nothing commercially and only two examples survive today. Pump-action shotguns did not catch on in the UK, and Fosbery’s bolt was never married to any of the several early self-loading designs then in existence. Indeed, this may not even have been practical at the time even if it had been thought of. Nor is there any evidence of military trials, which is not surprising if Fosbery thought of his bolt as a feature best applied to shotguns. The present-day reality is that such low pressure ammunition does not require such a stout and sophisticated mechanism. A simple tilting bolt acting in a locking shoulder is sufficient for most pump-operated designs.

Technical Specifications

Calibre: 16 bore
Overall length: 1273 mm (50.1”)
Barrel length: 773 mm (30.4″)
Weight (with empty magazine): 3.41 kg (7.5 lbs)
Feed device: Unknown

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V22N9 (November 2018)