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.

By Frank Iannamico

Today, many associate the name AR-15 with a Colt-made semiautomatic rifle manufactured for the civilian market. However, prior to its adoption by the U.S. military and being named the M16, the select-fire rifle was designated as the AR-15.

Before the AR-15’s official adoption as the U.S. M16, the weapon underwent a long series of trials and evaluations, most of them directly comparing it to the Standard A infantry rifle at the time, the 7.62mm M14.

The M14 was officially adopted on May 1, 1957, to replace the M1 Garand rifle, but due to peace-time budgets, series production did not start until 1959. About the same time, Colt bought the rights to the AR-15 from Armalite and began trying to sell the weapon to the U.S. Army.

The conflict in Vietnam was beginning to escalate during the same period. By 1961, the steady progress of the insurgency was reaching crisis levels. The new Kennedy administration increased American support for the South Vietnamese government. By December of 1961, 3,200 U.S. military personnel were in Vietnam as advisors, which included Army Green Beret instructors and CIA personnel. The U.S. effort was supported by millions of dollars in military equipment and economic aid. Many surplus World War II weapons were provided to the South Vietnamese Army. The Vietnamese soldiers, generally being of small stature, had difficulty handling the M1 Garand rifle, and as a result, the handy lightweight M1 and M2 carbines became quite popular. However, as in World War II and Korea, the carbine proved to lack stopping power in many situations. As the war progressed, newer M14 rifles were issued to U.S. and Vietnamese troops. Like the M1 rifle, the M14 proved difficult to handle for the Vietnamese. Additionally, the M14 proved to be poorly suited to jungle warfare, due in part to its 44.3-inch length and powerful cartridge.

Although the M14 had a full-auto feature, most of the rifles issued had their selectors replaced with a “lock,” making the rifles capable of only semiautomatic operation. This was done to keep troops from wasting ammunition, and because the M14 was quite difficult to control in the automatic mode of fire. Because of the size and weight of the 7.62mm cartridges, a standard combat load for the M14 was 220 rounds.

The unconventional appearance of the AR-15 rifle and the questionable lethality of the weapon’s relatively small 5.56x45mm cartridge were causing doubt among the old guard. This would not be the first caliber controversy of the U.S. Army, who in the past resisted any reduction in caliber, insisting on full-power .30 caliber ammunition. This thinking had led to the adoption of the 7.62mm cartridge, despite opposition from other NATO countries, who wanted a small mid-range round similar to the 7.92 Kurz cartridge fielded by the Germans for their Sturmgewehr during World War II.

The following are excerpts from a formerly SECRET 1962 U.S. Army document, comparing the AR-15 and M14 rifles. The document contains a summary of tests that ran from 1958 to 1962. Note to M14 aficionados, the following text is from U.S. Army reports and does not necessarily reflect the beliefs or opinions of the author or SAR magazine.

Squad Effectiveness

Army tests conducted in 1959 showed that, with regard to squad hit potential, a five-man squad armed with the AR-15 rifle would be more effective than an eleven-man squad armed with the M14 rifle. This was due to the greater accuracy and rate of fire in the AR-15. In automatic fire capability and tactical flexibility, the AR-15 rifle is markedly superior to the M14. The AR-15 rifle can replace, with gains in each case, all current shoulder fired weapons, and it is also suitable for use by the USAF and by small-stature U.S. supported forces. The M14 rifle is marginal at best as a replacement for the BAR, is somewhat less satisfactory as a semiautomatic rifle, and is not capable of replacing the submachine gun or the M79 grenade launcher. The M14 rifle is also not suitable for use by small-stature U.S. supported forces or the USAF. Soviet forces armed with the AK assault rifle have a definite firepower effectiveness advantage over U.S. forces equipped with either the M1 or the M14 rifle, because of the AK’s effective automatic fire capability and the enemy’s ability to carry more ammunition. U.S. forces armed with the AR-15 rifle would have a marked firepower advantage over Soviet forces armed with the AK assault rifle. The AR-15 is more lethal, the weapon and ammunition are lighter, and the bullet’s trajectory flatter.

Regarding the facility of production and cost, the AR-15 rifle can be produced with less difficulty, to a higher quality and at a lower cost than the M14 rifle. It is estimated that in quantity production the item cost of the AR-15 rifle, ammunition, spare parts and accessories would be about two-thirds of the item costs for corresponding items for the M14 rifle system. In addition, the cost for the M79 grenade launcher at $118 per weapon would be eliminated.

In reliability, durability, ruggedness, performance under adverse conditions and ease of maintenance, the AR-15 rifle is a significant improvement over any of the standard weapons, including the M14 rifle. Earlier reports that the AR-15 rifle is deficient in performance under Arctic conditions or with rain in the barrel are incorrect.

U.S. Army Combat Development Experiment Center (CDEC) 1959

With the presently planned battle load of 22.39 pounds, a soldier would carry 650 rounds of the lightweight, high-velocity ammunition for the AR-15, or 220 rounds of M14 ammunition. This does not include the weight of the magazines. The weight of the AR-15 magazine with 20-round capacity is 0.18 pounds, compared to 0.5 pounds of the 20-round capacity M14 magazine. For a 220-round basic load with the weight of the magazine considered, the soldier armed with the AR-15 would carry 12 pounds less than the soldier armed with the M14, a weight reduction of 50 percent.

Accuracy

The following excerpt is from a report which involved test firing in 1958, comparing the AR-15 in early stages of development with the national match model of the M1 rifle.

The total score in the 200-yard stage of the qualification course was 554-17V with the AR-15, as compared with the total score of 556-26V for the M1 rifle. The score obtained with the AR-15 is much higher than would be expected considering the difference in accuracy between the two rifles. This is accounted for by the superior handling qualities of the AR-15 rifle, especially when firing from the standing position. The transition firing test showed the M14 and the AR-15 rifle equal in hit probability for the transition range used. However, in nearly all instances, the rifleman required a full 40 seconds to engage the 10 targets with the M14 rifle, and approximately 20 to 25 seconds to engage 10 targets with the AR-15. A possible explanation of the superior hit distribution capability of the AR-15 is that the lighter weapon can be shifted more rapidly from target to target and can be aligned more quickly than the M14.

The Need for Automatic Fire

The belief that the hit probability is significantly higher, against separate known targets at 100 yards and further, for semiautomatic fire than automatic fire can be misleading. Both forms of fire, selectively available to the rifleman, are needed. However, full automatic fire has a particularly significant role to play, which is not always obvious to the user. These include fire at very close ranges, assault fire, supporting and neutralizing fire, hits on unknown targets and last, but not least, the psychological effect on the shooter and the enemy. Short-range automatic fire applications include assault, village fighting, defense against massed attack, night and jungle fighting and patrol action. Lethal fire capability at close range is particularly important, because most of the killing that is decisive to the outcome of a battle takes place at very close range, possibly from 10 to 40 yards. In recent conflicts, it has been possible to achieve the proper automatic fire effects only by a mix of automatic and semiautomatic weapons (M1 rifle, BAR, carbine and submachine gun) with resultant problems of reduced sustained fire capability, training, weight, logistics and different ammunition.

Training

It is significantly easier to train a soldier with the AR-15 rifle than with the M14 rifle. Based on tests conducted by the U.S. Air Force and by CDEC in Vietnam, it is expected that the AR-15 rifle will produce significantly more experts and significantly fewer unqualified shooters than the M14 rifle. In accuracy at all ranges of U.S. Army interest for rifles, the AR-15 is at least as effective as the M14 rifle, and the AR-15 rifle ammunition has further growth potential in this respect.

Penetrating Power

The penetrating power of the AR-15 bullet is adequate and, in respect to the stated requirement, is comparable to that of the M14 at intermediate ranges. The U.S. Army service test of the AR-15 determined that both the AR-15 and the M14 meet the established penetration requirement; i.e., the capability to inflict a fatal wound, through an armored vest and a steel helmet. At 500 yards the AR-15 bullet slightly exceeds this criterion. The major defects of the M14 rifle system are recoil, weight, size, cost and finally ammunition that possesses penetrating capabilities beyond ranges of any practical interest. The AR-15 bullet was designed to meet the 500-yard criterion and no more. The Infantry Board suggested that the penetration characteristics could be enhanced if steel cores were used.

Cost and Logistics

The AR-15 rifle is considerably easier to manufacture than the M14 rifle. Because of the design features, the receiver, which has been especially difficult to manufacture on the M14, is made from a precision aluminum forging. The majority of other AR-15 parts are made by automatic screw machine, the stock and handguard are molded from plastic. Sufficient quantities of AR-15 rifles have been manufactured (approximately 7,000) to indicate there should be no special problems in quantity production. An additional assurance factor, the product of this pilot production is being troop tested in the field.

The total program cost of the M14 rifle for the fiscal year 1961 was $164 per rifle. This high cost reflects development production base and a number of problems that were encountered in producing this weapon. The average cost for all years through 1962 was $147 per rifle. The program cost for the fiscal year 1963 is $114 per rifle reflecting solutions of the production problems and amortization of the production base. The cost of 50,000 AR-15 rifles is estimated to be $101 per rifle. This should be reduced further with the learning curve improvement.

Ammunition Costs

Ammunition as a consumable is a major cost on the basis of quantities of the ammunition required. For the M14 rifle, ammunition consumed during its service life will cost several times as much as the rifle. The cost of M14 ammunition for the fiscal year 1963 is $90 per 1,000 rounds. The estimated price of AR-15 ammunition, based on a firm price quote from a manufacturer, is $67 for 1,000 rounds.

Vietnam Field Test Report

Below is an excerpt from a 1962 final report of a six-month combat test of 1,000 AR-15 rifles in Vietnam. The results confirm that their actual lethality is considerably greater than assumed from laboratory studies and shooting water cans, green coconuts, watermelons and deer.

“The lethality of the AR-15 and its reliability were particularly impressive. Confirmed casualties inflicted by the AR-15, including extremity hits, were fatal. Bodies were recovered, and the nature of the wounds examined. A hit in the arm caused the arm to fall off. A hit in the fleshy part of the buttocks was fatal in five minutes. A chest wound caused the thoracic cavity to explode. Ranges reported were 15 to 250 yards, size of the sample was from 40 enemy casualties.”

Trouble in the Field

Despite the glowing reports about the AR-15, after the widespread issue of the weapon to the troops in Vietnam, some disturbing reports began to flood in. The weapons were jamming and spent cases were freezing in the chambers. The problem was the result of, not one, but several issues: the ammunition, the rifle’s construction and a lack of training and maintenance.

Letters were being sent home, to newspapers and to Washington representatives, by soldiers and Marines, describing how men were being killed in combat because their weapons malfunctioned. It was enough to warrant a Special Subcommittee on the M16 Rifle Program in the U.S. House of Representatives. These proceedings within the Armed Services Committee were known as the Ichord Hearings. After the problems were exposed, action was taken to develop a weapon system that would function properly and led to the upgraded M16A1 model.

Most problems encountered with the rifle were found to be the result of a decision to load 5.56mm ammunition with Olin Mathieson WC846 Ball powder, instead of the DuPont IMR4475 powder the weapon was designed around. Ball powder burns faster than IMR and sped up the gas pressurization of the rifle, which started the extraction cycle too soon as well as increasing the full-auto cyclic rate. The AR-15 was designed to have a cyclic rate of 700 to 800 rounds per minute; with ball powder, it increased up to 1,000 rounds per minute. Problems around the failures to extract were due to the bolt unlocking prematurely due to the Ball powder. There was still residual pressure in the chamber, and the expanded cartridge cases did not have sufficient time to contract to be easily extracted. Corroded barrel chambers compounded the problem.

Adding to the poor performance of the AR-15 rifle in the damp tropical environment of Vietnam was the failure to chromium plate the chamber to prevent corrosion. Rust would quickly form, resulting in a rough chamber in which the cartridges would stick. The M14 had a chromium plated barrel and chamber, why not the AR-15? An infamous quote by William Davis, Jr. one of the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s staff was “If the rifle needed a chrome chamber Gene Stoner would have designed it that way.” After the barrels and chambers were chromium plated the failure to extract spent cases ceased being a problem.

Even after 85,000 AR-15 rifles had been issued to Vietnam, there were no cleaning kits or instruction manuals available. Troops were told that it was unnecessary to perform any cleaning or maintenance on their weapons. This lack of cleaning, compounded by the humidity and other environmental factors, made the gun more susceptible to corrosion in the barrel and chamber. With the unavailability of cleaning supplies, manuals and maintenance training, rifles were found to be in unserviceable condition in the hands of infantry soldiers. With the introduction of Ball propellant, the fouling became more of a problem. It was not until 1967 that manuals, cleaning rods, bore and chamber brushes and lubricant were issued to the troops in the field on a large scale.

Despite its early problems, the M16 rifle would undergo several upgrades over the decades and would remain the primary infantry rifle of the U.S. military, still issued in its basic form today as the M4 carbine.

If any autoloading system has proven itself over the past 100 years, that system is the simple blowback. It has worked with pocket pistols taking cartridges as diminutive as the 2.7mm Kolibri, and (in the case of the Model 1910 Winchester) with rifles firing a 250-grain bullet at a velocity of more than 1,850 feet per second. With special modifications, it has worked with even heavier loads. The writer’s Astra M600 pistol, a simple blowback chambered for the 9mm Luger cartridge, has fired well over a thousand rounds without a hitch. And some of these loads, packed in 25-round cartons with faded labels printed in an undecipherable language, ejected the fired cases, shall we say, vigorously. Moreover, a friend’s Astra M400 (the 600’s slightly bigger brother) has gone through several thousand rounds of the powerful 9mm Bergmann-Bayard cartridge, also without malfunction. Both guns still work well and give every promise of continuing to do so.

As many readers know, in a true blowback action the slide or bolt remains closed during the moment of high pressure chiefly because of its mass and consequent inertia; there are no delaying or locking devices to hold it. Simply stated, the slide and bullet move away from each other upon discharge, but if the slide is, for example, 60 times as heavy as the bullet, then the slide’s rearward velocity is only about one-sixtieth of the bullet’s forward velocity, so the bullet has cleared the muzzle before the slide can open appreciably. (In the all-important initial stage of opening, incidentally, the recoil spring has little to do with this process.)

Again, few if any firearms designs have proven more successful than the blowback. As a Heckler & Koch brochure states the case: “Let us accept the fact that, when it comes to an automatic weapon bolt, a system consisting only of a mass and a spring cannot be surpassed for its simplicity and ruggedness.” But when the blowback system was first formally proposed, it met everything from strong skepticism to outright derision. Its designer, Capt. J. P. Morgan of Her Majesty’s Royal Artillery, learned the hard way what other pioneers before and after him learned—that any new and different idea may be championed by a few, but it will be regarded doubtfully or scornfully by most others. For Morgan, it was the old story, with an added twist; not only was he 25 years ahead of his time, but he applied his idea to the wrong type of gun.

Morgan first presented this idea to a meeting of the Royal United Service Institution in June of 1870. His paper was entitled “A Proposal for a Very Heavy Gun of Novel Construction.” In 1870 the gun was, in all probability, a true novelty, and it was certainly heavy, because the captain initially applied the idea not to a hand-held firearm but to a 15-inch cannon! Nevertheless, his principles were sound. He led into his subject gently, first noting that the heavier the breech, the less stress and strain on other parts of the gun. In citing several examples, he said:

“The relief which a heavy mass affords in receiving and absorbing the force of a blow admits of many familiar illustrations … but perhaps the most singular instance of this law may be found in a case which excited much wonder in the last generation, namely, that of a man who was accustomed to exhibit himself sustaining a very heavy stone on his chest while lying on the floor; several large sledge hammers were freely used upon the stone, but although so much force was applied, there was no injurious effect upon him who submitted to such an ordeal. The relief afforded by simple weight in these examples gives just the same immunity in a gun.”

Then Morgan got to the point, a point which had taken him 14 years of experiment to reach:

“[My] principle consists in receiving the longitudinal strain [of the discharge] on a solid block of metal not rigidly connected with the rest of the gun … When the gun is fired, the shot and breech move in opposite directions, with velocities inversely as their weights. The shot will thus have left the bore long before the breech is opened. I have taken the breech as 56 times the weight of the shot.”

Understandably, the discussion which followed Morgan’s talk did not even touch on the idea he had presented. It was too new, too radical. And, as one of his listeners commented, it was a subject that required a great deal of consideration before an intelligent opinion could be rendered.

How well Morgan had worked out his plan is shown by a modern comparison. The blowback Astra 600, chambered for the 9mm Luger cartridge, has a slide which (including all the components that recoil with it) weighs 13 ounces, or 370 grams. Assuming a standard 9mm load with a 115-grain bullet, the Astra slide assembly then weighs very nearly 50 times as much as the bullet. Morgan’s “slide” weighed 56 times as much as his projectile, but his projectile was proportionately heavier.

Morgan, of course, was convinced of the accuracy of his deductions, but he realized (as all arms designers come to realize) that the real proof of his theory lay ultimately not in mathematical formulas but in a shooting example. By March of 1871 he had completed such a gun, a firing model about 26 inches (66 centimeters) long from breech to muzzle. This 26-inch length was roughly that of a barreled action for a standard military carbine of the day, but no carbine even chambered the load that Morgan’s model did: a 12-ounce (340-gram) projectile backed by a two-ounce (57-gram) powder charge. In other words, the gun used an 875-grain powder charge to fire a projectile weighing more than 5,200 grains!

By the time Morgan finished his model, the objections to his plan were becoming well known. Apparently, the one voiced most often was that the breech would somehow manage to open while the projectile was still in the bore, with disastrous results due to the high pressure involved. In June of 1874, however—four years after he had first presented his idea—Morgan, now a major, had the chance to publicly answer his critics. Again he appeared before a meeting of the Royal United Service Institution, ostensibly to give a talk on the then-current controversy between breech-loading and muzzle-loading for artillery pieces. Inevitably the talk swung back to his design, and this time he could claim that “the method of its action has since been successfully demonstrated in a firing model.” He then compared his gun with more conventional breech-loaders, including one locked at the rear by interrupted threads. (Coincidentally, a rifle using this method of locking, the Ward-Burton bolt-action, had recently undergone field trials with the U.S. Army.) In comparing one system with the other, Morgan said:

“Instead of being kept in its place by the tenacity of the threads of a screw, [my breechblock] is kept in position [simply] by the mass of metal behind it. This is a most important difference. Tenacity is a quality that is limited in amount and liable to failure under repeated strains of great amount; but, like time and space, the resistance of mass can be calculated upon with certainty at all times. When tenacity fails there is a violent explosion, but the resistance of mass increases as the pressure increases, and it is practically impossible to move a heavy mass in a very short time … nor can [my] breech ever get jammed, because the result of the explosion is to open it harmlessly after the shot has left the bore … .”

To no one’s surprise, a spirited exchange took place once Morgan had finished his talk:

A MEMBER: “How much powder have you fired in that model, and was there any escape [of gas]?”

MORGAN: “Two ounces, and twelve ounces of shot. It was fired at Elswick, Mr. Rendel looked at it, and he admitted that there was no escape whatever.”

ANOTHER MEMBER: “Major Morgan fires two ounces of powder from his model, but he cannot judge from that how [a bigger gun] would answer. His idea is clever, but I do not understand how he can count upon its proper action in practice. He says that the breech-piece comes back to the loading position with perfect ease; it is so beautifully managed, that the shot goes out and the breech-piece comes back, and everything is all right, and nice and quiet. But from our knowledge of gunpowder we cannot presume on these things. … It might be vice versa; for example, should the breech-piece move before the shot which has to take the rifling leaves the bore, there would be a great escape of powder-gas. … I do not see what useful purpose it serves … to propose to supersede [our other guns] by a novel system which is only represented by a model which has fired two ounces of powder … .”

MORGAN: “I have been so wearied with this objection that the only thing I can say is that guns, like everything else, must obey the multiplication table, and I am prepared to prove by the multiplication table that the shot will be out of the bore before the breech opens. … I have been so wearied with similar objections that I have almost felt irritated at times. Some have said the shot will drop harmlessly out of the muzzle, and all the danger will be from the escape of the powder behind. I have said in reply, only make a gun and stand in front [of it] when it is fired, and I will stand behind.”

It was a good argument—that the real test of a new design was not on the drawing board but in its actual performance. Obviously, no one took Morgan up on his offer. And gradually, others came to see things his way. In 1879, a civil engineer named James Longridge, already noted for his work with big guns, stated the following publicly:

“In my paper recently read at the Institution of Civil Engineers, I described a system of construction for breech-loading and exhibited a small gun which had proved perfectly successful. … I have no hesitation in saying that the system is theoretically right and that it would prove the most efficient as well as the most economical of any that have come under my notice. It is in principle the same as the system advocated by Major Morgan … .”

Although public opinion eventually turned in Morgan’s favor, his big blowback cannon was apparently never built. And not until the 1890s did the blowback system, when applied to handguns, begin to gain widespread acceptance. The first U.S. patent to spell out the principle, issued to Louis Schmeisser (assignor to Theodore Bergmann) in October of 1895, said in part that “a breech bolt bearing against the rear end of the barrel, the weight of which is a certain multiple of that of the projectile, is given a motion by the gas-pressure which is correspondingly slower than the lighter projectile.” Eighteen months later, the great John Browning, using somewhat similar wording, patented a blowback pistol of his own. In many ways, Browning’s pistol set the pattern for the millions of blowback arms to follow. Yet the true father of the principle is a man little known today: Captain J.P. Morgan, Royal Artillery.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: As given in the HK brochure, the actual formula for computing the mass of a blowback bolt is: (projectile mass + 0.5 x load mass) x projectile velocity = bolt mass x bolt velocity.

Some of the fun in collecting historical arms is that we’re sometimes confronted with interesting puzzles that appear to contradict what we think we know. Take our example here: a beautiful, supposedly original Springfield M1903 Mark I rifle that just doesn’t look right. Having no taste for eating crow, I learned a long time ago to never say about rifles, “They never made one like that.” Still, the more I examined the breathtakingly pristine rifle, the more I believed that this one, indeed, was never made.

Which of these two Springfields is the fake?

Buried Treasure

The Mark I was a consignment item on the rack of a local gun shop. Its most remarkable feature was its pristine condition, and so the first natural thought was that it must be one of those recent rebuilds being turned out by several makers today to satisfy demand created by Vintage Military Rifle competitions. This one, however, was a Mark I model. What makes the Mark I immediately and obviously different from other M1903s is the cut in the left receiver wall, an ejection port to accommodate the use of the Pederson device (see sidebar). While it is perhaps not unheard-of to rebuild a Mark I for shooting competitions, it certainly seems unusual. But the $2,000 price tag on this baby was more than twice the going price for M1903 rebuilds or typical Mark I’s. Odd.

According to the gun shop owner, the consigned rifle’s owner claimed the rifle to be an absolute original that Springfield Armory had placed in a safe immediately after manufacture to be kept as an unissued, pristine example of the Mark I. That would account for the unblemished metal finish and unmarred stock, and it makes a great buried treasure story, but let’s separate fact—the rifle we see before us—from statements.

Memory, like hope, is a terrible thing to rely upon. What memory served at that moment in the store was that Springfield Armory had turned out something like 100,000 Mark I rifles for the Pederson device up until around 1920; while not especially “rare” or “scarce,” they certainly qualify as “not entirely common.” A bona fide original in like-new, unissued condition might easily be worth two grand to a collector. The barrel date of 1920 seemed right, the receiver markings were right, but pulling the bolt showed the trigger/sear to be standard M1903. And the magazine cutoff and spindle were standard, too. I flipped the rifle over and over again, looking at the details. Was Springfield Armory “Parkerizing” metal in 1920? Is it the right color?

My attention kept going back to the stock; it looked exactly like the stocks on commercially rebuilt M1903A3 and M1903A4 rifles: too nice an oil finish on too nice walnut with too much figure for genuine GI issue wood. What else? Um … No cartouches or stampings of any kind. Not even a “circle P” on the pistol grip to denote proof testing. Other than the condition, what’s not right with the stock? Well, it only has one reinforcing bolt. Don’t all of my Springfields have two? But there’s something else—what is it? Hmm … Time for some research.

By the Numbers

Springfield Armory did not set aside a block of serial numbers for Mark I production; Mark I serial numbers are mixed in with standard production M1903s, the first/lowest being 1,034,502 and the last/highest 1,197,8342. The serial number of our Mark I—1,066,64XX—falls within that range and, according to Springfield Armory records, was made in 1920. So far, so good.

Springfield Armory began applying an iron phosphate “Parkerized” finish in late 1918, followed by dipping the metal parts in oil containing a black dye to give them a dark, non-glare finish. Still OK.

The barrel date, 11-20, however, is iffy. Manufacture dates on Springfield rifle barrels are marked as month-year. According to Brophy, “the latest date observed of what appeared to be an original Mark I rifle barrel has been 5-20.” Mark I barrel dates later into 1920 are apparently unconfirmed by records, and Brophy’s use of passive voice fails to tell us the source of his information. Still, it’s conceivable that this Mark I’s 11-20 dated barrel and receiver may be original mates because assembly of Mark I’s apparently continued into June 1921.

Stock Strikes Out

But the rifle’s stock is the deal killer. Not only does it absolutely disprove the seller’s claim that the rifle was immediately stored as-is upon manufacture, we can also be confident it is not even an original military issue stock. Springfield Armory records show 101,775 Mark I’s made from July 1919 to June 1921; adding the unknown exact number made from December 1918 to July 1919 brings the speculated total to about 145,0002. So, these were not just a handful of experimental rifles quickly bolted to uninspected stocks—Mark I’s were general issue rifles intended for frontline troops that went through the usual armory inspections, and stocks originally bore the usual inspector’s marks.

Springfield Armory stamped their stocks with letters or numbers inside a circle, oval or other shape in front of the trigger guard plate. Also, there should be a “circle P” on the pistol grip and an armory inspector cartouche on the left side. The consignment rifle stock has no visible markings at all. Possible strike one.

Regarding the lone rear stock reinforcing bolt on our Mark I, the Army standardized the addition of front reinforcing bolts on all Springfield stocks beginning in 1917. The consignment rifle, supposedly made three years later, lacks this front stock reinforcing bolt. Possible strike two.

Original stocks for Mark I’s had a portion of the stock relieved to clear the Pederson device ejection port on the receiver. The complex stepped shape of the stock relief on our Mark I does not match that described, diagramed and photographed anywhere. Possible strike three.

But handling the rifle in the gun shop, what was immediately wrong with it was so obvious that I looked right past it. Did you ever walk around the house looking for the keys in your pocket or the sunglasses on top of your head? It was like that.

Springfield Armory issued Mark I’s with Type 2F “S” or “Scant” stocks; the consignment Mark I has a later (1942) Type 8 M1903A3 Remington full pistol grip stock that didn’t exist in 1920. The owner claimed the rifle was stored right after it was manufactured; the Type 8 stock makes that claim patently impossible.

An Armory Rebuild?

OK, discounting the owner’s story, is it possible the rifle got a Type 8 stock as part of an armory rebuild? It could also have received a non-Mark I sear, cutoff and spindle at the same time. When M1903 and M1903A3 rifles went back to armories for refurbishment, because nearly all parts are interchangeable, there was little thought to keeping original parts with their parent rifles. It’s common to see, for example, machined parts from early M1903 rifles on later M1903A3 rifles that originally had stamped parts and vice-versa.

Remington cut Type 8 stock inletting to fit both M1903 and M1903A3 rifles, and it’s a reasonable bet that some Mark I’s came out of arsenal rebuild with a Type 8 stock. Maybe, but not this stock, because it has finger grooves. Cutting finger grooves into new stocks apparently ceased the same year the Type 8 became issue, and I found no photos, drawings or descriptions of genuine GI issue Type 8 stocks wearing finger grooves.

The last bit of damning evidence is the portion of stock relieved to clear the Pederson device ejection port. When armories refurbished rifles, they had no reason to expend the time or effort to relieve Type 8 stocks to accommodate the Pederson device ejection port, as the Army never issued the Pederson device and destroyed all but a few in 1931, a full 11 years before the Type 8 stock existed. So, even if our Mark I might have received a Type 8 stock during armory rework, a genuine Type 8 stock does not have the ejection port relief. Coupled with the finger grooves and total absence of any visible markings, this Type 8 stock is clearly not original.

Baloney

Conclusion: The consignment Mark I Springfield is a fake. Because someone cut the ejection port relief on the aftermarket stock when none was necessary and because of its overinflated price, it’s apparently a deliberate fake. However, there’s no way we can know the intent of the person who built it or the knowledge of the seller, so accusations are pointless.
Still, I wanted to check the stock’s barrel channel for any markings and to see if the barrel-to-receiver witness marks perhaps definitively show the barrel to be a replacement.

“Hey, would it be OK if I pulled the stock off that consignment Mark I Springfield to take a look inside?” I asked the gun shop owner a week or so after he allowed me to photograph it.

“Too late,” he said, “someone bought it off the rack. Why, what’s up?”

“Oh. Well, it doesn’t matter now,” I said. “I just wanted to check it out.”

Should I have told him and suggested he contact the buyer and the seller with my suspicions? My first impulse was to do so, but no one asked my opinion. Capitalism—and especially vintage firearm capitalism—is a caveat emptor world, and the buyer could have and should have done his own research. In the end, perhaps what matters is that everyone is happy, even if they are believing a fiction.

Happy is good. And who doesn’t enjoy a buried treasure story?

Some final notes: The genuine Mark I photographed here is in my collection. In comparing it to the suspect Mark I, I found more discrepancies in other details, but here I wanted to show you how to immediately ID a correct Mark I while standing on a gun shop or gun show floor.

They say it is the morsel of truth that lends believability to the best fiction. Sadly, if not deliberately altered, that suspect Mark I would have been valuable, because the barrel date alone would add to the base of knowledge about Mark I manufacture dates. If the barrel and receiver are original mates, then that is the morsel of truth in this Mark I’s fiction.

Which is the fake?

The rifle on top is the fake. This suspect Mark I stock is the Type 8 pistol grip stock, first used in 1942, more than two decades after Mark I production ceased. Note that it lacks the proper second stock reinforcing bolt standard on issue Springfields since 1917.

The genuine Springfield sports a correct Type 2F “Scant” stock (named for its scant pistol grip) on a Mark I.

The Secret Springfield

In the summer of 1945, an Army intelligence unit logged an interesting footnote in the history of—oftentimes futile—military secrecy, when it discovered a complete M1903 Mark I rifle with a Pederson device in the reference collection of Rheinische Westfallian Sprengstoff in Nuremberg, Germany. It had been in the collection since 1920.

The Pederson device transformed the M1903 Springfield bolt action into a genuine semiautomatic rifle by replacing the bolt with the “U.S. Caliber .30 Automatic Pistol Model of 1918 – Mark I.” A Mark II version was for use in the M1917 (“Enfield”) rifle. Invented by John Pederson at the Remington Arms Company during WW I and first demonstrated to the U.S. Army on October 8, 1917, the U.S. War Department treated it with extreme secrecy and intended to issue it to troops fighting in Europe. An order for 100,000 devices, a million magazines and 800 million rounds of ammunition quickly followed.

Though it worked very well indeed, the Pederson device utilized a pistol cartridge—hence the moniker, “Mark I Pistol”—with about one-tenth the power of the Springfield’s .30-06 cartridge. The Army wanted the device in the hands of troops assaulting enemy trenches, its overwhelming rate of semiautomatic fire—and surprise, the reason for secrecy—being the primary advantage negating concerns about lesser bullet energy when fighting would be at close range. By October of 1918, the Army had ordered 133,450 Mark I and 500,000 Mark II Pistols and 9,686,000 magazines, but the end of the war the following month reduced or suspended orders. The Pederson device never saw combat. In the end, the Army only received 65,000 Mark I Pistols, 1.6 million magazines and 65 million cartridges. On November 4, 1919, 101,775 M1903 Mark I rifles and 65,000 Pederson devices went into storage. In March 1931 the War Department declared the device no longer secret and offered it to the Navy and Marine Corps, who both declined. The next month the government destroyed 64,873 Pederson devices and 60 million rounds of ammunition.

-Information from the Remington Arms Company report prepared by J.D. Pederson and published in The Springfield 1903 Rifles by Lt. Col. William S. Brophy, USAR, Ret.

Machine Gun Designer Saw His Weapons Used by China, Japan, Columbia, Finland, and the Vatican

Pál Király was a Hungarian automatic small arms designer whose work was very interesting indeed. Born in Budapest in 1880, he acquired professional experience at the Mechanical Science University, where he became an assistant teacher in 1902. He published a book on automatic small arms in 1915. During his military service, he was a second lieutenant in an artillery regiment, and during WWI he was assigned to a small arms research office. After also spending time as an observer-machine gunner, he ended the war as a captain.

After WWI, like Germany, Austria-Hungary was struck with a ban on the development and manufacture of armament. Pál Király therefore went to work at the SIG factory in Neuhausen, Switzerland, where he contributed to several projects. With Gotthard End, he developed the KE-7 light machine gun (KE-7 = Király End 7th model), which featured a short recoil barrel action and a tilting bolt. It was fed by a 25-round vertical curved magazine and can receive a bipod or tripod. It was not adopted by Switzerland, but it was sold to several other countries (China, Colombia, Ethiopia, Japan and the Dutch Indies) and was built from 1929 until 1938.

Király also designed the MKMO submachine gun with two Swiss engineers: Jacob Gaetzi and Gotthard End. It looked like a small carbine, fired the powerful 9mm Mauser cartridge and worked with a delayed blowback bolt. Lighter models that fired less powerful cartridges with a blowback action were designated MKMS and MKPS. These models were built between 1933 and 1941—only 1,228 were produced. They were used in Finland and in Vatican City by the Papal Swiss Guard!

In 1929, Pál Király returned to Hungary, but the Swiss did not allow him to take the plans of the guns he designed with him. He worked at the Danuvia factory in Budapest and designed a 9mm pistol known as the KD, of which 20 examples were made. The German Army expressed their interest in it for a time, but they instead embarked on the adoption of the P-38. From 1932 onwards, Király developed a semiautomatic rifle in several variants. All possessed an impressive muzzle brake.

39M Submachine Gun

The designer did produce a submachine gun very similar to the MKMO model; it looked like a small carbine, with a single-piece wooden butt, a delayed blowback action and a folding magazine. It could receive the same bayonet as the 35M Hungarian carbine. However, it was too long (more than 3 feet long) and had disastrous handling. To reduce its length, a redesigned 39M was tested; it had a folding wooden stock, but it was not kept. The exact number of 39M submachine guns produced is not known, but it is between 13,000 and 177,000 models from 1942 to 1944. Finally, another, completely different model was made in 1943 and was adopted as the 43M.

43M Submachine Gun

Description

This gun works like the 39M, but most of its parts have been modified. The stock can be folded under the frame, it has two metal rods covered with wood and receives a folding butt plate. The magazine can also be folded under the frame, but its design differs from that of the 39M. A wooden handguard covers the barrel and is locked by a ring, to which the sling attachment is connected. Ventilation holes can be seen on both sides. The frame is made of a cylindrical tube and receives a rear plug. On the right side are the ejection port and the cocking handle. The 9mm-caliber barrel is screwed into the frame and features six right-hand twist lands and grooves.

The bolt is made of three parts: the main bolt at the rear, which holds the firing pin; the bolt head, which features the extractor and ejector; and a simplified inertia lever. This bolt differs from and is not exchangeable with that of the 39M. The grip is a wooden part with horizontal grooves. The three-position selector is mounted at the rear of the frame and is turned left for automatic shooting (S = Sorozat), right for safety (Z = Zàarva) and top for single shot (E = Egyenkén). The gun receives a 40-round straight magazine. Cartridges are arranged in two columns and are fed alternately from left and right, as for the Thompson. When in a firing position, it tilts forward slightly. For transport, it can be pulled down under the frame. The 43M magazine is not the same as that used for the 39M! The front sight is located on the barrel and the rear sight aids shooting between 50 meters and 600 meters. Between 5,000 and 9,000 43M submachine guns were produced in 1944. A 44M variant, without a shoulder stock, was also made but was not adopted.

Operation

The 43M features a patented two-part delayed blowback bolt. When shooting, the gas pressure pushes both the bullet and the bolt head, which is locked by the high pressure. When the bullet exits the barrel the pressure lessens, and the bolt can then unlock and open. The empty case is extracted and ejected, and the main spring is compressed. The device is complicated, but its design permits a 60% reduction in recoil and the use of a light bolt (only one pound).

Disassembly and Reassembly

Put the weapon on safe. Depress the receiver cap-retaining plug located on the rear left side of the receiver. Give the cap a quarter turn, while maintaining pressure on the cap to prevent the main spring from flying out of the rear of the receiver. Remove the receiver cap and main operating spring. Retract the bolt assembly to the rear. Push the bolt assembly retaining pin out and separate the heavy rear portion of the bolt and the cocking lever. The firing pin may also be removed. To assemble, reverse the above procedure.

Accessories

Accessories include a leather sling; 35M bayonet with a 33-centimeter blade and a wooden handle; the scabbard is made of sheet metal with a leather holder.

Postscript

The 39M and 43M submachine guns were used by the Hungarians on the Eastern Front, as they were allied to the Germans against the Soviet Union. In 1944, Pál Király escaped from Hungary before the arrival of the Soviets. He travelled to Spain and proposed some of his designs to the Spanish arsenals, but they were not interested. He made his way to Switzerland and then to Santo Domingo, where he arrived with a passport delivered by the Red Cross! There, he found his fellow countryman Alexander Kovacs, who supervised La Armeria, a Dominican arsenal that repairs various small arms.

Later, Király developed the M2 Cristóbal carbine, a light assault rifle that fired the .30 M1 cartridge and employed a delayed blowback action, like the 43M. It was produced between 1950 and 1957. The designer worked at La Armeria until 1962 and died in 1965.

The Polymer Firearm Revolution Births a Truly Radical Submachinegun

The man leaned back comfortably against a low wall, enjoying a respite from the piercing Montenegro sun. He had chosen the spot carefully, ensuring that he could not be seen from the expansive crushed stone drive. He had hidden his Aston Martin in an olive grove behind the palatial home where the car, too, was out of sight. He cradled the suppressed German submachinegun in his lap and let his thoughts drift.

The one woman he had ever truly loved died in his arms mere hours earlier. He had retrieved the submachinegun from the corpse of one of the operatives who had killed her. He let his mind play on that for a moment. There was none of the expected ache or yearning. He had walled that part off, sealed it away. What took its place now was cold and dark.

He needed the gun to shoot straight. He had paused his Aston on the drive up long enough to ventilate an unfortunate rubbish bin. He could cover the three 9mm holes with a golf ball, but they were indeed an inch up and right from his point of aim. This was not unusual in his experience with muzzle-mounted sound suppressors.

He could feel the tires crunching the gravel before he heard the car’s exquisite engine. The man likely drove German, a 7-series BMW or perhaps a Maybach Mercedes. He waited until the target left the car and began walking up his sidewalk. He then stood up, centered the gun’s sights and shot the man in the thigh with a single 9mm ball round. At this range the heavy subsonic bullet sounded like a hammer hitting meat.

His target dropped unceremoniously to the ground with a groan. Before the wounded man could retrieve his own sidearm he had his shoe over his forearm, pressing it into the gravel somewhat harder than was necessary.

He cocked his head ever so slightly to meet the agonized man’s gaze and stated flatly, “The name’s Bond, James Bond” before cracking the tiniest smile.

Mr. White had a date with an MI6 interrogation team. White was the key that would ultimately unlock Spectre. Now Bond had only to keep him alive long enough to take him apart.

State of the Art Hardware

Ian Fleming drew from his own wartime experiences as a spymaster during World War II to craft James Bond, the world’s most well-known secret agent. Fleming pirated the name from an esteemed ornithologist of the day, admitting that he thought James Bond was the most drab and unremarkable moniker he could conjure. Through 14 books and now 25 films, 007 has consistently travelled the globe, gotten the girl and saved the world.

Bond’s weapons typically become icons. While the timeless Walther PPK owes much to most of its post-war commercial success to Bond’s unflagging affection, when 007 needed a subgun the movie guys naturally issued him a Heckler & Koch (HK) UMP. The UMP is lightweight, rugged, adaptable and plastic. In the modern world of pistol-caliber submachineguns, nothing else even comes close.

Origin Story

Gaston Glock won the contract to arm the Austrian Army with a new handgun in 1982. His polymer-framed pistol revolutionized the way the world made guns. While the weapon was ignorantly derided on this side of the pond when it first debuted, nowadays everybody who makes guns makes their own polymer pistol. Once the trend caught on our Teutonic friends at Oberndorf tried their hand at something a bit spunkier.

The Universale Machinenpistole first hit the streets in 1999. Intended as a lighter, less-expensive alternative to the MP5, the UMP currently defines the state of the art in Information Age submachineguns. Employing a polymer receiver, stock and magazine, the UMP is nearly half a pound lighter than an MP5.

The UMP is available in .45ACP, .40S&W and 9mm chamberings. Swapping between calibers on a common receiver requires nothing more than exchanging the bolt, barrel and magazine. To aid in controllability, the gun sports a relatively slow rate of fire. The 9mm is published at around 650 rpm. According to HK the .40 and .45 cycle at around 600.

Morphology

There are mounting points at 3, 6 and 9-o’clock up front for picatinny rails. There are also two mounting points for an optics rail on top. The front and rear sights are non-luminous polymer. The rear sight is flip-adjustable between a standard peep and an open groove. The UMP eschews the traditional HK diopter rear sight.

The polymer charging handle is located in the same spot as that of the MP5. There was a recall early on wherein HK upgraded these items to make them more rugged. The charging handle on the gun we tested seems nice and robust.

Unlike the MP5, the UMP sports a last round bolt hold open in the same location as that of your M4. The magazine release is a polymer flapper behind the magazine. 9mm magazines are curved while .40 and .45ACP boxes are straight. All magazines incorporate a transparent section to help keep track of rounds remaining. The magazines incorporate steel feed lips for durability.

The side folding polymer stock is rugged and positive when extended. There is a small hook that keeps the stock in place when folded but allows instant deployment. Like everything HK makes, this appendage interfaces splendidly with the human form.

Fire control assemblies are available with semi-auto, 2-round burst and full-auto functions in various combinations. Selector switches are replicated on both sides of the gun. The weapon strips without tools, and it takes nothing more than a punch and about five minutes to swap barrels. The front sling attachment points are bilateral while the rear loop is located only on the left aspect of the receiver.

Given that the UMP operates via unlocked blowback the guts of the gun should be simple, but are not. The firing pin is spring-loaded and remarkably complicated, though I suspect this offers a great degree of safety should the gun be dropped. The extractor is a flat piece of spring steel of rather complicated geometry. Firing pins and ejectors are common between calibers. Extractors are, by contrast, unique to each chambering.

Range Report

Running the UMP is a unique experience. The gun feels almost unnaturally lightweight. The firing cycle is a bit choppy compared to an MP5 and markedly slower. However, the sedate rate of fire combined with the superb ergonomics of the gun makes it imminently controllable. So long as I took my time I could consistently ring a 10-inch steel plate twice with a full-auto double tap at 60 meters.

The bolt locks to the rear on an empty magazine, so the gun is quick to reload. Magazines lock in quickly and easily. The flapper magazine release is intuitive and effective.

The in-line nature of the design makes recoil easily manageable, even in .45ACP. While the gun is more fun in 9mm, it still runs comfortably and well in the heavier calibers. The easy caliber conversion allows Law Enforcement agencies to customize the UMP to reflect the types of handguns used by their officers, even if that evolves over time.

I would rate the UMP as every bit the equal of the MP5 as regards precision and controllability while being markedly lighter and faster to reload. Simply not having to manually lock the bolt to the rear for each magazine change makes the process much simpler. Additionally, the streamlined entrails and lighter weight play in the gun’s favor.

The gun runs great with a can in place. With my Gemtech GM9 perched on its snout this particular copy does print about an inch up and right at 15 meters. As 9mm ball is naturally supersonic, you have to run heavy slow subsonic rounds if you really want to take advantage of the sound suppressor.

Spare magazines and accessories like mounting rails are all pure HK, so they are expensive. They are also executed to HK’s typically extraordinary levels of quality. The scope mounting rail will manage any conceivable optic.

Ruminations

The UMP was the perfect gun at an imperfect time. It is the lightest full-sized SMG ever produced. Even in .45ACP, however, it provides reliable, precision, close-range fire with minimal attention to technique. The UMP’s polymer construction makes it literally impervious to weather and external environmental insults.

The world decided some time in the past couple of decades that the pistol-caliber submachine gun was obsolete. As a result stubby rifle-caliber weapons became de rigueur in most proper arms rooms around the globe. Apparently nobody told the guys at HK, so they went ahead and designed the finest pistol-caliber submachine gun ever contrived anyway.

American gun laws are a bucket of snakes, and HK has never really bent over backwards to accommodate civilian shooters on this side of the pond. As a result the closet civilian version of the UMP is the USC (Universal Self-Loading Carbine). The USC sports an unadorned 16-inch barrel and a fixed skeletonized polymer stock that looks thoroughly lame. The gun is chambered solely in .45ACP and comes with a pitiful castrated 10-round magazine. Some really clever gun artisans have taken USC receivers and brought them up to UMP specs by adding a folding stock and bobbed barrel, but such conversions are technically challenging and spendy.

Had circumstances and timing been ever so different the UMP could have been a real player on the civilian scene. Its advanced polymer construction, HK reliability and superb ergonomics would have made for a great defensive carbine had the civilian version retained the folding stock, high-capacity magazines and easy caliber conversions. Alas, the UMP hit the streets during a fairly dry period in American gun ownership, and the lack of availability and proper marketing conspired to keep the gun out of the hands of most American shooters.

Everybody uses rifle-caliber carbines nowadays so cop-surplus, post-sample UMP machineguns trickle into that rarefied market from time to time. Parts can be tough to find, and the resale market is literally non-existent. However, pawing over one of these remarkably advanced weapons does yield insights into what might have been. This is indeed a submachinegun worthy of James Bond.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

www.hk-usa.com
www.gemtech.com

Only in the last 30 years has the weapon accessory mounting solution become standardized. In decades (and century) past, scope mounts and sling attachment points have been created and crafted by individual gun builders. Many larger manufacturers’ proprietary systems have survived and become mainstream. Some odd or antique mounting configurations continue to plague their owners by limiting or even making scope mount options impossible. Assuredly, there will always be a place in this industry for the rare and obscure. As well, there will surely be increased demand and need for continued refinement and standardization among these systems.

THE APPLICATION

The tactics and strategies on today’s battlefield are always evolving, so too must our weapons evolve to remain viable and advantageous. Our weapons must be universal and adaptable. The user of any weapon is always better served by a specialized system. Every combat soldier has a role, and every combat soldier’s weapon must be ideally configured to serve that role.

Modern weapons may be asked to don any number of peripheral accessories—Optics: scopes, red dots, magnifiers, night-vision or thermal ocular; Illuminators and target indicators: those that project light and aiming dots both within and outside our natural visual spectrum; altimeters, GPS units, range finders, clinometers and ballistic computers; bayonets, bipods and slings attachment points; forward pistol grips, hand-stops and barricade stops; less-lethal launchers and direct impact devices; belt-boxes; flare launchers; grenade launchers; short-barreled or AOW shotguns; and sheathed knives, spare magazine holders, ammo caddies and battery storage. The absurd is not off-limits to the well accessorized rifle of today. Bottle openers, cup holders, name tags, repelling gear and even a chainsaw have all found their way onto the handguard of an AR-15.

OPTIC MOUNTS

Weaver

The Weaver, by record and merit, deserves an honorable mention. It is the genesis for our current, most successful and widely adopted mounting system, the Picatinny. It is difficult to identify the Weaver’s exact birthdate; suffice to say that it’s old. One can find photo evidence of its commercial presence around 1950. Weaver’s firm (and continuing) hold on the market stems from the fact that it is a highly affordable scope mount system that is easily adapted to fit almost every commercially available rifle. It’s as near a universal system as was ever created. The simplicity and foresight in the design suggests true genius by the developer. The system is based on a simple aluminum extrusion with the operative profile being that of a truncated or flattened hexagon. The wide flat on the dorsal plane features cross-slots, or longitudinally bifurcated cylindrical voids that mechanically lock the binding screws in place. The lateral features of the weaver are opposing convex 90-degree shoulders set at a 45-degree aspect to the top plane. The interfacing ring-mounts are expected to grab the rail below its widest section on the flats that recede back toward the weapon. The sixth side would be the contact patch with the weapon itself. This surface is varied in height and contour to place the upper five planes in common alignment with neighboring mount bases. The weaver system was created with the ideal plan that only a few dozen mounts could satisfy any mounting requirement across hundreds of gun and optic combinations. And it does this with surprising perfection. Confer and verify with any man born before 1960 who still hunts with a blued-steel rifle stocked in real wood. He likely has a set of 60-year-old weaver mounts on that rifle.

The design of the weaver rail, as it is intended to interface with the ring-mount, provides a stable and positive mechanical lock. The ring-mount might engage the top surface and the lower part of the opposed 90’s on the sides. Or the ring may only grab firmly onto the upper and lower faces of the 90-degree side rails—or a combination of these conditions. In all cases, the ring-mount cannot slip or fall off the rail; but only if the ring’s binding screw remains tight. Of course, ideal conditions never prevail in the real world. As scopes get larger and heavier, rifles get lighter, and cartridges become impossibly powerful, stresses on optic mounts can exceed the strength of the materials used in their construction. So, there are indeed shortcomings and downfalls to the weaver system. Heavy recoil can overcome friction and cause a weaver ring to shift on the mount. The round cross-slot does not provide a true vertical abutment to resist recoil, so any shifting of a weaver ring in its base can result in vertical displacement as the ring climbs out of the slot. Even a slight shift on the base can cause the scope to lose zero. Worst case, this scenario can result in a split ring or deformed clamp that can no longer maintain a positive mechanical purchase on the rail.

The Weaver system can be manufactured without the need for high precision manufacturing processes. This is the true genius behind the design. Except that nowadays, there are enough variations in ring mounts and “weaver-type” or genuine imitation bases that some combinations are totally non-functional. The proliferation and pirating of the weaver system kills the guarantee of any level of mounting strength or even compatibility or consistency of datum surfaces and dimensions and spacing between locking surfaces and cross-slots. And of great import today, as we demand flexibility and modularity in everything, a weaver-type mount and ring combination is unlikely to maintain zero after being removed and subsequently reattached. This is all unacceptable to the discerning shootist of today. Modern Picatinny mounting solutions all seem to guarantee 100% return-to zero satisfaction. So, our connection to and application for the weaver may have seen its day. This might see the kind of break up that begins and ends with, “Weaver … we love you, but …” There is in fact little need for concern, however. Weaver does in fact now offer a line of “tactical” mounts and bases. The bases are made from steel and profiled to meet M1913 Picatinny rail spec. The ring mounts are massive and overbuilt from 7075 aircraft-grade aluminum. These are not your grand-dad’s weaver mounts. Weaver’s tactical line surpasses expectation. They’re made from supreme materials and manufactured to exacting standards.

Armalite

The AR-10 carry handle was first used as a scope mount around 1959 by the Dutch. The internal contour and structure of the carry handle on the Armalite AR-10 and later the AR-15 were seemingly designed with the forethought that they would perform as a base for optics. The contour where the mount meets the optic includes opposing 45-degree shoulders that serve to consistently align the optic as it is drawn into the wedge formed by the interior angles. The system only requires a single mounting fastener—usually a knurled nut or screw. One advantage to this mount’s design is its integration into an existing feature of the rifle—no intermediary mounts or adapters are required. Thus, it is light, strong and repeatable. And this mount pattern was designed to maintain full utility of the fixed iron-sights on the weapon. The downside to this system is that the shooter cannot make a solid cheek weld—the optic is placed so high above the intended line of sight, an add-on cheek riser must be used to elevate the comb to an operative height. But in doing so, the iron sights cannot be used. Weapon utility is compromised in this condition. To maintain full utility, the rifle can be aimed and fired with the head suspended above the stock comb. But accuracy and shooter comfort (and thus his proficiency) during prolonged use are both equally compromised.

After the AR-10 and AR-15 projects had moved on, the great men of Armalite would eventually produce the AR-18. This was an attempt to broaden the company’s reach and market share by offering a more affordable option to the AR-15. This weapon platform included an optic base that was formed in the shape of a triangular dovetailed wedge, tapering toward the rear. The dovetail was engineered and oriented such that the scope, while mounted, could only shoot tighter onto the dovetail under recoil. The mount uses a spring plunger to keep the mount pressed firmly forward onto the dovetail in case of reverse recoil or incidental rearward pressure. And as a failsafe, the optic mount incorporated a swinging lock that would be actuated by the user’s thumb before the dovetail could be disengaged. The system allowed for one-handed attachment or removal of the optic from the firing position. As excellent a design as it is, the exact pattern has only ever been used on the AR-18 and its commercial variant, the AR-180. It is an excellent and ingenious device that deserves another chance at widespread success. It is the opinion and wish of the man writing this that Armalite should bring this mount back to commercial presence immediately.

The basic idea of the wedge-type mount may be attributable or derived from other sources. Years before the AR-18 existed, the BALVAR scope and mount from Bausch and Lomb relied on a spring plunger to keep the scope wedged into an adjustable base. The presence of a spring plunger used to press the mount into a wedge is present in several European optics mounting systems. SIG used something akin on the STG57 rifle. We see more modern generation of SIG rifles still using a similar mounting system—with a spring plunger forcing the scope base onto a triangular dovetail wedge (although quite small in comparison to the Armalite). Some mounts for the SIG system feature a mechanically arrested plunger to provide a more positive lock than spring pressure alone.

Warsaw Pact Rail

The Warsaw Pact Rail is commonly encountered on AK variants and other small arms of Eastern-European or Soviet origin like the PSL, SVD, VSS, etc. (post-1950). This rail base is a horizontal dovetail riveted to the side of the rifle; opposite the ejection port. This configuration lends well to the basic design of the AK—the sheet-metal receiver top cover is not solidly affixed to the receiver (some top covers do exist that incorporate a scope base but tend to lose zero every time the cover is removed). The scope mount clamps and locks onto this rail while a simple pin provides a positive stop against the rearmost face of the rail. This hard stop combined with friction generated by the clamping mechanism is generally sufficient to resist recoil. The mount has been proven to be imminently reliable in strength and tends to “return-to-zero” after removal. There are mounting adapters for the Warsaw Pact Rail that provide Picatinny rails, STANAG rails and even direct ring-mounts. The only demonstrable flaw to this system is its bulk and location. Some mounts of this pattern can increase a rifle’s width by almost an inch. The only imaginable failure would be attributed to the height of the mounting adapter. The optical device may be up to 3 inches away from the base rail. This extra-tall structure can compound the moment load on the mount. Perhaps not a demonstrable concern, but the possibility can give pause to the average “western” shooter who is used to a low-set scope mount right atop of his rifle.

Picatinny

The “Pic rail” is obviously based on the old weaver base, but with a more comprehensive, precise and robust structure. The rail’s profile and relative proportions have been refined to provide a predictable and consistent surface for any nominally crafted accessory designed to interface with the system. The Picatinny is correctly named M1913—the MIL-STD-1913 criteria defining the new mount was adopted and published February 3, 1995, by the DOD. Later, it was adopted into the NATO standards of agreement as STANAG 2324. It is presumed that the development and standardization of the mount were in response to the need identified in the first Gulf War (if not all other recent previous military actions). As warfare evolved away from a daylight-only venture on a directional battlefield, our soldiers needed their rifles to exercise some optical versatility. The battle rifle would have to become capable of operating with iron sights, red-dots, short-range and long-range telescopic sights and even dedicated night and thermal vision scopes—and of switching between them routinely. The Picatinny was the answer, and continues to be the answer, to the multi-role universal weapon system. Beyond universal adaptability, the Picatinny ensures near-perfect return-to-zero for optics after removal.

NAR

The “NATO Accessory Rail” is best explained as a redefined Picatinny rail. The new standard institutes a revision in the overall tolerance and operative datum points in an attempt to improve consistency and strength of the accessories meant to interface with the rail. The older Picatinny defined the four outer faces along the edges as the critical interface. The NAR calls out the relation between the top flat and two lower angles as the critical data points. The new definition ensures that the mounting devices made to this new spec make solid contact on those three datum planes. It has been insisted that this system will eventually allow for power and data transfer between the weapon and the accessories and peripherals. This ideal is expected to lead to the integration of smart systems into the battle rifle. Battlefield communication, navigation, onboard logistics and even a soldier’s vital stats are expected to become centralized in the rifle of the future.

STANAG

This is an acronym for “standardization agreement” among NATO nations. There are thousands of STANAGs in place to ensure that we and our allies are operating by consistent procedures and with compatible equipment. For example, the implementation of STANAG 4172 made 5.56 NATO a standard among NATO nations. The STANAG 4179 standardized the magazine pattern among 5.56 NATO chambered small arms. STANAG 2324 defines the universal adoption of the MIL-STD-1913 rail as the optic mount for small arms. Despite all the specifics and code-speak, there is one mount configuration that has become known simply as the STANAG. You’ll be hard-pressed to define it by more specific terms.

This mount pattern consists of a pair of square pockets at each end of the base. These square recesses interlock with lugs that protrude from the optic—usually these lugs are cast into or machined directly into the body of the optical device. Mounting relies on a pair of large screws to fasten the optic to the mount base. Return-to-zero after removal is nominal at best, but the system proved reliable enough to become the most widely used standardized mount system in Europe before the M1913 Picatinny came into favor. The STANAG mount pattern was a standard kit on numerous commercial and military arms from last century. Variants of the FAL, FN49, MAS, Swiss K31, SIG SG-510 and most HK rifles have been originally made, or can be fitted, with aftermarket STANAG-patterned scope mounts. The STANAG mount held enough market shares, as did the optics designed to interface with it, that one can still easily procure any array of adapters to convert a Picatinny-equipped rifle to accept a STANAG optic or convert a STANAG -based rifle to accept adapters for Picatinny style optics.

ACCESSORY MOUNTS

It seems unlikely that the Picatinny could ever be replaced as the prevailing standard as the optics mount for the small-arm. It has experienced continued success as an accessory mounting platform on the battle rifle; its presence may have spawned the booming accessory market as it is today. But there is a great need by both the consumer and professional markets to accessorize and expand a rifle’s capabilities. The obvious place to affix this burden was the handguard. These handguards were typically aluminum and exhibited four lengths of M1913 Picatinny rail at the top, bottom and sides (hence, quad). From the mid-‘90s every premium and professional grade AR-15 was expected to include a “quad” rail as standard kit. Some RIS (rail interface system) handguards are strong enough to serve as a mounting point for other weapons. There are indeed 12-gauge shotguns and grenade launchers designed to grab directly onto a Picatinny handguard. This solves some of the difficulty of removing the lower half of the handguard to expose the barrel for launcher mounting. This capability also allowed launcher mounting on barrels that might lack the specific provisions for direct launcher attachment. Picatinny rails were soon found on upper receivers, buttstocks, magazine pouches and even the sides of scopes and the tops of scope rings. A shooter could accessorize his rifle to a point of nausea. However, the high-profile, obtrusive shape and inherent weight of the pic left much room for refinement. It was soon realized that it was impossible to utilize the total 39 inches of rail afforded by the average rifle length quad handguard. The average shooter might only utilize 2 to 4 inches of rail, to attach one to three peripheral items.

Around 2009-2011, we saw a growing trend in “quad” handguards. They began losing the bottom and side rails—only the top rail section would remain. The rest of the handguard would present with a regular pattern of tapped holes or pockets arrayed around an otherwise smooth handguard. The user was free to attach small sections of pic rail where he needed them. So, the RIS, as it was originally created in the “quad” pattern would soon need to evolve. Many brands released their own modular handguard system, and some still survive as proprietary offerings with a fair fan base. There are two clear heavyweights in terms of accessory mounting systems. VLTOR Weapon Systems gave us the KeyMod, and shortly after, Magpul Industries presented the world with the M-LOK. After exhaustive R&D and the associated cost, these companies made their new standardized patterns public domain. Any manufacturer of weapon accessories could reproduce the mount and the interfacing accessories.

KeyMod

The VLTOR Weapon Systems KeyMod system was the first new modular mounting pattern to become standardized since the M1913 Picatinny. And for many years, it was the best if not the only option to the “quad” handguard. The design is complex as it demands a level of precision in the manufacture of the handguard and accessory mounts. The “key” as it is described, comes from the shape of the pocket. The widest portion is a 3/8-inch round hole, with a narrow pocket extending from one side. The narrow section is relieved on the back (or inside of the handguard). A contoured “nut” passes through the wide portion, and then becomes mechanically locked behind the shoulders of the narrow section. The accessory mount features a fixed cylindrical lug on the back face that locks into the large cutout behind the nut, thus preventing it from slipping out the way it entered the pocket. If the binding screws remain tight in the nut, the mounting arrangement will stay put. The only limitation one might point out is the thin web of material between each keyhole. In destructive testing, this narrow web is regularly where material failure initiates.

M-LOK

The M-LOK pattern calls for a small T-shaped recess in the handguard—narrow cut facing outward while the head of the “T” is cut on the back, or inside surface. Lateral locking is achieved by a fixed stud set between two T-nuts. The stud and one T-nut essentially match up to each end of a short pocket (each pocket is 1.26 inches long), while the other T-nut straddles the web between the pockets (.315 inch). Each T-nut is engaged by a screw—accessible from the outside of the accessory adapter. Upon tightening the screw, the T-nut swings 90 degrees until the head of the T comes into full mechanical interference with the back side of the slot. The nature of this design transfers load forces to the steel locking screws and appeals directly to the strength of the material used in the handguard’s construction.

These two systems provide the same service—modular accessory mounting on a rifle’s handguard. Some have wondered, and others argued, about which is superior. Pullout and shear strength of the M-LOK have been tested and proven to be superior in strength to the KeyMod—up to three times stronger under abusive testing. Some M-LOK pattern handguards have been tested to resist 1,400 pounds before mount failure. KeyMod can be expected to fail near 400 pounds. Also, M-LOK’s return-to-zero after removal is up to 50% better than KeyMod. That said, most accessory mounting bases are short Picatinny rail sections fastened onto the handguard, and accessories are mounted to those rail sections. It is safe to assume that under actual use, only the accessory would be removed from the Picatinny section; the Picatinny’s return-to-zero is largely dependent on the clamp or mount chosen. It is worth noting here, that direct-connect accessories do exist for each pattern. These accessories are largely limited to flashlight mounts, forward grips and sling attachment points.

And as far as abusive testing to the point of material failure, by all intents and purposes, nobody who has bought a rifle with their own hard-earned cash should ever be expected to subject their rifle to that kind of use. As these patterns are indeed open-source, any company may produce the handguards as well as the accessory mounts for them. The patterns are well defined, but there is no guarantee as to material quality or dimensional tolerances used in their construction. Once again as we see the proliferation of a market we will also see knock-offs and clones and the diminished quality that comes with them. Any of these handguards would be more likely to fail under normal use due to material and manufacturing faults than failure directly attributed to the mounting pattern you’ve chosen. Quality never disappoints. The comparison test in reference above was performed by USSOCOM, and results were published in May 2017. The test is exhaustive and conclusive; it’s worth a quick study. The numbers demonstrate fact, but real-world application and consumer acceptance will decide the fate or coexistence of these two mounting patterns.

There will always be room and opportunity to improve on any current system. It might seem unlikely that we’ll see any major shift from our current systems considering our current state of refinement and the level to which the world has become vested in the Picatinny-type rail. The NAR might just be the last chapter in this treatise.

POF-USA
Patriot Ordnance Factory P17, P19 and P34 Glock Slides

The new Glock slides from POF-USA are now shipping. They are available for Glock 19, 17 and 34 in both Gen 3 and Gen 4 models. The slides are machined from 17-4 stainless steel and feature a nitride heat-treated finish for maximum durability. Each slide comes red-dot ready with a cover plate and mounting hardware. pof-usa.com

Federal Premium Ammunition
Syntech Action Pistol Ammunition

Shooters who compete at the highest levels need ammunition built for the demands of their discipline. American Eagle Syntech Action Pistol is specifically designed for the action shooting sports and loaded to power factor requirements with heavy, flatter-nosed bullets for more reliable knock-downs on steel targets in competition. Like all Syntech loads, they feature the exclusive Total Synthetic Jacket (TSJ™), which prevents metal-on-metal contact between the bullet and barrel, eliminating copper and lead fouling as well as reducing damaging heat and friction. Combined with clean-burning powders and the Catalyst lead-free primer, Syntech Action Pistol provides the softest-shooting and most reliable performance possible for high-volume competitive shooters. www.federalpremium.com

Features & Benefits:

• Official Ammunition of USPSA Optimize for actionshooting sports’ power factor requirments
• Reduced felt recoil
• Flatter than typical nose profile for better energy transfer to steel targets
• TSJ eliminates copper and lead fouling, while extending barrel life
• Exclusive lead-free primer formulation provides reliable, consistent ignition
• Clean-burning propellants minimize residue
• Drastically reduces splash-back on steel targets

Blue Force Gear
Tracer Pack

Like the other packs in the Blue Force Gear line, the Tracer Pack is named for an Allied deception operation during WW II quietly revealing its intention as a product to support the Blue Force. Designed to add additional capability in a “day pack” sized format, the new pack has features like side water bottle pockets, a quick-access pocket on top of the pack for sunglasses, travel documents, charging cables and an integrated laptop sleeve. The Tracer Pack is built in America with the same rugged durability and attention to detail as the rest of the combat-proven Blue Force Gear products and will be available 1st quarter of 2018. www.blueforcegear.com

Blue Force Gear
Custom Sling Builder / UDC Padded Single Point Bungee Sling

Blue Force Gear’s Custom Sling Builder allows you to make the perfect sling for your individual weapon. From unique color combinations of webbing and hardware to hardware sewn on for a specific weapon, there are thousands of possibilities. With 12 color options, seven hardware versions and 14 front and rear hardware attachment options, everyone gets to choose how their personal sling is built. In 2018, the Custom Sling Builder introduces the option to create your own Single Point UDC Sling along with the Vickers Sling option they already have.

The UDC Padded Single Point Bungee Sling is a dedicated single point sling that is both fast and comfortable. The UDC Sling has 2-inch inline padding, similar to the Padded Vickers Slings for extra comfor that ends in two sections of bungee. The bungee has a travel of approximately 2 inches—enough to absorb shock from movement or transitions but short enough to reduce the risk of facial injuries or sagging weapons. The overall length is adjustable, ambidextrous and compatible with use of body armor. www.blueforcegear.com

Federal Premium Ammunition
224 Valkyrie Ammunition

Federal Premium has drawn from its 95 years of ammunition manufacturing excellence to develop an all-new cartridge that transforms the MSR 15 platform, unleashes shooters’ long-range potential and shatters the boundaries of ballistic performance. The 224 Valkyrie provides extremely flat trajectories and match accuracy beyond 1,300 yards. The cartridge offers significantly less wind drift and drop than other loads in its class, as well as less than half the recoil of cartridges with comparable ballistics. Loaded in an unmatched array of high-performance projectiles, 224 Valkyrie is the new choice for both long-range target shooters and hunters. www.federalpremium.com

CCI
VARMINT TARGETS/17 HMR VNT

Devastate varmints or drill targets at long range with new CCI VNT. The 17 HMR loads feature a Speer bullet with an extremely thin jacket and polymer tip that team up to offer flat trajectories, superb long-range accuracy and explosive terminal performance on impact. It’s the perfect combination for hunting varmints or shooting at the range. www.cci-ammunition.com

CMMG
MkGs GUARD

CMMG’s new MkGs GUARD in 9mm is a pistol caliber carbine (PCC) AR-15 that is fed from 33-round factory Glock magazines and runs on CMMG’s patent pending Radial Delayed Blowback operating system. When using the same Radial Delayed Blowback operating system to chamber 9mm, CMMG’s newest version of the GUARD boasts a lighter buffer and bolt carrier group than other 9mm PCC’s that use a straight blowback system. The combined difference in weight of the BCG and buffer when comparing straight blowback versus Radial Delayed Blowback can be as much as 6.5 ounces. This reduction in reciprocating mass on the CMMG GUARD makes it a smoother shooting firearm and makes it easier to keep follow-up shots on target. An incredibly smooth shooter, the new GUARD in 9mm is a great option for home defense, PCC competition or as a plinker to bring to the range. www.cmmginc.com

Comp-Tac Victory Gear
Wheel Chair Holster Mount

For folks confined to wheel chairs who want to compete or open carry for self-defense Comp-Tac Victory Gear has the solution. This all new wheel chair holster system uses Comp-Tac’s popular International Holster with a hex screw mount that allows it to be clamped to a wheel chair using two firm gripping clamp mounts that are adjustable to different bar diameters. System comes complete with holster and clamping assembly. www.comp-tac.com

SAVAGE ARMS
10/110 Stealth Evolution

Blend pinpoint precision and torture-tested toughness to beat the most challenging targets and conditions. The new Stealth Evolution pairs a heavy-fluted barrel with a monolithic aluminum chassis finished in rugged bronze Cerakote. The incredibly hard polymer-ceramic coating greatly enhances resistance to abrasion, corrosion and impact. Its factory-blueprinted 10/110 action, matched with Savage’s zero-tolerance headspacing, user-adjustable AccuTrigger and 5R button rifling, produces sub-MOA accuracy at extreme ranges, right out of the box. The rifle is available in six of the hottest calibers in long-range shooting, including the new 6mm Creedmoor. savagearms.com

SAVAGE ARMS
110 Long-Range Hunter

Making an extreme range shot on the trophy of a lifetime requires not only a rifle built for accuracy, but a rifle built for you. The Savage 110 Long Range Hunter’s AccuFit system lets you easily customize the length-of-pull and comb height for a personalized fit, while the user-adjustable AccuTrigger offers a crisp, clean pull. Together with the AccuStock, which secures the action three-dimensionally along its entire length, the 110 Long Range Hunter provides the fit and function of a custom rifle—right out of the box. Its 26-inch button rifled barrel provides the utmost precision and consistency and is topped by an adjustable muzzle brake. savagearms.com

ACCU-TAC
SR-5 Quick Detach Bipod

The SR-5 Quick Detach Bipod has several features such as individual leg adjustments with five different positions, spring-loaded legs with a one button retract, the ability to cant for precision shooting and a quick detach option. Its design is sleek, tactical and modern which compliments any rifle. Accu-Tac believes in offering the best quality by using 6061 high grade aluminium alloy and type 3 hard anodize to coat our bipods. All our products are manufactured and assembled in the USA and come with a limited Lifetime Warranty. www.accu-tac.com

SPEER
Handloading Manual No. 15

Decades of reloading knowledge and the latest recipes and techniques have been distilled into a single source: The Speer Handloading Manual No. 15. This new edition is Speer’s largest volume yet, featuring updated recipes with the latest propellants for more than 120 legacy cartridges, as well as data for 13 new cartridges, including 204 Ruger, 6.5 Creedmoor and 300 Blackout. The all-encompassing manual also provides recipes for loading new Gold Dot rifle component bullets and articles by professional shooters Julie Golob and Jim Gilliland. www.speer-ammo.com/reloading-manual

Blue Force Gear
Custom Sling Builder

Blue Force Gear’s Custom Sling Builder allows you to make the perfect sling for your individual weapon. From unique color combinations of webbing and hardware to hardware sewn on for a specific weapon, there are thousands of possibilities. With 12 color options, seven hardware versions and 14 front and rear hardware attachment options, everyone gets to choose how their personal sling is built. In 2018, the Custom Sling Builder introduces the option to create your own Single Point UDC Sling along with the Vickers Sling option they already have. www.blueforcegear.com

Ruger Silent-SR Series Suppressors

Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. is the quintessential example of American capitalism at its best. The company was founded with a meager $50,000 investment by William B. Ruger and Alexander M. Sturm in a small, rented machine shop in Southport, Connecticut in 1949 for the purpose of manufacturing firearms. At that time, there were serious doubts within the industry with insider experts saying that “it can’t be done,” and that the entire industry was in decline. It was assumed that the large established name gun makers would continue to dominate the market.

What the industry didn’t count on was that this new company was guided by a number of innovative concepts, not the least of which was William B. Ruger’s desire to build each product “to a standard so that I would want one even if it was made by our competitors.” These basic principles of innovation, quality and value have earned the company the position of pre-eminence in the firearms industry over the past 68 years. Ruger, which is one of only two firearms manufacturers traded on the New York Stock Exchange, produces millions of firearms each year for hunting, target shooting, collecting, self-defense, law enforcement and government agencies.

Ruger’s first product was the Ruger Standard pistol in .22LR. With some design innovations inspired by the Japanese Nambu and cosmetics/ergonomics of the German Luger, it became wildly popular—it was comfortable to hold and shoot. A retail price in the 1950s of $37.50 (representing fewer than 40 hours minimum wage effort), decent accuracy and good reliability were winning factors. Designed with manufacturing economy in the forefront, it had a 4.75-inch barrel and fixed sights. Many a bullseye match shooter had one in the bottom of his bag to permit finishing a match when his finely tuned target gun malfunctioned. It was also found tossed in the bottom of fishermen’s tackle boxes. Its popularity (and that of the 10 /22 rifle) started an ever growing industry of accessory makers.

Ruger is no stranger to the National Firearms Act weapons, having developed and built several machine guns. In the late 1980s Ruger purchased the rights to the UZI and what became the MP9 from Uziel Gal, its designer. In 1995, Ruger introduced its MP9 9mm submachine gun. Although recognized as an improved UZI, the weapon never became popular or even well known. Bill Ruger held the belief that civilians should not have access to machine guns and established the company policy that no Ruger machine guns would ever be sold to civilians, including Class 3 firearms dealers. The market was to be domestic law enforcement and international military. However, noted in the company’s law enforcement catalog, marketing to law enforcement requires personal demonstrations by local Class 3 firearm dealers. The MP9 was discontinued in 1996. Ruger’s other venture into the machine gun market was a variant of their 1973 Mini-14, the AC-556, which looked exactly like the Mini-14 but had a selector switch (semi, burst, full-auto) at the receiver right rear. The standard AC-556 was offered in both blued and stainless versions as well as a shorter weapon with a folding stock and 13-inch barrel (AC-556K or AC-556F) in blue or stainless. With marginal sales (although far better than the MP9), production was discontinued in 1999 and support terminated 10 years later. Until William B. Ruger’s death in 2002, no Ruger machine guns were sold to civilians. The civilian marketplace was through sale of police trade-ins.

Part of Ruger’s success has been through good market research, outstanding engineering and production of innovative products without significant bureaucratic impediments to slow down development. Part has been financing through reinvestment of profits rather than using traditional debt structure. And part has been by doing manufacturing in-house. Ruger’s Pinetree Casting (Nashua, NH) is one of the foremost investment casting facilities, and in addition to many Ruger weapon receivers, does casting for golf clubs. In 2014, the company purchased Megamet Solid Metals Inc., based in St. Louis, Missouri, to add metal injection molding (MIM) casting capability not only for increased production capacity, but to markedly reduce development time for new products. Unlike many of its competitors, Ruger has not acquired related companies, either competitors or accessory makers.

The use of silencers has become mainstream over the past 4 to 5 years, a fact not overlooked by Ruger. Although their 10 /22 rifles sold in the international market were routinely threaded 1 / 2-20 for European rimfire silencers, it wasn’t until several years ago that domestic Ruger .22 rifles and pistols came threaded 1 /2-28 for the US market. Ruger looked at possible acquisition of a silencer company but after due diligence decided to start building suppressors in-house at their New Hampshire facility.

Approximately a year ago, Ruger introduced two sound suppressors designed for rimfire cartridges: the “Silent-SR” thread mounting muzzle suppressor and the “Silent-SR ISB” integrally suppressed barrel for their take-down 10 /22 rifle.

Both suppressors are attractively packaged in boxes with a fitted foam insert. Any necessary tools are included: a cast composite spanner wrench for removing the endcaps of the Silent-SR and a hex wrench for disassembling the integral Silent-SR ISB. All suppressors are supplied with a 12-page, well written and profusely illustrated manual that covers legal and safety aspects, specifications, attachment to the host weapon, use, disassembly and cleaning instructions. Disassembly for cleaning is simple, and it is virtually impossible to reassemble incorrectly. Both are finished in black Cerakote.

Testing Protocols

The first question posed by most users relates to sound performance since that is the stated goal of a sound suppressor. There are a number of ways to evaluate sound levels, starting perhaps with Mitch WerBell of Sionics fame in the 1970s where he lined up the office staff and shot two different suppressors behind their backs asking which was quieter. While this has merit in distinguishing suppressed from non-suppressed weapons, subtle differences are distorted by the individual hearing damage of different observers.

A more objective method is to use sound measuring equipment that meets the requirements of MIL-STD-1474D. Not all sound meters are capable of accurately measuring the short peaks of firearm sounds, and even some industrial precision meters do not have the necessary peak detector. There are two classic field portable sound meters that meet all the requirements of MIL-STD-1474D: the B&K 2209 and the Larson-Davis 800B with their appropriate ¼-inch pressure microphones. Originally costing in the $5,000 range, both are currently out of production but are frequently available at reasonable cost. Factory service and recertification services are still available. For testing both Ruger suppressors, two of the L-D 800B meters were used, both of which were recertified by Larson-Davis 4 months prior to this test.

MIL-STD calls for a number of measurement locations. For the purposes of the most meaningful and familiar results, sound levels were measured simultaneously at the standard Reference Location (1.6 meters above grass, 1 meter left of the muzzle 90O to bore axis) and at a simulation of the shooter’s left ear (SLE). The Reference Location gives an indication of how the target or down range observer will perceive the gunshot, and the SLE will give one of the better indications as to potential hearing damage. While some advocate using the shooter’s right ear, close contact with a rifle stock confuses weapon action noise with muzzle blast reduction. The simulated SLE positioning of the microphone is 8 centimeters rearward of the back of the receiver (70 centimeters in the case of a handgun) and 18 centimeters left of the bore axis. By measuring both locations simultaneously for each shot, variations in individual rounds are minimized.

For each weapon-suppressor combination, three rounds were fired non-suppressed, and the results averaged. This was followed by a five-round string with the results averaged. It has been found that this number of rounds is statistically significant. For each location, the averages and reduction are noted. In addition, first round pop is calculated by subtracting the average of the last four rounds from the first round. First round pop is caused by a secondary detonation of partially burned powder particles encountering oxygen in the suppressor. MIL-STD permits the use of weighting scales. For a number of years dating back into the 1970s, A-weighting was used. In recent years, a number of manufacturers have changed to C-weighting, which is more accurate for the sound levels encountered with firearms.

Both OSHA and MIL-STD-1474D state that hearing protection is required for short duration peak sound levels greater than 140 dB at the shooter’s ear.

A second item of concern in evaluating a suppressor is whether there is any degradation in accuracy (group size) when the suppressor is mounted. There is often a shift in point of impact which can be corrected by sight adjustment. Rifles were used in a solid rest (Lead Sled) for group size measurements both with and without the suppressor at a range of 40 yards.

For handguns, high speed video was performed looking for excessive yaw or tumbling with the suppressor in place. Frame rate was 5,000 frames/second with a shutter speed of 30 microseconds to provide stop action of the bullet in flight during the first 2 feet of travel. The high-speed camera used was a monochrome Olympus iSpeed FS.

A third concern primarily of military importance is night-time recognition of the shooter’s location from flash or heat signature visualization. Because these suppressors are designed only for rimfire, flash signature was evaluated using high-speed video and only when mounted on the MK-II pistol (generally the worst case scenario).

With either suppressor, it is necessary to utilize standard velocity or subsonic .22LR ammunition to avoid the ballistic crack found with high-velocity ammunition. This crack has been measured with CCI Mini-Mag ammunition at 142 dB 1 meter to the side of the bullet flight path. In the case of .17HMR or .22 Magnum ammunition, the ballistic crack of the supersonic projectile is acceptable, and live targets are confused because the suppressor masks the origin of the shot.

Test Conditions

November 4, 2017, was a bright, sunny fall day in Boise, Idaho. The temperature was a chilly 50F with a relative humidity of 37% and a station pressure of 686 mmHg. Wind gusts were less than 3 miles per hour. The speed of sound calculated to 1,107 feet/second.

The ammunition chosen for testing was CCI Standard Velocity .22LR with the 40 grain bullet. This was chosen because it is commonly available, accurate and remains subsonic in almost any barrel length chambered for .22LR.

The Silent-SR thread-mounting suppressor was tested on two weapons. One was a Ruger MK-2 pistol with a bull barrel shortened to 4.5 inches and mounted in a Ransom Rest. The other was a Ruger 77 /22 with the barrel shortened to 16 inches. The Silent-SR ISB was tested on a Ruger 10 / 22-TD, its normal host weapon.

Silent-SR Thread-Mount Suppressor

The Silent-SR is packaged inside a black ballistic nylon pouch with a convenient belt loop. The suppressor length is 5.4 inches, outside diameter is 1.05 inches, and the weight is 6.4 ounces. It is rated for .22 Magnum and .17HMR in addition to fully automatic .22LR. The length of the threads in the mount is .43 inches, standard for the industry, with a .12-inch thread relief in the mount for safe use with barrels not having a thread relief. The threaded mount is a part of the entrance chamber. There are a total of six baffles (type 17-4 stainless steel), all having a bore aperture of .25 inch. The front end cap functions as a seventh baffle. The rear (blast) baffle is symmetric, and the remaining baffles have significant asymmetry. All baffles have a general conical shape with integral spaces. The tight bore aperture requires barrel threads with a true 90O shoulder for alignment.

Sound measurement levels were obtained on both a Ruger MK-II pistol (4.5-inch barrel) and a Ruger 77 /22?bolt action rifle (16-inch barrel). Both of these weapons are used routinely by the author for rimfire sound measurements. Sound performance was excellent as shown in Table 1 with the absolute sound level at the reference location of 120 dB on the MK-II and 116.7 dB on the 77 /22 rifle.

It is important to remember that there will be day-to-day variations in the sound levels that appear to vary with location, humidity and ambient air temperature. Measurements made in a coastal location do not always correlate with those made in a high desert location such as Boise, Idaho. As a rule, five-round strings are statistically valid (standard deviation <1.5), which is why the tables include the standard deviation for the five suppressed measurements. The one exception was measurement at the reference location where the 8 dB first round pop increased the standard deviation. However, calculating excluding the first round resulted in an average of 118.4 dB and a standard deviation of 1.1, which is in line with all other measurements.

Although what is normally asked is the reduction, the more important measurement is the absolute sound level, both for far field and for hearing risk evaluation. First round pop can be eliminated with either an inert atmosphere (nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc.) or a tiny amount of oil or grease in the entrance chamber. Absolute sound levels for the rifle are considerably lower than for the pistol, but the degree of reduction is significantly less. This is simply because the non-suppressed level on the rifle is significantly lower than on the pistol.

Accuracy and bullet stability were checked differently on the two weapons. With the Silent-SR mounted on the 77 / 22 bolt action rifle, a target was shot with and without the suppressor at a range of 40 yards. Adding the suppressor moved the point of impact down .176 inches (.421 MOA) but tightened the group from .795 inches (1.9 MOA) to .688 inches (1.64 MOA) with three shots touching. See Target 1.

A check of bullet stability on the MK-II pistol was considered difficult lacking optical sights. Instead, a high-speed video (5,000 frames/second) was performed. Lighting was difficult lacking bright sunlight, so two compromises were accepted: 1) a shutter speed of 30 microseconds (instead of the preferable 2 microseconds and 2) image enhancement (which decreased resolution). Eleven consecutive frames showed the bullet in the first 24 inches forward from the end of the suppressor. These 11 photos were superimposed to show the progress of the bullet traversing this distance as shown in the photo. Starting at the 20-inch region, there is slight yaw, which is normal as the bullet transitions from rotating about its physical center to rotating about its center of gravity. There was no visible flash detected.

The manufacturer’s suggested list price for the Ruger Silent-SR thread mounting suppressor (model 19000) is $449.

Silent-SR ISB for the Takedown 10/ 22-TD

The Silent-SR ISB is a complete replacement barrel with integral suppressor assembly for the Ruger 10 / 22-TD rifle. Unlike similar offerings, the Ruger suppressor includes all hardware and the forend composite handguard. The suppressed barrel is 16.12 inches long, making it .5 inch shorter than the standard barrel, and weighs 41.9 ounces as contrasted to the 30.7 ounces of the standard barrel. The suppressed barrel bears a resemblance to the over/under double-barreled shotgun with a width of .925 inches and height of 1.52 inches. The bore aperture throughout the baffle stack is .280 inch.

The suppressed barrel is alloy steel and 10.62 inches long. The aluminum suppressor outer housing has been permanently attached to this barrel to make the overall length in compliance with BATF regulations. The front end cap and baffle stack are easily removed by loosening the assembly bolt, a process well described in the manual. The blast baffle is symmetric, and the remaining six are significantly asymmetrical. All are type 17-4 stainless steel.

Sound measurements were made using the same host 10 / 22-TD receiver and comparing the original non-suppressed barrel with the Silent-SR ICP integrally suppressed barrel. The results are shown in Table 2. The suppressed barrel measured an impressive 114.7 dB at the reference location, which is only approximately 4 dB louder than the hammer falling on a spent cartridge case.

Accuracy testing was performed in the same manner as for the thread mounting suppressor on the rifle. The range was 40 yards, and the weapon was shot using the Lead Sled rest. A fixed 10x scope was attached to the Weaver base supplied with the rifle. Five shot groups were fired with both the standard and suppressed barrels. The target is shown in Target 2. The suppressed barrel tightened the group from 2.9 inches (6.92 MOA) to 2.05 inches (4.9 MOA) and dropped the group center by .77 inches (1.84 MOA).

The group sizes, both suppressed and non-suppressed, were considerably larger than with the thread-mounted suppressor on the 77 /22. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is a re-worked 2.5-pound honed trigger on the 77 /22 with no over-travel as compared to a rough 6-pound trigger on the 10 /22-TD with significant over-travel.

The second issue is with barrel lockup on take-down weapons. The 10 / 22-TD tensioning ring has to be adjusted when one barrel is replaced with another. The tension at lockup is not totally consistent, and there is the potential for almost imperceptible flex at the barrel/receiver joint. Even simple removal and replacement of the same barrel can cause a minor point of impact shift. The most accurate way to mount an optic on a take-down rifle is to mount it on the barrel rather than the receiver. In contrast, the 77 /22 barrel is mounted in a far more rigid manner using a V-block and torqued mounting screws.

The manufacturer’s suggested list price for the Ruger 10 /22-TD Silent-SR integral suppressed barrel (model 19001) is $629.

Comments

Both suppressors have their strong points, including excellent sound performance, tightening of the shot groups and obvious quality. The Silent-SR ISB for the 10 /22 Takedown is definitely the more compact weapon due to the requirement for a 16-inch minimum barrel length. What would be a worthwhile improvement to the integral Silent-SR ISB would be to supply a rail contoured to the .920 diameter of the steel portion of the barrel for barrel mounting of an optical sight. The thread mounting Silent-SR has the advantage of a wide variety of weapon platforms and the strength to hold up to multiple rimfire cartridges. While both are outstanding, the author has a bias for thread mounting suppressors because of their versatility.

SureFire LLC
RYDER 9-MP5

The stainless-steel-constructed RYDER 9-MP5 is a duty-use suppressor for the H&K MP5 sub-machine gun. The suppressor attaches to a standard three lug barrel via our patented Fast-Attach mechanism, similar to the way our best-in-class SOCOM Series suppressors attach. The suppressor is easily disassembled for cleaning, and the baffles are indexed and numbered for ease of reassembly. Designed for duty use, the RYDER 9-MP5 does not affect bullet performance or increase point of impact/point of aim as is the case with other sub-machine gun suppressors. When it comes to durability, performance, and ease of maintenance, the RYDER 9-MP5 is the clear choice for suppressing the MP5. www.surefire.com

SF RYDER 9-MP5
Caliber: 9mm
Length: 8in (20.3cm)
Weight: 15.6 oz (442g)
Diameter: 1.30in (3.3cm)
Material: Stainless steel
Finish: Cerakote
MSRP: $849

SRT Arms
SRT Integral M-16 / 9MM Uppers

Integrally suppressed 9MM AR15/M16. Integral suppressed upper, 9MM or .45 ACP., 1.5” OD tube. Pinned and welded 16” bolt face to end of tube, or removable for registered MG or SBR lowers. Ported barrel for additional sound reduction.Porting available to make 115 gr subsonic, or max velocity for use with 147gr subsonic. www.srtarms.com

Weight: Adds 1 lb to upper weight.
4130 tube, 7075 AL baffles and end caps.
Finish: Black Cerakote finish.
Absolute db at muzzle is 116-119 db depending on bullet weight.
MSRP: $780 using customer supplied barrel, handguard and upper receiver.

B&T AG
M.A.R.S. QD

Based on combat experience in Iraq, Afghanistan, B&T has analyzed evolving needs of operators and has evolved its products to perfectly serve the new needs. The new M.A.R.S. QD (Miniature Assault Rifle Suppressor–Quick Detachable) offers greater flash reduction, lighter weight and smaller size. For those who prefer the option to be able to mount/dismount the suppressor even during an operation, the M.A.R.S. QD is the perfect choice. It is the lightest quickest detachable mounting system on the market today. www.bt-ag.ch

Caliber: 5.56mm (.223) or 7.62mm (.308)
Length: 161mm (5.56mm) / 192mm (7.62mm)
Diameter: 39mm
Weight: 415 g (5.56) / 480 g (7.62)
Factory-Tested Sound Reduction: 26 dB (5.56)
Materials Inconel/Thermax Finish: sandblasted/grey
MSRP (USD): tba

B&T AG
M.A.R.S. DM

The M.A.R.S. DM (directly mounted) is the lightest and shortest assault rifle suppressor B&T produces. It´s screwed directly on the muzzle. This lack of any mounting system allows it to be almost 300 grams lighter and 50mm shorter than other suppressors with a mounting system. Therefore the impact on the balance of the weapon and the extension of the gun is negligible and not perceptible in combat. Despite its small size the M.A.R.S. is a full gown up suppressors when it comes to muzzle flash and sound reduction. www.bt-ag.ch

Caliber: 5.56mm (.223) or 7.62mm (.308)
Length: 126mm (5.56mm) / 142mm (7.62mm)
Diameter: 39mm
Weight: 380 g (5.56) / 450 g (7.62)
Factory-Tested Sound Reduction: 20 dB (5.56)
Materials: Inconel/Thermax
Finish: sandblasted/grey
MSRP (USD): tba

SRT ARMS
Integrally Suppressed 9mm AR-15/M16

Integrally suppressed upper, 9mm or .45 ACP, 1.5-inch OD tube. Pinned and welded 16-inch bolt face to end of tube or removable for registered MG or SBR lowers. Ported barrel for additional sound reduction. Porting available to make 115gr subsonic or max velocity for use with 147gr subsonic. www.srtarms.com

Caliber: 9mm
Weight: Adds 1lb to upper weight
Diameter: 1.5in
Material: 4130 tube, 7075 AL baffles and end caps
Finish: Black Cerakote
Factory-Tested Sound Reduction: 116-119 dB depending on bullet weight
MSRP: $780 using customer supplied barrel, handguard and upper receiver

ELITE IRON
DELTA MOD2

The Elite Iron DELTA MOD2 is a shorter version of the popular DELTA and is designed for .223 /5.56 rifles only. The compact design and lighter weight makes it a great choice for hunting and tactical applications. Baffle core design minimizes the POI shift. Thread pitch ½ -28. Full-auto rated. www.EliteIron.com

Caliber: .223 /5.56 only
Overall Length: 6.375in
Exterior Diameter: 1.5in
Weight: 17.9oz
Sound Pressure Level Reduction: 35 dB
Materials: Tube is made from 316 SS. Internals are machined from 17-4 H900 SS
Finish: Black Cerakote
MSRP (USD): $720

ELITE IRON
ECHO LITE 5”

The all titanium ECHO LITE 5-inch suppressor is primarily designed for use on handguns and can be used on rifles as well. It delivers solid performance in a lighter suppressor. The ECHO LITE 5-inch can be disassembled for cleaning. Includes takedown tool. Thread pitch 1/2-28 x .400. www.EliteIron.com

ECHO LITE 5”
Caliber: .22 LR only
Length: 5in
Weight: 4.7oz
Diameter: 1in
Material: Titanium
Finish: Black Cerakote
Sound Pressure Level Reduction: 31 dB High Velocity, 35 dB Subsonic
MSRP: $455

LIBERTY SUPPRESSORS
The Sovereign

The Sovereign rifle silencer is perfect for the law enforcement officer, hunter as well as the long-range shooter. It combines lightweight with numerous mounting solutions to create the most versatile and lightweight silencer to date. Titanium construction provides superior strength as well as low muzzle weight for less fatigue in the field. Combined with our LS1 muzzle brake mount, this is the ultimate package. www.libertycans.net

Caliber: 7.62mm
Overall Length: 7in
Exterior Diameter: 1.625in
Weight: 12.5oz
Sound Pressure Level Reduction: 33+ dB
Materials: Titanium/Stainless Steel
Finish: Black Cerakote Type C
MSRP (USD): $1,050

DAKOTA SILENCER
Varminter 4.0

Varminter 4.0 will be available early 2018. The Varminter is a 100% titanium hybrid that’s modular from 9 inches to 7 inches. It’s a hybrid because the 2-inch extension is a uniquely designed monocore baffle system while the 7 inch is all stacked baffles. The Varminter is completely serviceable and comes all the way apart for easy cleaning. Only the Varminter 4.0 .30 calibur will be modular, but Dakota Silencer will also be releasing the Varminter 4.0 in a .223. This will be the quietest Varminter the company has made to date. www.dakotasilencer.com

VARMINTER 4.0
Caliber: .30 and .223
Length: 7in; 9in with extension
Weight: N/A
Diameter: N/A
Material: Titanium
Finish: N/A
Sound Pressure Level Reduction: N/A
MSRP: N/A

THOMPSON MACHINE
The Poseidon 9mm

In production since 2009, the Poseidon 9mm is the smallest, lightest, hearing-safe 9mm suppressor on the market. Its excellent performance on .22LR hosts, .32acp hosts, and .380acp hosts gives it the versatility to match. The Poseidon is in use with military and law enforcement. www.thompsonmachine.net

POSEIDON 9MM
Caliber: 9mm
Length: 4.125in
Weight: 4oz
Diameter: 1.25in
Material: Hard anodized 6061 and 316 Stainless
Design: Monocore, Take-Apart Design
Suppression: Up to 25dB when wet and wiped
MSRP: N/A

About the Author

Dr. Philip Dater has been involved in the sound suppressor industry for over 40 years as Automatic Weapons Company (New Mexico) and Antares Technologies, Inc. His interest has been in the field of design, testing and manufacturing. He founded Gemtech in 1993 and retired in the summer of 2017 at the age of 80. He continues to consult and perform testing on a part-time basis, and several times each year teaches his signature course “Silencer History, Technology & Testing” at Phoenix Defence in Henderson, NV. www.phoenixdefence.com

Manufacturing Ammunition in Compliance with Federal Law

Fortunately, the complex web of federal and state regulation of the domestic defense industry has not halted manufacture of products essential for national security. Indeed, there has been significant growth in the ammunition industry, due, in part, to shortages in certain calibers of small arms ammunition. Ammunition was largely deregulated under the 1986 amendments to the Gun Control Act of 1968. Nonetheless, there are still significant federal requirements for persons or businesses who wish to manufacture ammunition, including the federal explosives laws, the Arms Export Control Act, the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax and the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards. This article provides an overview of those requirements to assist industry members entering this growing segment of the defense industry.

1. Gun Control Act of 1968

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 40, controls the manufacture, import, transport, transfer and possession of ammunition and ammunition components, such as cartridge cases, primers, bullets or propellant powder. In 1986, Congress passed the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), which significantly amended the GCA. Included among the changes was removal of most of the controls over ammunition. However, there remain the following requirements and restrictions:

Licensing: Persons who engage in the business of manufacturing or importing ammunition must obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). No license is required for persons who only deal in ammunition. A license must be obtained for each site at which manufacturing will take place.

Prohibited Persons: The GCA lists several categories of persons prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving or possessing ammunition. This includes those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, illegal aliens, unlawful drug users and those dishonorably discharged from the U.S. military.

Armor Piercing Ammunition: “Armor piercing ammunition” may be manufactured and imported only for sale to government agencies and in limited quantities for testing or experimentation. In addition, record keeping requirements apply to armor piercing ammunition but not to other types of ammunition.

Importation: Import requirements, including the Form 6 import permit, apply to ammunition. Armor piercing and nonsporting ammunition are generally prohibited from importation except for sale to government agencies.

2. Federal Explosives Laws

The federal explosives laws, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 40, regulate commerce in “explosive materials.” The statute defines the term “explosive materials” as explosives, blasting agents and detonators and “explosives” as any chemical compound mixture or device the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion. The definition requires ATF to publish an annual list of explosives that fit within the statutory definition. The List of Explosive Materials is available on ATF’s website at www.atf.gov/explosives/qa/what-%E2%80%9Cexplosives-list%E2%80%9D. Smokeless powder, nitrocellulose, tetrazene and other chemical compounds used in manufacturing ammunition are listed.

The federal explosives laws make it unlawful for any person other than the holder of a Federal explosives license or permit to transport or receive explosive materials. The law also prohibits the distribution of explosive materials by a holder of a license or permit to any person other than a licensee or permittee.

All persons engaging in the business of importing, manufacturing or dealing in explosive materials must obtain a license issued by ATF and are required to create and maintain records of their acquisition and distribution of explosive materials. All persons are required to store explosive materials in accordance with regulations issued by ATF.

Exemptions from the requirements of the federal explosives laws are provided, in pertinent part, for the transportation, shipment, receipt or importation of explosive materials for delivery to any federal or state agency; for small arms ammunition and components thereof; and for the manufacture of explosive materials under the regulation of the U.S. military for their official use.

ATF regulations implementing the federal explosives laws define “ammunition” as:

Small arms ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or smokeless propellants designed for use in small arms, including percussion caps, and 3/ 32 inch and other external burning pyrotechnic hobby fuses. The term does not include black powder.

ATF’s longstanding position is that the small arms ammunition exemption applies only to .50 caliber or smaller rifle or handgun ammunition, as well as certain shotgun ammunition.

ATF takes the position that smokeless powder designed for use in small arms ammunition is exempt from all requirements of the federal explosives laws and regulations, including storage and record keeping requirements. However, ATF requires persons engaging in the business of importing or manufacturing smokeless powder to have a federal explosives license. ATF also exempts other small arms components from the requirements of the law and regulations, but only if such components are listed in the definition of “ammunition” in 27 C.F.R. § 555.11. This means that smokeless powder and primers are exempt from record keeping and storage requirements. However, other explosive materials used to manufacture ammunition will not be exempt until incorporated into either a complete primer or a complete round of small arms ammunition. For example, tetrazene, used in manufacturing primers, must be recorded in records of acquisition and the daily summary of magazine transactions. Tetrazene must also be stored in storage magazines meeting the construction, tables of distance and other requirements of storage regulations. At the point the tetrazene is incorporated into either a complete primer or a complete round of ammunition, it would be exempt from the requirements of the record keeping, storage and other requirements of federal law and regulations.

Storage requirements for explosive materials are dictated by their classification as high explosives, low explosives or blasting agents. Explosive materials must be stored in Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 or Type 4 magazines, depending on the classification of the explosive materials.

As stated above, the federal explosives laws exempt from the statute manufacture of explosive materials for use of the federal government. Manufacturers with Department of Defense contracts must be careful, however, to segregate products manufactured under such contracts from commercial products. Only explosives manufactured under the federal contracts will be exempt from the record keeping, storage and other requirements of the law. If ATF investigators cannot determine which products are exempt and which are not, violations of the law and regulations may be cited, and penalties may be incurred.

3. Arms Export Control Act

The Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 22 U.S.C. § 2778, gives the President the authority to control the import, export and brokering of defense articles and defense services in the interest of the United States’ national security and foreign policy. Jurisdiction over the permanent importation of defense articles has been delegated to the Attorney General. ATF’s implementing regulations are in 27 C.F.R. Pt. 447 and include the U.S. Munitions Import List, which specifies all covered “defense articles.”

Defense articles regulated under the AECA include ammunition, listed on the United States Munitions Import List, Category III, for both small arms and large caliber weapons over .50 caliber, such as mortars and howitzers. Category III(b) also includes components, parts, accessories and attachments for ammunition, including cartridge cases, powder bags, bullets, jackets, cores, shells (excluding shotgun shells), projectiles, boosters, fuzes and components therefor, and primers.
Persons who wish to engage in the business of importing defense articles must register with ATF. Registration is accomplished by completing ATF Form 4587 and paying the applicable registration fee. The quickest way to register is through the www.pay.gov website and by paying with a credit card.

Importation of smokeless powder, primers and other components of ammunition listed in Category III(b) requires prior authorization from ATF on an approved Form 6 import permit. ATF encourages importers to utilize its e-Forms system to complete and submit the Form 6 application, which may shave two weeks off the usual six-week processing time.

While ATF has jurisdiction over the permanent import of defense articles, the U.S. Department of State has control over the export, temporary import and brokering provisions of the AECA. The U.S. Department of State implements the AECA through its regulations known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The AECA also requires registration of defense articles manufacturers, including ammunition, even if the manufacturer does not engage in exporting defense articles. Registration is accomplished through electronic submission of the Department of State Form DS-2032 to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC). Information on registration is available on State’s website at www.pmddtc.state.gov/registration/index.html.

The base registration fee for manufacturers who do not export defense articles is $2,250 per year.

Export of ITAR-controlled articles, including ammunition, requires prior authorization from DDTC in the form of export licenses. However, export of shotgun shells is regulated by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security.

4. Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax

Section 4181, Title 26, United States Code, imposes upon the sale by the importer, producer or manufacturer an 11-percent tax on shells and cartridges.

The term “shells and cartridges” is defined to include:

[A]ny article consisting of a projectile, explosive and container that is designed, assembled and ready for use without further manufacture in firearms, pistols or revolvers. A person who reloads used shell or cartridge casings is a manufacturer of shells or cartridges within the meaning of section 4181 if such reloaded shells or cartridges are sold by the reloader. However, the reloader is not a manufacturer of shells or cartridges if, in return for a fee and expenses, he reloads casings of shells or cartridges submitted by a customer and returns the reloaded shells or cartridges with the identical casings provided by the customer to that customer. Under such circumstances, the customer would be the manufacturer of the shells or cartridges and may be liable for the tax on the sale of the articles. See section 4218 of the Code and § 53.112.

The term “manufacturer” is defined in 27 C.F.R. § 53.11 to include:

[A]ny person who produces a taxable article from scrap, salvage or junk material, or from new or raw material, by processing, manipulating or changing the form of an article or by combining or assembling two or more articles. The term also includes a “producer” and an “importer.” Under certain circumstances, as where a person manufactures or produces a taxable article for another person who furnishes materials under an agreement whereby the person who furnished the materials retains title thereto and to the finished article, the person for whom the taxable article is manufactured or produced, and not the person who actually manufactures or produces it, will be considered the manufacturer.

A manufacturer who sells a taxable article in a knockdown condition is liable for the tax as a manufacturer. Whether the person who buys such component parts or accessories and assembles a taxable article from them will be liable for tax as a manufacturer of a taxable article will depend on the relative amount of labor, material and overhead required to assemble the completed article and on whether the article is assembled for business or personal use.

Manufacturers who make and sell shells and cartridges must file quarterly Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax Returns with the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) for any quarter in which the manufacturer sells or uses ammunition it manufactures. Tax must be paid with the quarterly return. Tax may be paid via Electronic Funds Transfer.

More information about payment of firearms and ammunition excise tax may be found in our articles on this subject published in Small Arms Review in Vol. 20, #6 and #7 (July and September 2016).

5. Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS)

The CFATS program identifies and regulates high-risk chemical facilities to ensure they have security measures in place to reduce the risks associated with certain chemicals of interest (COI). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) administers the CFATS program, which may apply to manufacturers of ammunition if they have specified quantities of COI. COI are listed in CFATS Appendix A: DHS Chemicals of Interest List, 6 C.F.R. Part 27. The goal of the CFATS program is to prevent a terrorist from using COI to cause a significant loss of human life via a deliberate onsite release or theft/ diversion for offsite use.

DHS determines a facility’s risk profile by requiring those in possession of threshold quantities and concentrations of COI to complete a survey known as a Top-Screen. The Top-Screen is an electronic questionnaire completed on the DHS website. On March 29, 2017, DHS published detailed instructions for completing the Top-Screen, titled “Chemical Security Assessment Tool (CSAT) 2.0 Top-Screen Instructions.” This publication includes a wealth of information on who is required to submit the Top-Screen, when it must be submitted, and what to expect after submission. These instructions, as well as other CFATS guidance, are available on the DHS website. After the Top-Screen is completed DHS determines a facility’s risk profile and may require submission of a Security Vulnerability Assessment and a Site Security Plan. The security plan will be evaluated by DHS to ensure the facility’s planned security posture meets specified risk-based performance standards.

A number of chemicals used in manufacturing ammunition are included on the COI list in the regulations, including nitrocellulose and tetrazene. DHS officials advise that once COI are incorporated in articles (as defined in 40 CFR 68.3), they are no longer subject to CFATS requirements. An article means “a manufactured item that is formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture, that has end use functions dependent in whole or in part upon the shape or design during end use, and that does not release or otherwise result in exposure to a regulated substance under normal conditions of processing and use,” and includes most complete primers or rounds of ammunition.

Propellants incorporated into completed rounds that meet the definition of an article are not subject to CFATS reporting requirements. However, prior to incorporation into the round, they may count toward the Screening Threshold Quantity. Individual COI components used to make propellants classified as 1.1 materials are subject to CFATS reporting requirements. The reference to “1.1 materials” means those hazardous materials classified as Category 1.1 by the Department of Transportation. All COIs contained within a propellant that is classified as a 1.1 material are subject to CFATS reporting requirements. However, COIs incorporated within a propellant that is not classified as a 1.1 material are not subject to CFATS reporting requirements.

DHS chemical security inspectors work in all 50 states to help ensure facilities have security measures in place to meet CFATS requirements. DHS has authority to impose civil fines on facilities who fail to comply with CFATS requirements.

Manufacturers of ammunition should review the list of COI to determine whether they have threshold quantities of any of the chemicals listed. If so, manufacturers should complete the Top-Screen and comply with the CFATS requirements to avoid noncompliance and potential penalties, and, of course, to help keep COI out of the hands of bad actors.

Conclusion

Persons who manufacture ammunition in the U.S. are subject to a complex web of federal statutes and regulations. We provide the following checklist as a quick summary of the federal requirements outlined in more detail above:

? Manufacturers of ammunition must obtain a license under the GCA for each site at which manufacture will occur;
? Manufacturers must obtain a license under the federal explosives laws for each manufacturing site and comply with the storage, record keeping and transfer requirements of the law;
? Manufacturers must register with the Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls;
? Manufacturers must pay excise tax on their sales or use of ammunition;
? Manufacturers of ammunition who import smokeless powder, primers or other components of ammunition must register with ATF as an importer and comply with the permanent import provisions of the AECA; importation of ammunition (including components) is also subject to the requirements of the GCA;
? Manufacturers of ammunition who manufacture or acquire threshold quantities of COI must complete a risk assessment with the Department of Homeland Security and may be subject to further requirements depending on their level of risk.

State law requirements should also be considered by anyone intending on manufacturing ammunition, as licensing and storage requirements may apply. Questions about federal and state requirements should be addressed with qualified counsel.

The information contained in this article is for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended to be construed or used as legal advice or as legal opinion. You should not rely or act on any information contained in this article without first seeking the advice of an attorney. Receipt of this article does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

About the Authors

Johanna Reeves is the founding partner of the law firm Reeves & Dola, LLP in Washington, DC (www.reevesdola.com). For 15 years she has dedicated her law practice to advising and representing U.S. companies on compliance matters arising under the federal firearms laws and U.S. export controls. Johanna can be reached at 202-683-4200, or at jreeves@reevesdola.com.

Teresa Ficaretta is an expert on ATF regulations under the Gun Control Act, the National Firearms Act, the Arms Export Control Act and Federal explosives laws. Teresa served as legal counsel to ATF for 26 years, followed by two years as Deputy Assistant Director in Enforcement Programs and Services. Teresa joined Reeves & Dola in 2013 and was partner from January 1, 2016 until December 31, 2017. Teresa can be reached at jtficaretta@gmail.com or at 301-892-0372.