The United States dedicates significant resources in defense spending with the objective of keeping its competitors and numerous potential enemies focused upon discord between one another. A divisive new breed of technology is emerging that provides the necessary war-fighting capabilities to meet this challenge. The traditional rifle-carrying soldier will largely be replaced by the bionic warrior: a composite capability composed of human, artificial intelligence (AI), bionic, robotic and other high technology capabilities that can be brought to bear at both the strategic and tactical levels.

What is a bionic warrior? Is he envisioned as some kind of super-sophisticated robot that Hollywood often depicts? Is he a part human—part machine cyborg? To put the bionic warrior in the proper perspective, he should be thought of as an integrated family of capabilities with a scenario-driven configuration menu (plug and play). Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the foundation of the bionic warrior along with most every supporting piece of his kit. This is because the bionic warrior must, above all, have connectivity to, and interoperability with, his supporting family of capabilities, i.e., the numerous interoperable, immediately accessible, capabilities.

With the above said, let’s explore the bionic warrior concept, while remembering that everything in the bionic warrior’s kit has a relationship to AI in one form or another. Think of it this way: AI is the bionic warrior’s brain, and electrical energy is the heartbeat and blood that powers him. Component interoperability and configurability (mobility, sensors, weapons) provide the right capabilities (defense, offense, other) for mission-specific requirements. Let’s also keep in mind that this concept has begun to transition into the civilian market for sporting and personal defense applications. More on this later.

Artificial Intelligence

First, let’s consider the bionic warrior’s brain—Artificial Intelligence. While AI technology is developing at an exponential pace, today’s computing speed and memory thresholds limit its advancement. The domain of shared human and AI-controlled smart machines is still in its infancy. Combining human and artificial intelligence into functional synergetic processes that control weapon systems and their delivery platforms remains in sight but is still on the distant horizon.

The Department of Defense (DoD) recently ordered the creation of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC), which is intended to be DoD’s hub for AI research. This is not DoD’s first crack at incorporating AI into the war-fighting arena. In April 2017, DoD established a shadowy program, code-named Project Maven, in partnership with industry (primarily Google) to integrate machine learning and big data analysis. In layman’s words, it uses sophisticated artificial intelligence to analyze drone footage as a targeting tool. Having already proven itself successful, this capability will be folded into, and continue as, an element of the JAIC.

What can we expect to see when an AI-integrated bionic warrior does become reality? Since not all potential events can be anticipated, AI systems must function in extreme environments often hostile to human life, while managing large, fast-flowing data streams (big data) otherwise overwhelming to human capability.

In a recent article, Mick Ryan stated, “The primary reason that militaries need artificial intelligence is the convergence of large quantities of sensors, communications networks and an accelerating stream of data and information. As the quantity of information continues to increase, the capacity of humans to deal with it is not increasing commensurately. Indeed, humans are fast becoming the most sluggish link in decision-making. And while there is much ethical debate in the West about the application of autonomous weapon systems, as Ian Morris has written, “When robots with OODA [observe, orient, decide and act] loops of nanoseconds start killing humans with OODA loops of milliseconds, there will be no more debate.”

Today’s commercial smartphones market offers sobering insights into AI applications. For example, Apple’s Siri, Google’s Now, Microsoft’s Cortana, Netflix’s streaming algorithms and Amazon’s shopping sites all access large databases based on user input and provide decision support using tailored algorithms that leverage the user’s previous decisions with analogous solution consideration to millions of other users. Smartphones provide individual users access to the history of the world from a voice interactive device held in the palm of one’s hand.

Just as AI is proliferating the commercial smartphone market, it is also on the precipice of proliferating military weapons systems across the entire war-fighting continuum. The bionic warrior’s future weapons will have a collaborative learning capability and the ability to adapt themselves, even reconfigure themselves, as necessary, for maximum effectiveness while in the heat of battle.

They will come in a variety of shapes and forms and operate in semi-autonomous (man in the decision/control loop) and fully autonomous modes (no human input). They will both augment human war fighters by fighting beside them, as well as replace them completely with specialized ranks of their own. They will possess decision-processing cognition that far exceeds humans in both speed and quality. They’ll have superior survivability and lifespan and repair themselves in the event of malfunction resulting from non-destructive damage. Most importantly, they will change the face of conflict.

Both semi-autonomous and fully autonomous unmanned and robotic warriors will be employed by the thousands, even tens of thousands. Soon, most potential enemies will possess AI capabilities to achieve this capability to one degree or another. At that point we will see bionic warriors oppose one another in hostilities, and the winner will be determined by the most intellectually quick who can accurately bring to bear the right capabilities against their opponent the fastest. Think of it like an Old West gunfight with the option of instantaneously applying the right level of force to a perfect winning formula.

Today, there are numerous advanced robotic development programs that range from a human-worn robotic exoskeleton to semi- and fully autonomous robots and drones. As previously stated, AI provides the bionic warrior’s brain while electrical energy is the powering heart beat and blood. The provision of adequate electrical energy for long-term, un-plugged bionic warrior operations is a major engineering and physics challenge. Today’s systems primarily rely on battery power, but development of energy harvesting capabilities and other means of generation will be necessary for sustained independent bionic warrior operations. Let’s explore a sampling of some emerging bionic warrior technologies.

TALOS (Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit)

TALOS is US Special Operations Command’s initiative to build a high-tech bulletproof soldier-worn, load-bearing exoskeleton (suit) that may optionally provide life support and protection from environmental extremes. It will also likely provide protection from CBR (chemical, biological, radiological) agents and monitor soldier vitals. This suit will provide options for communications connectivity, target acquisition, firing solutions and be interoperable with multiple weapons systems ranging from PDWs (personal defense weapons) to marking targets for air strike targets. In the words of former USSOCOM commander, Admiral Bill McRaven, “It’s essentially an Ironman suit.”

USSOCOM intends TALOS to provide a divisive leap ahead for individual soldier war-fighting capabilities. However, a suit that achieves all the capabilities envisioned will be heavy. The armor alone will greatly restrict a soldier’s mobility, and with all the other envisioned computer and sensor bells and whistles attached, the suit will weigh in well above that which a man can carry. That is the purpose of the load carrying, strength-enhancing exoskeleton upon which all the weight will be borne.

As one might imagine, the most crucial hurdle is not developing the exoskeleton to carry all the weight. It’s providing an adequate power system to run the exoskeleton servos (miniature motors that power the joints and allow human-like free movement). TALOS power requirements far exceed today’s battery technology, so without some profound discovery in power generation, the exoskeleton will need to carry with it a multi-kilowatt, gas-powered generator about the home-use size, and that is unacceptable for many reasons. So, the wild card in this grand exoskeleton initiative is coming up with an adequate portable power source. USSOCOM says, “We’re working on it.”

How might TALOS technology be applied to the commercial market? It’s no leap to envision the adaptation of TALOS-like technology in prosthetics that operate like real human appendages and are thought-controlled by a direct human brain–AI link. Neither is it difficult to envision a TALOS-like suit adapted for First Responders, construction workers, heavy manufacturing, shipping and handling. Even a bare bones sportsman’s version might emerge that would assist in negotiating rough terrain, load carrying or camp construction. The potential technology benefits and spinoffs are immense. USSOCOM is working towards a TALOS prototype demonstration late in 2018.

Humanoid-Robot Soldiers

As part of the family of fully autonomous robots, there will be humanoid robots that will vastly replace the necessity of human-soldier battlefield presence in wars of the future. Humanoid capabilities could include most everything a human can do, from augmenting them with a human-virtual reality interface to Haptic control required for delicate operations, e.g., special operations, demining, surgery, construction, etc.

The commercial humanoid robot industry is well on its way to producing robots so life-like that it will take close examination to discern the difference between them and us. Coupled with AI, their abilities to learn and conduct human tasks will quickly exceed our own. In fact, they may well threaten human existence at some point in their evolution. They will most certainly change our culture.

The bionic warrior may lead them into battle either beside them, or from a virtual control location out of harm’s way. Robots will almost entirely replace today’s soldiers, and the winners of future wars might be those who can field the most robots with the most capabilities. Robot attrition resulting from conflict may become culturally acceptable, making warfare more palatable if confined to non-human surrogates. Regardless, the bionic warrior will be the puppet master in such conflicts, to one degree or another.

Drones, Mobility, Communications Connectivity

This category consists of readily configurable modular air, water (both surface and subsurface), land (both wheeled, tracked and foot-like) load carrying, fighting (armed) and reconnaissance/surveillance vehicles/drones that directly interact with and support operating forces. These platforms will eventually have the capability to reprogram, reconfigure and combine themselves into swarms to bring the right capabilities to bear.

AI connectivity links will provide individual soldiers the capability to control swarms of interoperable robotic systems to accomplish missions that have historically required large troop numbers. This human-robot teaming, coupled to AI machine learning, will become the future war-fighting norm. For example, a single soldier, controlling dozens, or even hundreds, of both air and land robotic systems, could recon and clear large urban areas that would otherwise require numerous troops to clear buildings, infrastructure tunnels and related outlying areas.

Bird Drones

It might sound far-fetched, but lifelike robotic birds that fly by flapping wings and that can land upon a telephone pole, or windowsill, are a reality. Reportedly, over 30 Chinese military and government agencies employ bird-like drones to surveil and track people of special interest in at least five provinces across China.

Code-named “Dove,” the Chinese “spy birds” program is being led by Song Bifeng, a professor at Northwestern Polytechnic University in Xian. Unlike unmanned aerial vehicles with fixed wings or rotor blades, these “birdbot” drones realistically mimic the flapping action of a bird’s wings to climb, dive and turn in the air. The aim of the Dove project is to field a new generation of biologically inspired drones that, like birds, are oblivious to human detection and radar. The robot flock is so lifelike that actual birds often fly alongside them.

How it works: Professor Bifeng claims each Dove drone is independently fitted with a high-definition camera, GPS antenna, flight control system and AI data link with satellite communication capability. The flapping mechanism comprises a pair of crank-rockers driven by an electric motor, while the wings themselves can deform slightly when moving up and down, which generates not only lift but also thrust to drive the drone forward. The birdbot’s body can also be covered in real bird feathers, making it nearly indistinguishable from real birds without close-up examination. Its flight characteristics also make the birdbot undetectable to modern RADAR and LIDAR systems.

Birdbot technology offers a wide range of possible uses beyond spying and military that includes first responder uses, environmental protection and urban planning. The sky is the limit for commercial applications and sporting uses.

Soft Robots and Smart Gels

In a capabilities demonstration recently released by Rutgers University–New Brunswick, engineers printed a 3-D soft robot composed of a 70% water smart gel. A small electrical current triggered this inch-tall, cartoonish-looking bot to deliberately flop about underwater, grab and pull objects and walk.

How it works: According to Rutgers, “The speed of the smart gel’s movement is controlled by changing its dimensions (thin is faster than thick), and the gel bends or changes shape depending on the strength of its salty water solution and electric field. The gel resembles muscles that contract because it’s made of flesh-like soft material (has more than 70 percent water) and responds to electrical stimulation.

We already know that walking is the least efficient means of underwater locomotion, but if the robotic soft form works, why not? Upscaling and equipping the smart gel body with a sensor capability, these soft robots could be submarine-launched in deep water or air dropped closer to shore where they would walk or swim to shore and provide hours or days of advance force surveillance before humans or more sophisticated bionic warriors are sent in.

Consider the soft bot’s gripping arm’s ability to pull an object inward, as it might be applied to the mouth of a robotic fish, or hidden inside the life-like robotic bodies of artificial mammals, birds or reptiles for overt intelligence collection. Such animals could be deployed, for example, to infiltrate high-security facilities, collect documents from restricted areas or even stealthily follow in the wakes of coastal patrols (pay attention USSOCOM). Operating underwater, soft bots, employing this technology, could recover intelligence from lost vehicles, sift through contraband tossed overboard and maybe at a larger scale even be used in demining operations.

The commercial range of applications for soft robots touch every arena from artificial human organ replacement to wide-ranging underwater operations that include searches, surveys, inspections, maintenance, emergency response and consequence management.

Cloaking

A Chinese research team at the State Key Laboratory of Millimeter Waves in Southeast University in Nanjing, Jiangsu province has developed a metamaterial that acts as an “invisibility cloak” for use on non-stealth military jets to help them evade radar detection.

How it works: Applied as a thin metallic membrane on an aircraft’s outer skin, metamaterial cloaking technology uses a fabricated layer composed of microscopic structures analogous to integrated circuits. When an electric current is applied, the metamaterial alters the way radio waves bounce off its surface to create an apparition image, and/or alter the return echo on a radar so that the aircraft disappears or appears to be something other than it really is. In conjunction with AI-controlled modulation, metamaterial can serve to transform the radar signature of an inflight aircraft rendering it unrecognizable.

The United States and several other countries have also heavily invested in metamaterial research and development for use in cloaking, but thus far, there have been no public reports on application or progress of this research program. It is safe to assume that this material would work equally as well when applied to boats, ships and land vehicles.

Metamaterial technology is by no means mature enough to operationally field. Current metamaterials are extremely difficult and expensive to mass-produce. Additionally, the metamaterial membrane in its current state of developmental maturity is somewhat fragile and won’t withstand a harsh combat environment. This reliability issue will no doubt be overcome, but for now the technology is unreliable.

Commercial uses for metamaterial may seem elusive, but it has many, ranging from high energy shielding, which could include directed energy or other radiation forms, to chameleon-like, color-changing outer garments for automatic background matching camouflage and even high fashion.

Directed Energy

Soldier-carried weapons will morph away from today’s kinetic reliance toward directed energy. Ballistic warfare will not disappear, but it will be out-gunned by directed energy weapons. Kinetic weapons will eventually morph to smart weapons that fire programmable smart projectiles configured for specific target lethality. However, as several first-world nations move closer to deployable laser weapons on land vehicles, ships and aircraft, man-portable laser weapons aren’t getting the same program attention of investment. Well, that’s true for all but China.

China recently went public with its latest man-portable directed energy weapon, claiming the ZKZM-500 is a non-lethal laser assault rifle, billing it as a “laser AK-47.” They say it can ignite clothing worn by the target at a half-mile. The ZKZM-500 reportedly has an AK-47 weight profile of around 6 ½ pounds and is powered by a rechargeable lithium battery that provides a 1000-shot capability—each burst lasting no more than two seconds, all for the production price of $15,000 a copy.

Scientists at the Chinese Academy of Sciences where the gun was developed revealed the ZKZM-500 can “burn through clothes in a split second,” leading to “instant carbonization” of organic tissue. The South China Morning Post also quoted these researchers, explaining, “If the fabric is flammable, the whole person will be set on fire. The pain will be beyond endurance.”

How it works: While some capability claims appear dubious, we must assume the gun exists with some form of operational capability, because performance is described and pictures are provided. Based upon performance claims and known limitations, we can deduct that it is a relatively low-energy laser generated by a solid-state system. However, beyond mention of the lithium power pack there is no description offered about the actual system design containing the required capacitors and optics that provides all that claimed power in a columnated energy beam. It is difficult to believe that the Chinese engineered a small, battery-powered, man-carried directed energy weapon that is powerful enough to incinerate a target at a distant half-mile without being refracted by environmental detractors like dust, fog, rain or snow. It is even harder to believe they’ve achieved that performance using a smart phone-like rechargeable lithium battery pack that provides a 1000-shot / 2-second burst capability. Finally, if the ZKZM-500 is a blinding laser (it’s clearly not eye safe if it incinerates clothing and flesh), it is strictly forbidden for use against humans by international convention. Yes, it’s still okay to shoot your opponent’s eyes out on the battlefield, but it’s against international convention to burn them out using directed energy.

The ZKZM-500’s performance claims are in marked contrast from existing directed energy weapons (and known prototypes) that require large power supplies and are mounted on platforms like ships, aircraft or large ground vehicles that can accommodate a laser’s demanding power requirements. Secondly, a laser beam must be held steady against a target (on the same spot) until the laser has burnt through whatever it has the design capacity to terminate. Firing bursts of lasers like bullets looks good in the movies, but doesn’t match the known law of physics in the real world.

The US Army is currently testing 5-kilowatt, high-energy lasers mounted atop Stryker-armored vehicles for protection against incoming enemy rocket, artillery and mortar fire. These laser-modified Stryker-armored vehicles are called the Mobile Expeditionary High Energy Laser (MEHEL). According to a July 2, 2018, press release from Raytheon, the Army awarded Raytheon Company a $10 million dollar contract to develop a “100 kilowatt-class laser weapon system primarily designed for integration onboard the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTVs).” The release quoted Roy Azevedo, vice president of Intelligence, Reconnaissance and Surveillance Systems at Raytheon’s Space and Airborne Systems business unit, as saying, “The beauty of this system is that it’s self-contained. Multi-spectral targeting sensors, fiber-combined lasers, power and thermal sub-systems are incorporated in a single package. This system is being designed to knock out rockets, artillery, mortar fire or small drones.”

According to US Army officials involved in the program, “When it comes to directed energy weapons, sending more energy downrange is better, because it can always be dialed back if need be.” Once perfected for use on mobile platforms, Army officials expect directed energy technology will provide a low-cost alternative to kinetic weapon systems that require expensive ammunition and have a telltale report.

Cyber Weapons

The conflict asymmetric environment between global competitors is evolving toward a reliance on cyber dominance. The common focus aims to control technology development and exploit it, sustain pre-conflict conditioning and definition of the potential battlespace and to manipulate an opponent’s psychological will and physical war fighting capabilities against him. Therefore, cyber warfare is largely transparent, and it comes in many forms, making anything that is computer-controlled and/or data-dependent vulnerable to attack and corruption.

How does it work? In 2010 the US and Israel devastated Iran’s uranium enrichment centrifuges by introducing a cyber-weapon malicious code named “Stuxnet.” This digital worm caused centrifuges to spin out of control and essentially self-destruct, setting Iran’s nuclear weapon program back several years. Cyber weapons are not limited to things like scrambling centrifuge operations or shutting down factories.

Cyber weapons can be used effectively to kill people by turning petrochemical plants into bombs, derailing trains and causing electrical generating plants to self-destruct, for example. Everything that is networked and computer-controlled is vulnerable to attack. As AI matures, more sophisticated cyber weapons will appear. AI will be used to design, develop and employ extremely sophisticated cyber weapons with capabilities beyond our current ability to imagine. China is the only nation that has entire universities dedicated to cyber technology and cyber warfare. They are the equivalent of MIT, only they’re dedicated to cyber. China is both our main cyber competitor and threat, and they are rapidly advancing their capabilities throughout the cyber continuum.

Future wars will involve, in large part, industrial cyber sabotage. Cyber-attacks will be aimed against infrastructure networks that control power grids, liquid fuel distribution networks, all types of refining facilities, critical product manufacturing, transportation networks, ports and their cargo handling facilities, aviation, human services facilities that include water purification, waste disposal plants, hospitals, etc. To put the cyber threat in its proper perspective, all infrastructure elements must be considered vulnerable.

What does this all mean to the bionic warrior? We can safely assume that by the very nature of the highly sophisticated weapons, communications and AI network connectivity the bionic warrior has in his kit, that he and all those supporting him will be vulnerable to cyber-attack. His defense will be his AI counter-cyber link, which will constantly scan his operating system and network links for attack and instantaneously provide the appropriate defensive measures.

We can also envision the bionic warrior possessing a cyber-weapon capability that would be generated through his AI connectivity link. Should he find a cyber vulnerability and opportunity to conduct or support a cyber-attack, the necessary tools would be at his disposal to attack it. Think of it like calling for close air or artillery support in conventional war. Instead, the cyber warrior would mark the target and call in a cyber-attack against a specified vulnerability, or perhaps, a cyber counter-attack in his defense.

In closing, consider this. In reading this article today, we are the age to likely see everything discussed become a reality within the next several years. That puts us into one of two categories. We’re either unafraid of such advancements because we don’t understand, or don’t care about, the ramifications; or advancements like those discussed threaten us to one degree or another because we envision a wide-range of related consequences facing the future of our country and humanity, as we know it. Perhaps there’s a third category too—those who will become bionic warriors and like today’s warriors, professionally embrace it.

The Cyber Warrior

By Tom Verbeck

While the information battlefield remains consistent, cyber warfare is the new combat. Cyber weaponry is changing … that’s for sure … and it is affecting outcomes. In fact, the impact of cyber warfare is more dramatic than the World War I horse Calvary being slaughtered by machine guns and changing land warfare, forever.

In World War II, Tokyo Rose, Iva D’Aquino, an American, broadcasted English-language propaganda to Allied forces throughout the Pacific. And Axis Sally, Mildred Elizabeth Gillars, an American, was employed by the Third Reich in Germany for propaganda. These information operations, a form of cyber war, sought to affect the outcome of the war. Its effectiveness can be debated, but its influence on military operations is real.

Cyber warfare is changing war. Webster defines “War” as “a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end.” And, the end always remains a debate. The cyber warrior is not about gaining territory or land. The cyber warrior focuses on wealth and information no matter its location.

It’s a fact that war, today, still involves kinetic weapons, but future wars will be fought and won with new cyber weapons nested in computer code. Cyber weapons will affect, disrupt, change and alter the flow of information … before the war, during the battles and after the war. Future cyber warriors will have the capability to alter intelligence; corrupt logistics; steal and destroy mechanical weapons; bring winnings home by both overt and covert means; and remain invisible to their adversaries.

So, what is the cyber warrior of the future? First, the cyber warrior may, or may not, have any country of origin or allegiance. The cyber warrior may not even be a person. He may be military but maybe not. Operating from wherever a cyber warrior wants to, the cyber warrior can virtually roam the world looking for an optimal way to plug into the information technology highway. And without any regard for rules, a cyber warrior may operate from Germany but appear to be in Brazil, or from downtown Beijing and appear to be in Colorado.

The cyber warrior will have the means to alter intelligence. Much of today’s intelligence is gathered by unclassified means: Who is going where, what is the latest weather, and who is inventing what. Search engines like Google and logistics support by Amazon are easy pickings for the cyber warrior, and the ability to gather and alter that information is technically easy. Even mechanical military exercises carry their information vulnerabilities. And the overt cyber-attack on a military system will always be followed up with covert and unclassified gathering of information all around an exercise to see what can easily be understood.

The cyber warrior will corrupt logistics. The what, when and where of a supply chain for military, manufacturing or infrastructure essentials will all be easy pickings for the cyber warrior. The cyber warrior will be able to disrupt; change locations of delivery; adjust times of delivery and ultimately have goods delivered where cyber warriors want them, not where they are needed.

On the cyber warrior’s target list are major mechanical weapons to corrupt or destroy. An aircraft, for example, destined to land back at its home base, will receive new coordinates, its heads-up display will be altered, and the aircraft will land where the cyber warrior wants it to land. The convoy on its way to re-supply will receive another location, and new information traffic will alter its destination to where the cyber warrior wants it. And finally, weapons will be discharged, not at the enemy, but where the cyber warrior wants them to be discharged.

In the spring of 1993, a group of Senior US military officers visiting the former Soviet Union, now Russia, met with Senior Russian Military officers. When asked, “Why had the US won the cold war,” a large Russian Admiral stood up and said in Russian, “USSR would have matched you bomb for bomb, bullet for bullet, airplane for airplane, ship for ship … you won because the information wall came down.” It was clear—that day, the military’s bombs and bullets had not won the Cold War. Rather, the real war of ideas, economies and of peoples’ wants and needs was won in the field of information—cyber space.

US strategy-recognized bad actors on the cyber battlefield are both inside and outside the military. The ability to influence and change economies and affect the diplomatic field of battle … to influence, disrupt, corrupt or usurp the decision making of adversaries and potential adversaries while protecting our own … is real. Since the 1980s, with the changes in information technology, the weaponizing of this battle space is a formidable threat, both inside and outside the military. But to call any of this new or allude that we in the US are not aware of what is happening world-wide is false and wrong.

The cyber warriors do not always wear uniforms; they might not even be human. Today’s major industry leaders … from the Boeings/Northup Grumman’s to Mercedes Benzes to Bank of America … all have formidable cyber warriors in their employ. Normally found under the direction of the Company’s Chief Information Officer (CIO), now a Corporate Board officer, their job is to ensure their companies’ information is securely transmitted, received, stored and processed in near real time. This is not easy, and they are constantly under attack.

We have been defending ourselves since the beginnings of the Internet (1980s) and the ever-growing networked technology. We know Russia, China, Iran and North Korea routinely launch cyber-attacks on civilian areas, hacking private companies or undermining foreign governments and their militaries, using online tools to manipulate information and create digital propaganda to shape others’ opinions, while employing digital mercenaries to do the work.

The Chinese military stole US plans to the technically sophisticated F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, allowing Beijing to create the copycat J-31. Hackers with connections to the Iranian government were charged earlier this year for attacks on US banks. North Korean operatives released a trove of damaging emails from Sony as the entertainment company planned to release a comedy with an unflattering portrayal of the country’s leader. And they never left home to make it all happen.

In 2006, a European Partnership for Peace information technology interoperability exercise grew to include over 43 countries, on 4 continents. The global goal was interoperability of information systems. Evidence pointed out that information sharing, in todays’ complex world, required immediate interoperability. This exercise included Russia. Remarkably, the Russian exercise play was often limited to teletype—the most sophisticated cyber weapon they had in 2006—and they still remain technically behind most of the First World nations.

Real change in today’s cyber war is birthed in economics and the cheap availability of new cyber weapons and the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI). While a new aircraft will cost billions of dollars, the cost to play on the new information battlefield with a new cyber weapon is thousands of dollars. For example, each F-35A military jet is priced at $94.6 million. But a new cyber weapon, a fully decked out I MAC only costs $1,499.00. Comparatively, a new aircraft requires trained aircrew and maintainers, and when employed, the whole world will take notice of where it came from and what it destroyed. However, a state-of-the-art cyber computer system requires a knowledgeable computer hacker (a teen or millennial) whose motivation might be in gaining wealth or status. It’s happening today. In Georgia and in Ukraine full-scale cyber warrior operations are built into all military maneuvers.

Finally, the cyber warrior will remain invisible to his or her adversaries and even his or her partners. The cyber warrior is constantly moving within his or its information technology domain. The movements occur at the speed of light and aren’t inhibited by conventional barriers or human blocks. Where ever a cyber warrior wants to be, it is; and time and speed have no meaning.

The future cyber warrior may come from the military or not. He may be human or AI or both. Internationally, businesses and governments remain engaged in constant cyber war, and the only real question is who wins? And how will the cyber warriors divide up the new world?

•••

Thomas J. Verbeck was promoted to U.S. Air Force Brigadier General and was a former top 100 Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO). He has 40 years of IT leadership experience, and from 2002 to 2007, he served as the first Combatant Command Cyber J3 (responsible for offense and defense), J6 (CIO) and J9 (CTO).

Do you love big bore rifles? Somebody must like them, based on the variety of large caliber cartridges introduced in the last decade or so.

Years ago, the AR-15/M16 rifle was spoken of rather poorly by some, due to the small cartridge and “tiny” bullet. Now with caliber choices up to .50 inch, those complaints are rarely heard.

The real beauty of the AR family of rifles is their modularity. It is extremely easy to change virtually every piece of your rifle, if you so desire. This allows for all manner of customization. In particular, a change of cartridge is accomplished by a simple swap of the upper receiver/barrel assembly and perhaps a bolt and magazine swap. This applies to both the massively popular AR-15 platform and the AR-10 as well.

The trend of big bore AR cartridges is something that has intrigued me for some time now. Let’s take a look at what is out there. Please keep in mind that this article is merely an introduction and not meant to be a contest to determine “the best.” Attempting to do so would be an instant failure, as various rounds have different intentions. For example, the Am-Tac 416 Hushpuppy was meant for suppressed use, while the mighty .500 Auto Max is for hunting large, tough animals. It would not be reasonable to expect the Hushpuppy to match the Auto Max in power. To answer which is “Best,” we would need to clarify “Best at What?”

If you buy a complete rifle, it should be set up and ready to run—Well, hopefully. Buying an upper for your existing lower is certainly doable. After all, that is the genius behind the AR system. You may want to change the buttstock to one beefy enough to handle the recoil. Collapsible stocks are best avoided.

If you want to do your own start-to-finish build, you will HAVE to open up the ejection port for most if not all of these rounds to allow the fired case to be ejected cleanly.

The good news about magazines is that standard AR-15 or milsurp M16 mags work fine in most cases. But of course the capacity is greatly reduced, due to the larger case size. A 30-round mag will hold about 10 of these big bore cartridges, and they will be single-stacked vertically, rather than staggered as with the 5.56 round. This refers to the AR-15 group. This is not an issue with the AR-10 group of cartridges, as the case body diameters are not so dramatically different.

These are grouped into rounds for the AR-15 platform, then for the AR-10 and in order of increasing caliber. (The Wilson Combat .458 HAM’R is a hybrid, so is dealt with separately.)

Chamber pressures are deliberately kept low with the AR-15 group, due to the issue of bolt thrust. The total force pushing rearward on the bolt face is a combination of pressure per a given area (pounds per square inch), multiplied by the area of the base of the round. If the cartridge base is larger, then the chamber pressure has to be lowered in order to keep the total bolt thrust within safe limits.

The Wilson Combat .458 HAM’R is unique in that it uses a non-standard hybrid receiver. The BCG is also ¾-inch shorter than a standard AR-10 one. The receiver uses the smaller AR-15 mag well, yet the bolt and barrel extensions are larger AR-10 dimensions. Because of that, this carbine-size gun can handle chamber pressures of 46,000 PSI and generate over 3000 FPE. The downside to this is that the ability to swap uppers is lost. If you want a HAM’R, you buy the complete rifle.

Some of these loads use short-for-caliber pistol bullets, while others use long-for-caliber rifle bullets. Generally, a short, light, pistol bullet starts out faster but sheds velocity sooner. Conversely, a longer, heavier rifle projectile will move slower but will not loose speed as rapidly, due to the better sectional density. Keep this in mind when comparing data from different sources.

To keep this article manageable, the author has limited the list to rounds with correct headstamps, keeping it to a handful of proprietary or “boutique” rounds. It simply would not be possible to keep track of every wildcat cartridge. Even still, it is likely that other cartridges have been overlooked. The author learned about one of them as the article was being prepared. If your favourite big bore AR round is not here, please forgive his error.

Most of these rounds originate from small companies. A few are family businesses operating out of a garage or barn. I view these Mom-and-Pop shops as true entrepreneurs, and I wish them much success.

The majority of cases are formed by Starline Brass. Starline really must be commended for helping the shooting sports community as they do. Three ammunition loading companies stand out as well. Buffalo Bore Ammo, SBR Ammunition and Underwood Ammo load high-quality ammunition, starting with Starline Brass and various premium bullets.

AR-15

.375 SOCOM

Created by Tony Rumore of Tromix Lead Delivery Systems in 2013, this is simply the .458 SOCOM case necked down. (The .458 SOCOM is listed below.) Correctly headstamped brass, as well as factory ammunition, is available from SBR (Southern Ballistic Research) Ammunition.

.416 Hushpuppy

Appearance-wise, this may be the most intriguing looking round in this article. Most of the other cartridges covered are going for maximum power, so have the largest case that can be held in an AR-size mag. This round is meant to stay subsonic to avoid making a sonic crack when fired. This is accomplished by using a small capacity case and a long spire point 450gr bullet. The case is a shortened and reformed 50AE case. The result is a round with more copper bullet than brass case. The look has been compared to a lawn gnome! This was first debuted at the 2014 SHOT Show. Unfortunately, it seems to be dormant now as any current contact info for its creator, Am-Tac, could not be found.

.450 Bushmaster

Based upon the .284 Winchester case, this straight-walled case uses a rebated rim with a .473-inch diameter, the same as the .308 Winchester family. Designed by Tim LeGendre of LeMag Firearms, it was originally known as the .45 Professional. Bushmaster and Hornady further developed it, shortening the case slightly to 1.700 inches long. Note that it uses .452-inch pistol bullets and not .458-inch rifle bullets. As it is a rimless, straight-walled case, it headspaces on the case mouth; the same as most semi-auto pistols. As such, reloaders must use a taper crimp, not a roll crimp.

.458 SOCOM

Created by Marty ter Weeme of Teppo Jutsu in late 2000 as a result of poor terminal ballistic performance of the 5.56 NATO round during a battle several years earlier in Mogadishu, Somalia (the “Black Hawk Down” battle). Based on a lengthened 50AE case with a rebated rim (.473-inch, same as the .308 Winchester family) and necked down to .458 at the mouth. Teppo Jutsu contacted SBR to supply factory ammunition early on. SBR has a wide selection of loaded ammo, as well as correctly headstamped brass. Starline also makes brass. The name SOCOM refers to Special Operations Command. This round has become very popular recently.

.499 Leitner-Wise

An early entry into the big bore AR game, the .499 LW is now effectively dead, as the restructured LWRCI company no longer supports it. Named for Paul Leitner-Wise. Based on a lengthened .50 Action Express case with a rebated rim, it is similar to the far more successful .50 Beowulf. For a short time, the US Coast Guard tested this round for intercepting drug smugglers.

.50 Action Express

In the mid- to late 1990s a few experimenters built guns on this magnum pistol cartridge. In this case, the rifle was designed around an existing cartridge, rather than a cartridge being created for a rifle. The cartridge was first introduced with the mighty Desert Eagle semi-auto pistol from Israel. The original idea behind the 50AE was to allow for a simple barrel swap between it and a 44 Smith & Wesson Magnum barrel in the DE handgun. The rim is the same diameter in both rounds, making caliber changes a simple matter. (The case bodies are noticeably different sizes, resulting in the 44 being a rimmed case and the 50AE being a rebated design.) Unfortunately, the standard unmodified case has a large rim (.514-foot diameter), which weakened the bolt lugs and extractors. Parts breakage was common. It is seldom encountered now in ARs.

.50 Beowulf

Designed by Bill Alexander of Alexander Arms, the .50 Beowulf is based on a lengthened 50AE case, with a reduced diameter rim similar, although not identical, to the 7.62×39 rim diameter. Aside from a few one-off experimentals, this was the first of the big bores specifically created for the AR-15 platform. Dies and brass are available from Alexander Arms.

.502 Thunder Sabre (TS)

Designed in 2004 by Robyn Church of Big Bore Canyon/Cloud Mountain Armory/Force Ten Firearms in Oregon, the rights were later sold to R&J Firearms of McMinnville, OR. The .502 TS is a 50AE case with the rim diameter reduced to .445 inch (7.62×39 rim diameter) to avoid the parts breakage issue mentioned above. As a .502 TS round is quite a bit shorter than a typical .223 Remington or 5.56×45 round, the mag has a filler block inside it in order to hold the rounds to the rear of the mag.

AR-10

.375 Raptor

Created by Arne Brennan of North American Sportsman, LLC, this round follows the .45 Raptor. The .375 Raptor is simply a .308 case opened up to .375 diameter, shortened slightly and with the shoulder angle changed to 35 degrees. This allows for more positive headspacing. Correctly stamped brass is available from Red Stag Ammunition.

.45 Raptor

This is an interesting design, introduced in 2014. The .45 Raptor is essentially a rimless .460 Smith & Wesson magnum cartridge. It uses .460 Smith & Wesson load data and .460 Smith & Wesson dies, along with a .308 Winchester shell holder. It can be formed from .308 Winchester or 7.62 NATO brass that has been shortened to 1.800 inches and opened up to accept .452 bullets.

Brass is made by Starline Brass and headstamped RSS (Raptor Shooting Systems). Loaded ammo from Underwood Ammo.

.45-70 Auto

Phoenix Weaponry of Longmont, CO, introduced this one at the 2018 SHOT show. They created a rimless version of the classic .45-70 Government cartridge of 1873. It uses standard .45-70 dies and data, along with a .308 Winchester shell holder. The sample cartridge the author saw at SHOT was made from a lathe turned .45-70 Government case. Properly headstamped cases are in the works now.

.50 Krater

The .50 Krater round is based on a 300 RUM case. It uses .502-inch-diameter pistol bullets, the same as .500 Smith & Wesson or 50AE. Brass and ammo are available from Outdoor Shooters Supply/Red Stag Ammunition.

.500 Auto Max (AM)

Created by Big Horn Armory of Cody, WY, this is a rimless version of the thunderous .500 Smith & Wesson Magnum revolver round. Although the rim has been removed, the extractor groove dimensions remain the same, so reloaders will use the .500 Smith & Wesson shellholder. As BHA president Greg Buchel explains: “The extractor groove is very deep and allows using the same shellholder, even with the rim removed. The shellplate is cut for the extractor groove diameter.”

Originally named the Auto Mag, the name was soon changed to Auto Max. They may not be exaggerating. The BHA website lists a number of loads, most of which exceed 4000 FPE. One is almost 4600 FPE! That is suitable for African Dangerous Game. Currently, this is the most powerful round for the AR series. The .500 AM can be reloaded with standard .500 Smith & Wesson dies and reloading data. As with other rimless straight-walled cases, it must be taper-crimped, not roll-crimped. It is worth noting that while the .50 Beowulf is limited to about 33,000 PSI chamber pressure, the .500 AM can run up to 60,000 PSI. Underwood Ammo and Buffalo Bore load this round.

.510 Beck

First shown at the 2016 SHOT Show, this round seems to have vanished. Created by Beck Defense of TX, it got a lot of interest at Media Day. It features a .473-inch-diameter rebated rim on a straight-walled case. The website still mentions it being available 1st quarter 2018, yet emails go unanswered. I hope this one returns, as it seemed to have a lot of potential.

Hybrid Receiver

.458 HAM’R

Designed by Bill Wilson of Wilson Combat, the .458 HAM’R is very similar in dimensions to the .458 SOCOM round. However, they are NOT interchangeable. The Wilson website states: THE .458 HAM’R AMMUNITION IS LOADED TO MUCH HIGHER PRESSURE THAN THE .458 SOCOM AND IS NOT SAFE TO FIRE IN A .458 SOCOM CHAMBERED RIFLE.

The HAM’R system uses a hybrid rifle, similar in size to an AR-15 but uses a modified AR-10 bolt and barrel extension. This allows higher chamber pressure and improved ballistics. It is claimed that it fires a 300gr bullet 200 fps faster than the SOCOM. Interestingly, it uses .458 SOCOM reloading dies but is set a .040 inch longer to prevent a HAM’R round from being chambered in a SOCOM rifle. The cases are correctly headstamped to avoid mix-ups.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

rjfirearms.org
McMinnville, OR

45raptor.com/45RAPTOR/
375raptor.com/375RAPTOR/
Houston, TX

phoenixweaponry.com
Longmont, CO

bighornarmory.com
Cody, WY

maddogweapons.com
Lombard, IL

lwrci.com (No longer supported)
Cambridge, MD

alexanderarms.com
Radford, VA

wilsoncombat.com
Berryville, AR

starlinebrass.com
Sedalia, MO

buffalobore.com
Salmon, ID

underwoodammo.com
Sparta, IL

outdoorshootersupply.com
Collinsville, OK (Red Stag Ammunition brand ammo)

beckdefense.net
beckammunition.com
Ft. Worth, TX

sbr-usa.com
sbrammunition.com
Brunswick, GA

Bohemian Karel Krnka is credited with developing the first gas-operated rifle in the late 19th century. Krnka’s early design, further improved on and perfected by Hiram Maxim and John Browning, led to today’s gas operating systems. Today, there are two gas operating system designs used in self-loading rifles and machine guns: direct impingement and gas piston. Direct impingement disciples assert that gas piston systems are heavy, less accurate and mechanically unsound. Gas piston operating system devotees claim that direct impingement systems foul easily, overheat quickly and jam often. So, exactly what is the functional difference between these two self-loading operating systems, and what are their strengths and weaknesses?

To begin, the review of a few basics might be helpful. A self-loading firearm must mechanically execute a specific set of sequential functions automatically—without user assistance—to be classified as self-loading. The sequence goes like this: The shooter pulls the trigger and the cartridge fires. The operating system needs to automatically extract that spent cartridge case from the chamber, eject it from the firearm and re-cock the hammer/striker. It must then load an unspent (loaded) cartridge from the magazine (or linked belt) into the empty firing chamber. The breech is then locked closed (the bolt is locked) and the gun is “in battery.” At this point, the weapon is ready to fire again. Both direct impingement and gas piston operating systems complete this sequence by using the high gas pressure generated by propellant (gunpowder) combustion to drive mechanical motion that, in turn, automatically cycles the action of the firearm.

What’s the difference between the two systems? For the purpose of familiarity, direct impingement will be exemplified by the AR-15, and we’ll use the AK-47 for the gas piston system.

In the 1950s, American firearms design engineer Eugene Stoner designed the AR-10 (chambered in 7.62 NATO as a competitor to the M14) and, shortly thereafter, the AR-15 (chambered in 5.56 NATO), which both employed Stoner’s unique direct impingement gas operating system. A selective fire semiautomatic/full-auto version of the AR-15, designated by the U.S. Army as the M16, was adapted for military service in the early 1960s during the Vietnam War. Its lightness, ease of handling/carry and ergonomic design later led to the semiautomatic AR-15 civilian variant that has been extensively produced since the early 1980s. Notably, direct impingement is nothing new and has been widely used for both military—in automatic/selective fire M16 variants—and civilian semiautomatic AR-15 versions for over 50 years. The AR-15 is, perhaps, the most multi-caliber adaptable and easily customized gun design in the history of firearms, and that feat begins with its direct impingement gas operating system.

Here’s how the direct impingement gas operating system works. When a cartridge is fired, a small portion of the high-pressure bullet-propelling gas is syphoned off either through a small hole (port) located along the barrel (in what is called a gas block) or from a gas trap located at the muzzle of the barrel. Both pretty much do the same thing. As the bullet passes by, a small portion of the high-pressure gas generated from the combustion of the propellant is redirected rearward to power the direct impingement operating system.

Specifically, as the high-pressure gas is syphoned off (we’re talking gas pressure at thousands of pounds per square inch), it is channeled rearward through a small gas tube. The bolt-end of the tube directly impinges around a slightly smaller diameter tube mounted on the bolt carrier mechanism. The high-pressure gas essentially blows the bolt carrier mechanism rearward, extracting the spent cartridge case from the firing chamber. As the bolt carrier mechanism moves rearward, several other critical processes take place. The spent cartridge is ejected, the gun’s hammer is re-cocked and a recoil buffer spring is compressed.

The buffer spring serves two critical purposes. It dampens the rearward impact of the bolt carrier mechanism and stops its backstroke travel. The compressed buffer spring then pushes the bolt carrier mechanism forward by spring-loaded action, stripping an unspent round from either a magazine or linked belt, loading it directly into the firing chamber and forcefully propelling the bolt back into battery (the bolt’s ready firing position known as “lock up”).

Therefore, as the direct impingement operating system cycles, extremely hot, high-pressure gas from the cartridge’s propellant combustion comes into direct contact with the bolt carrier mechanism with each and every shot fired. With it come unburned propellant, carbon residue and other nasty chemical and material contaminants resulting from propellant combustion. The consequence is rapid heating of the bolt carrier mechanism and bolt and partial sinking of that heat into the weapon’s upper frame and barrel. Extreme heat serves to break down most all lubricants necessary for the bolt carrier mechanism to function, which accelerates wear on the mechanism’s moving parts.

Whether founded or unfounded, direct impingement gas operating systems have a reputation for unreliability. While that claim is debatable in today’s ARs, most failure-to-feed malfunctions in direct impingement operating systems result from inadequate or improper lubrication of critical wearing parts, worn out buffer springs, worn out magazine springs (that no longer present the next round at the proper height for the bolt carrier to grab on the forward stroke) or the use of non-MIL-SPEC (undersize/oversize) ammunition. An unclean system is rarely the culprit for malfunction, unless fouling is allowed to accumulate regularly and not dealt with properly.

There are things you can do to reduce direct impingement operating system maintenance and reliability concerns. For example, use an upgraded nickel-boron-coated bolt and carrier set that is precisely machined from high-grade steel alloy. Nickel-boron provides a super-smooth, harder-than-chrome surface. This lubricious surface reduces friction to a minimum and is resistant to corrosion and abrasion. The slick finish also keeps carbon from adhering, which makes cleaning up much faster and easier than with standard steel parts. Another maintenance and reliability boon, in conjunction with the nickel-boron-coated bolt carrier group, is the use of a stainless steel or chrome-moly barrel. High-end ARs and parts, as described above, are readily available from a number of U.S. manufacturers specializing in new AR builds and replacement parts. In general terms, it’s okay to mix and match AR parts and assemblies, because they are built to AR-common MIL-SPEC tolerances (not so for gas piston systems).

As noted above, direct impingement operating systems require cleaning, proper lubrication and preventive maintenance. Parts within the operating system additionally require scheduled lifespan replacement to guarantee weapon system reliability.

There are also some lesser-considered factors that can quickly detract from direct impingement system performance and system reliability. While these factors are somewhat abstract to most, they deserve discussion. As mentioned at the front end of this article, Gene Stoner originally developed the AR-10 as a competitor against the M14. In that configuration, the AR-10 was designed with a 20-inch barrel length. Why 20 inches? There are several factors in play that merit discussion.

The laws of physics dictate that a projectile’s velocity cannot exceed the velocity of its propellant burn, assuming the propellant and projectile can be contained long enough to achieve a full burn. Additionally, propellant burn doesn’t just take place inside the cartridge case, which many might assume. The initial combustion begins inside the cartridge, but the rapidly expanding combustible gases continue to burn and expand right down the barrel, pushing the projectile/bullet up to optimal velocity as it exits the barrel. At the moment of exit, the bullet instantly becomes a ballistic projectile. This means every cartridge volume will ideally be mated to a barrel that has the optimal length for full propellant burn.

Barrel length is directly proportional to projectile velocity and optimal design performance. Because every round has an optimal barrel length, a gun’s barrel length plays several roles. Depending upon the cartridge being fired, the barrel length provides an extended linear combustion chamber necessary for the powder charge to fully burn and expand, so the projectile (bullet) being fired has time to reach its optimal velocity before exiting the barrel. This is to say that a barrel that is too long—one that exceeds the time/length required for a full propellant (powder) burn—serves no purpose other than to add weight to the gun. A barrel that is too short—one that doesn’t allow enough time for a full propellant burn—won’t provide the projectile its full velocity (ballistic potential) in terms of range or impact energy.

This leads us to the M16’s barrel length. Gene Stoner originally designed his AR with a 20-inch barrel to achieve maximum performance. However, since the first Gulf War, close-quarters battle (CQB) has been a common practice throughout the ongoing global war on terrorism. CQB is fought up close and dirty in restricted spaces generally associated with tight urban environments. CQB requires a short-barreled gun that can be easily wielded in tight spaces, and the M16’s 20-inch barrel was considered too cumbersome.

To better meet the new CQB operational environment, the U.S. Military adopted Colt’s M4 variant of the M16 in 1994. There was just one problem with the M4’s shorter 14.5-inch barrel length. The shorter barrel requires the gas port to be positioned further to the rear. The result of moving the gas port rearward is a decreased dwell time, which is the delay between the bullet passing the gas tube hole (the port where the gas is syphoned off for the operating system) and then exiting the barrel. The decrease in distance from the bolt face to the gas port in the M4’s 14.5-inch barrel resulted in a significantly increased port pressure. For example, the M16’s 20-inch barrel port pressure runs at around 10,000 pounds per square inch, while the short-barreled M4 has a port pressure of 17,000 pounds per square inch.

Gene Stoner didn’t design his direct impingement operating system to endure such high pressures and the resulting stresses. Also, 14.5 inches of barrel don’t provide the sufficient opportunity for full burn for the 5.56 NATO cartridge. In summary, changes in barrel length also changed the physics involved, which accounts for several somewhat negative consequences. Additionally, more unburned propellant gases/materials will exit the muzzle of a shorter barrel more quickly. As these hot combustible gases mix and become enriched with the atmospheric oxygen, they instantly ignite. The result is a bright muzzle flash from a short-barreled weapon. Likewise, the gas that is syphoned off through the port (gas block) to power the operating system on a short barrel is full of unburned combustible material and particulate contaminates. So, for direct impingement systems, it can be assumed that the shorter the barrel, the dirtier, hotter and less reliably it will operate.

There are remedies to help mitigate the problems inherent in short-barreled direct impingement gas operating systems, but one cannot beat the laws of physics. Since incomplete propellant burn is the basis for most problems associated with short barrels, a faster, cleaner-burning propellant can be used. This also has its negative consequences, since a faster burn rate always equates to more heat. Ammunition of this type can readily cause firing chamber and barrel throat erosion (permanent damage) not to mention excessive heating in auto-fire or semiautomatic rapid-fire mode. Excess heat can cause round “cook-off,” and that is unacceptable from a safety perspective.

Many short-barreled AR enthusiasts will add an adjustable gas block onto their gun to better control the gas volume syphoned off to the operating system. Adjustable gas blocks can be effective in controlling the cyclic rate of the gun’s operating system, but they will do little to reduce fouling.

Others mount a sound suppressor on their short-barreled AR; this not only suppresses its ferocious report, but also reduces muzzle flash. This solution, while seemingly workable, still doesn’t resolve the dirt and other unburned contaminants being channeled into the direct impingement gas system (and collecting in the suppressor itself). This most often results in reliability degradation of the overall gun by increasing gas system backpressure, which equates to more dirt going into the operating system.

The adage that “death is a small price to pay for looking cool” plays a central role in the way many shooters configure their ARs. Yes, their highly tricked out short-barreled ARs look cool, but they’ll likely die if they rely upon it in a real gunfight. In reality, barrel length directly relates to reliability, and they’ve overlooked that critical component.

How Does the Gas Piston Operating System Differ?

Russian weapon designer Mikhail Kalashnikov was not the first to employ the gas piston operating system design. However, his unique 1947 adaptation of it in his venerable AK-47 (standing for Avtomat Kalashnikova model 1947) was a game-changer for the Soviet armed forces, their allies and later many developing nations.

How does a gas piston operating system differ from a direct impingement system? While the two operating systems are similar at first glimpse, there are a few key differences in their operation. As a matter of design, gas piston operating systems are heavier (more robust) than direct impingement operating systems, and that’s a necessary design evil.

As with direct impingement systems, the firing process begins with high-pressure propellant gases being syphoned off through a small hole along the gun barrel. Rather than forcing the gas into a tube that channels it rearward into the direct impingement system, the gas is channeled directly into a separate cylinder containing a piston that parallels (above or below) the gun barrel.

A push rod, either directly connected to (as in long-stroke systems) or disconnected from (as in short-stroke/tappet variants) the bolt group, is positioned directly behind the piston. The push rod interfaces with the bolt carrier mechanism contained in the gun’s receiver. The purpose of this push rod/connecting rod is to mechanically transfer the piston’s gas stroke linear energy rearward to cycle the bolt carrier assembly.

Here’s how it works. As the high-pressure gas from the barrel enters the cylinder, it acts directly upon the face of the piston. The rapidly expanding high-pressure gas pushes the piston (and its connecting/push rod) rearward. This, in turn, drives the bolt carrier assembly rearward. Like the direct impingement operating system, this rearward movement extracts and ejects the spent cartridge, cocks the hammer and compresses a recoil spring. The spring powers the bolt carrier assembly forward for the return stroke, chambering a fresh cartridge and putting the bolt back in battery (lock up).

Common to all gas piston operating systems is their reliance on tuning the gas port size for proper critical operating gas volume, along with the physical mass required of the operating parts (including the cylinder, piston, push rod and so on) and recoil spring pressures necessary to power the forward stroke.

Unique to the gas piston operating system, the hot gas used to operate the system never comes into direct contact with the bolt or bolt carrier assembly. This translates to a gun that operates more coolly and cleanly. In fact, on most designs, the bolt carrier can be removed immediately after firing and handled without burn protection. This is advantageous in automatic fire weapons, should emergency takedown be required to make a fix in the field. This is a primary reason that almost all modern machine guns and assault rifles (save the M16 and its variants) employ a version of the gas piston operating system instead of direct impingement systems.

There is a tradeoff, however, for the gas piston system remaining cool and clean, and that is its heavier component mass. Its cylinder, piston and bolt carrier connecting rod (push rod) add weight. As the piston system cycles, the movement of the weighty mass results in snappier recoil, which results in reduced accuracy, especially for quick follow-up shots and full-auto fire bursts.

Heavier recoil also contributes to metal fatigue. That is a primary material design concern regarding assault rifle and machine gun receiver life expectancy. Recoil over thousands of rounds causes receiver stretching and metal fracture from fatigue. Therefore, machine gun receivers are usually made from steel, and they are robust. Knowing that different metals have different expansion coefficients when heated, engineers attempt to use metals with similar coefficient characteristics to produce a gun with an acceptable lifespan (calculated in thousands of rounds fired). The use of exotic metals in gas piston systems is largely avoided because of the cost—both of the metal and the special machining/fabrication processes involved.

Gas piston system parts are not interchangeable between manufacturers, because they all employ their own proprietary pistons and bolt carriers. Since there is no set standard for the gas piston operating system, only brand name manufacturers’ parts can be used, and those usually require professional gunsmith or factory fitting.

Which System Is Better?

The direct impingement system has arguably proven itself under virtually all battlefield conditions and environments for over half a century on the AR-15/M16 platform with unmatched modularity. Replacement parts are inexpensive, easy to obtain and generally made to a set MIL-SPEC standard. By design, and for the reasons previously discussed, direct impingement system recoil is lighter than gas piston system recoil in the same caliber.

In the long-stroke gas piston system, the piston is mechanically fixed to the bolt group and moves through the entire operating cycle. This means that the combined mass of the piston, piston rod and bolt carrier assembly adds to the entire assembly’s linear momentum, enabling more positive extraction, ejection (on the back stroke) and more reliable chambering and lock up (on the forward stroke). Long-stroke systems can be found in such weapons as the M1 Garand, AK-47, Bren light machine gun, FN MAG, FN FNC, FN Minimi and M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.

The negative consequence of this system is the disruption of the point of aim on the second and following shots in rapid semiautomatic or automatic fire modes. This results from the rapidly changing center of mass during the action cycle, abrupt stops at the beginning and end of bolt carrier travel and the use of the barrel as a fulcrum to help drive the bolt rearward. Also, a higher gas volume is required to operate the heavier gas piston system, which, in turn, requires more massive operating parts—a design Catch-22.

In the short-stroke (or tappet) system, the piston is not connected to the operating system’s bolt group. As in the M1 carbine, it may directly push the bolt group assembly rearward. Or, like in the SKS, Armalite’s AR-18, the FN SCAR and Beretta’s A301-303 shotgun, it may operate the bolt group by pushing a connecting rod. In either design, the gas piston’s linear energy is imparted in a short, abrupt rearward push (short-stroke). The gas piston’s rearward motion is immediately arrested, leaving the bolt carrier assembly to continue through its operating cycle from the piston-generated kinetic energy (rear stroke). Thus, the short-stroke gas piston design has the advantage of reducing the total mass of recoiling parts compared to its big brother, the long-stroke gas piston.

Less recoiling mass equates to better control of the weapon. Less mass means less inertial impact at either stroke end of the bolt carrier travel, and that means less wear on the operating system and receiver. However, there are other dynamic factors in play in short-stroke designs. In many of these designs, the piston sharply impacts the bolt carrier group above the center of gravity, causing long-term wear from peening or accumulative damage to the bolt carrier and the receiver guide rails that champion the bolt carrier assembly’s rearward and forward stroke.

With the preceding in mind, it should be obvious that both direct impingement and gas piston operating systems have strengths and weaknesses unique to their individual design. Some of their weaknesses can be mitigated, but in general terms the operating system’s application should be purposely considered in the gun you choose. The gun’s performance history should additionally play a major role in this selection. Remember, performance is not a matter of belief; it’s a matter of evidence. Understand what you’re buying and choose wisely—your life may depend upon it.

During the 1960s–1970s there were very few companies manufacturing suppressors, AKA silencers, in the US. Few/none were making them for the civilian market, which was virtually non-existent at that time. One of the few companies of that era was SIONICS which stood for “Studies in Operational Negation of Insurgency and Counter Subversion.” SIONICS’s business was mainly directed at governments—US and foreign.

SIONICS Incorporated

When Mitch WerBell III began his clandestine weapons business, he set up shop on his property near Powder Springs, Georgia in 1966; in 1967 the company incorporated. Initially, the product line consisted of suppressors for the US M14 and M16 rifles, later adding pistol and submachine gun suppressors. On December 21, 1970, SIONICS officially changed its name to the Military Armament Corporation also known as MAC.

SIONICS Sound Suppressors

Most of the suppressors that SIONICS/MAC designed and sold, used rubber discs called wipes to help suppress the muzzle report. The life expectancy was 200 rounds before the unit’s efficiency deteriorated and the wipes required replacement. A wipe replacement module was available as a separate item. Mitchell WerBell III’s achievements in suppressor design were often regarded as the most significant advancements since Hiram Maxim’s silencers were patented in 1909. Some of WerBell’s best-known suppressors were those made for the MAC submachine guns.

The M10 and M11 suppressors’ rear section had a core that was a simple tube with a series of holes; the area around the core was packed with shoestring eyelets. The front section had a simple baffle followed by two helicals—one right-hand spiral, the other left-hand—designed to slow down the escaping gases. A threaded plate was used to hold the parts and the wipe assembly (consisting of several urethane disks and spacers crimped into a module) in place. A few modern suppressor manufacturers that upgraded the MAC suppressors agree that the original rear section (with the eyelets) is effective. The front section with the helicals was the area in need of improvement. In 1972, the factory price for a MAC suppressor was $57.00. From 1971 to 1973 the Military Armament Corporation produced 1,138 .45-caliber suppressors, 1,659 9mm suppressors and 1,983 .380-caliber suppressors, plus a number of pre-production prototypes.

No Civilian Sales

The SIONICS/Military Armament Corporation’s marketing strategy was to sell their weapons in substantial lots to governments and police agencies. The corporation was not interested in selling the guns piecemeal and discouraged sales to individuals.

Foreign Suppressor Sales Banned

Early in 1974, the United States Department of State placed an embargo on the export of sound suppressors to many third-world countries. In May of 1974, the US suspended all export license applications to “developing” nations involving suppressors and automatic weapons having threaded barrels for suppressors. The US Government ruling severely curtailed the foreign sales of MAC submachine guns.

Sales Suffer

The Military Armament Corporation sold to customers in over 50 foreign countries. Foreign sales nearly dried up completely when the sale of suppressors outside of the United States was banned. The US felt that any weapon that was fitted with a suppressor was an assassin’s tool and didn’t want any US firms offering such weapons overseas. The suppressor was what attracted many buyers to the M10 and M11 weapons; without it, the MACs were just another submachine gun, competing with many more practical designs.

MAC Bankruptcy

During 1974, the management of the Military Armament Corporation made a list of pending litigations and lawsuits. There were 29 named individuals and entities on the list that included numerous tool and part vendors, attorneys and shipping companies. During 1975, the Military Armament Corporation began to default on payments to creditors. In December, the Military Armament Corporation was forced to file for bankruptcy.

The MAC Auction

In April 1976, the remaining inventory of the Military Armament Corporation was ordered to be auctioned off by a US District Court Bankruptcy Judge. The auction was to commence on June 14, 1976, and continue until completed; the auction lasted for two days. Potential bidders were offered an extensive inventory of suppressors and submachine guns. Material presented at the auction consisted of 2,400 9mm Model 10 submachine guns, 6,400 .45-caliber Model 10 submachine guns, 174 .380-caliber Model 11 submachine guns and 1,925 suppressors of various calibers. There were many suppressor internal parts and tubes, but the ATF would not permit them to be sold. On June 11, 1976, a few days before the auction began, there were a number of submachine guns and suppressors confiscated by the ATF.

RPB Suppressors

After the Military Armament Corporation went out of business, RPB was formed by several former MAC employees. They purchased many parts, guns and suppressors before and during the auction. The original RPB partners manufactured a small number of suppressors; it was only after Wayne Daniel became involved with RPB that the company began to manufacture and market large numbers of suppressors, which were essentially the same designs as those originally sold by the Military Armament Corporation. There were approximately 700 original Military Armament Corporation suppressors of various calibers bought at the auction by Precision Armament (a Wayne Daniel company) and transferred to RPB. In 1979 RPB was selling its suppressors for $199.99 retail.

RPB .45-Caliber Suppressors

The RPB two-stage .45-caliber suppressors were nearly identical to those made by MAC, having a large diameter primary tube and a smaller diameter second stage tube. A total of 961 of the two-stage .45-caliber suppressors were made by RPB from October 1977 to October 1982.

RPB .45-Caliber Briefcase Suppressors

The full-size Model 10 submachine gun was not able to fit inside the operational briefcase when fitted with a suppressor. To address this problem, a shortened version of the suppressor was made. The suffix of the short suppressor’s serial numbers was the letter K representing Kurz or short. A total of 11 units were recorded in March 1982.

RPB 9mm Suppressors

In July 1977, RPB began their 9mm two-stage suppressor production. Like their .45-caliber counterparts, the 9mm suppressors had a large diameter primary tube and a smaller diameter second tube. A total of 796 9mm suppressors were made when production ended in 1982.

RPB made 11 9mm “briefcase” suppressors on March 3, 1982, which had a shorter overall length. This was to allow a full-size Model 10 to fit into the operational briefcase with a suppressor attached.

RPB .380-Caliber Suppressors

RPB .380-caliber suppressor production began in October 1977. The RPB .380-caliber suppressors, like their MAC predecessors, were a two-stage design, and like the MACs, the entire length of the tube had roughly the same outside diameter. A total of 797 .380-caliber suppressors were made before production ended in October 1982.

SWD Suppressors

SWD manufactured and sold submachine gun sound suppressors that were the same design as those made previously by both MAC and RPB. The SWD suppressor was available for the Model 10 in 9mm and .45 caliber and the M11/.380 and the SWD’s M11/Nine. The SWD suppressors sold for $140.75 postpaid. SWD made 460 .45-caliber suppressors and 448 9mm suppressors with production ending in August 1988. SWD produced 660 suppressors for the M11/.380 submachine guns from January 1983 until January 1989.

During 1983, SWD announced their new High Efficiency (H.E.) sound suppressor line specifically designed for their recently introduced M11/Nine 9mm submachine gun. The SWD H.E. design had a tube that was the same diameter of 1.75 inches for its entire length of 11.625 inches, unlike the earlier two-stage MAC designs where the primary stage was larger in diameter. Advertised as “quieter” the SWD H.E. suppressor used three high-density copper mesh cylinders, separated by triangular baffles, in place of the SIONICS/MAC spiral-type baffles and eyelets. The High Efficiency suppressor would also thread onto the 9mm Model 10 and was available for $140.75 postpaid. SWD’s 9mm H.E. suppressor production began in June 1983, ending January 1989; during that time 1,409 H.E. suppressors were produced. SWD also sold suppressor internal replacement parts and wipes for all of the MAC suppressor models.

First MAC Suppressor Upgrades

Around 1980, Dr. Phil Dater of Gemtech fame, designed a wipeless end cap called the MAC-END for the MAC-type suppressors. A few years later he offered a complete “enhancement” kit of baffles and spacers to use along with the MAC-END. The ATF ruling that made possession of suppressor parts a felony ended the availability of the enhancement kits. In 1981, Dr. Dater designed the “Superwipe,” which was a 4-inch long tube with a coupler to thread into the existing M10 suppressor, a support for some fiberglass insulation and a wipeless end cap. The Superwipe would simply screw in in place of the existing end cap. Subjectively, it was a further improvement, but the suppressor was overly long. Drawings were submitted to the Tech Branch of the BATF. The response was that it could be adapted to a firearm by itself, and because of its design, it would be a suppressor, thus the production of the Superwipe was denied.

While Ingram’s Model 10 and 11 submachine guns came from the factory suppressor-ready, the weapons have been largely ignored by modern suppressor manufacturers. One of the first non-MAC factory suppressors was designed by Phil Dater and Lynn McWilliams during 1986. Designated as the M10A3 suppressor, they were manufactured by AWC of Houston, Texas. Basically, they followed the original MAC design but improved it by replacing the eyelets in the primary tube with steel mesh and the helicals in the secondary tube with stainless steel baffles. The module containing the rubber wipes was replaced by a wipeless MAC-END. The M10A3 was approximately 2-inches longer than the original MAC cans. The M10A3 was available in 9mm or .45 caliber. There was also a .380-caliber model designated as the M11A3. However, the problem of the suppressor coming loose because of the coarse barrel threads remained. The M10A3 suppressor was superseded by the legendary MK9 suppressor configured for the MACs.

Updating to Modern Baffles

Suppressors were a popular option on the MAC submachine guns. The 1970s-era suppressors are now quite dated and have been replaced by smaller and lighter wipeless designs. However, many enthusiasts like the “old school” look of the big original MAC suppressors. Often a MAC submachine gun was sold with a serial-number matching suppressor. Many of the matching-number suppressors were separated when a submachine gun was sold to an individual who did not want to pay an additional $200 transfer tax for an outdated suppressor. One drawback to the early MAC cans was their wipes, which only lasted a few hundred rounds before replacement was required to restore the can’s effectiveness. The wipes not only required periodic replacement but affected accuracy. The basic issue was that anything that touched the bullet once it left the rifling would deflect it and open the shot group. While not an issue at a range of 10-15 feet, at 50 or more feet accuracy deteriorated quickly.

Fully aware of the old MAC suppressors’ renewed popularity, modern suppressor manufacturers like Tom Bowers now offer a service to update the old cans by replacing the helicals with modern baffles, eliminating the old wipe system. Bowers, like most of the others who update the old cans, feel that the original eyelets in the first stage work quite well and leave them intact.

Recommend reading: The MAC Man: Gordon B. Ingram and His Submachine Guns, available from Chipotle Publishing, LLC at www.chipotlepublishing.com.

He is often called the Father of the American Sniper. Champion shot and brilliant soldier, his books are still read and loved. He is honest and even self-effacing about his role in the war, but his cover-up of the booze confuses and spawns many contradictions. To make it worse, he was the victim of a misguided official smear after the war. Following Herbert Wesley McBride is like jumping into Alice’s rabbit hole.

Both of McBride’s books are in the public domain and can be found online. The Emma Gees, published in 1918, is McBride’s story in World War I. His second and larger book, A Rifleman Went to War, appeared in 1933. Aside from great tales and advice, they reach out to grab and infect the reader with McBride’s raw spirit and leadership. As instruction for anyone going to war, they remain unsurpassed.

McBride was born October 15, 1873, in Waterloo, Indiana. His father Robert, his mother Ida, an older brother and two sisters, Robert’s war-widowed sister and her son and a maid filled the large home … an empty field today. Mac, as Herbert was later nick-named, was a sharp student. A surviving report card shows marks in the 80s and 90s. He called himself a “gun crank.” He never married, and he shares little about his personal life. He hunted with his father and greatly admired him.

Mac’s father, Robert McBride, was raised in Ohio by his widowed mother. Robert’s own father died in the Mexican War in 1847. In the Civil War, Robert rode in President Lincoln’s mounted bodyguard. After the War, he married and moved to Waterloo, Indiana, to teach school and begin a family. He became a lawyer, a circuit judge, businessman, Freemason and social leader. His lodge building houses the U.S. Marshall’s office today. He rose to Colonel in the Indiana Legion, fore-runner to the National Guard. Mac joined his father’s unit and made Sergeant.

Robert sent his teenage son to Colorado to treat his tuberculosis and maybe satisfy his thirst for adventure. It only spurred him on. Mac eagerly injected himself into cowboy life, legal struggles and range wars, met several western legends, including Bat Masterton, and learned the secret to coping under pressure … “never get excited.”

While Mac was out west, his father was elected to the Indiana Supreme Court and moved the family to Indianapolis. Mac returned and worked for his father’s law firm in several cities, became a reserve officer and a highly competitive marksman.

In 1896, gold was discovered in the Canadian Klondike. McBride went, didn’t get rich, and in 1900, joined the Canadian Army to go to the Boer War. He was welcomed in but left when he found only British subjects could go overseas.

A man soon to shape McBride’s future was also trying to get to the war. Born in rural Ontario, his name was Sam Hughes … Just “Sam” because his father wanted to avoid the pretentious “Samuel.” That didn’t work.

Sam was a teacher in a one-room schoolhouse, tall, athletic, an officer in the Militia and a rabid Orangeman and Freemason. His older brother John would become a General, and his younger brother William was decorated in Canada’s North-West Rebellion (1885). Sam later used his influence to elevate William to Inspector in the federal prison system. Sam himself helped fight off the Fenian raids of the 1860s and 1870s. True to the times, the achievements of his sisters are unrecorded.

Sam bought a newspaper in Lindsay, Ontario, to better share his beliefs with the community and soon ran for Parliament. Many despised him as a bigoted bully, yet Hughes could also be appealing and compassionate. He made everyone he met believe they were special and was voted to Ottawa.

In 1899, Hughes was working to establish himself as his party’s military expert. The war with the South African Boers highlighted a problem; guns. Canada hadn’t bought the Lee-Enfield, even at the discounted price offered by the British War Office. With the war on, the British withdrew their discounted offer and insisted on equipping their own men first. Canadians went unhappily to South Africa to face modern Mausers with obsolete smoke-poles.

Hughes landed a guest posting with a regular army unit sailing for South Africa. The night before sailing, his already exasperated commander fired the arrogant Hughes. To avoid being left on the dock, Hughes paid his own passage.

In South Africa, Hughes convinced the British to give him a command. To the disgust of his critics, Sam proved brave and dashing in action … or, so he wrote home for publication. He was particularly angry over being denied the two Victoria Crosses he demanded.

Predictably, Hughes soon turned on his British benefactors and was fired again. He went home, lionized as a hero, and carrying grudges against both the Canadian and the British regular Armies.

After the Boer War, it was assumed Canada would finally buy the Lee-Enfield. But, Canada had offered up her sons, and the British had refused them decent guns. Of course, the facts were different. The British War Office only said they couldn’t sell guns, let alone at a discount, until the British Army was equipped. Canada would have to make her own deals with the manufacturers. Their price was a lot higher, and Canada refused to pay. But, no politician ever let truth stand in the way, and Hughes nationalistically championed the Ross.

It has been reported Hughes met Sir Charles Ross in South Africa and saw the Ross Model 1897 rifle in action. There is no proof of this; although Ross was certainly there and likely had one or more of his guns.

The distinguishing characteristic of the Ross Model 1897 was its straight-pull action. It owes much to Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher’s Model 1895. The Austrian Mannlicher, the Swiss Schmidt Rubin and the Danish Krag, adopted by the U.S in 1892, all used straight-pull designs. By the time Hughes championed it for Canadian service, Ross had already redesigned the gun to eliminate the early hammer ignition of the 1897. His commercial Model 1900 incorporated a striker propelled by a coiled mainspring, and this appeared in the 1905 Mk I.

Ross was born in 1872 and grew up fascinated with gun design. He equipped a machine shop in the family castle as a boy. At Cambridge, he studied engineering and was such a natural he hardly needed to attend class. That left him time for his two yachts. He kept them tied up near school where he supported the arts by mentoring young actresses. Sir Charles was an avid hunter and an officer in the Seaforth Highlanders. As Britain’s wealthiest man, he could afford it all.

Ross established the Ross Rifle Co. in a Connecticut factory. Sam Hughes, although in the opposition, led the charge for Canada to buy the Ross. Soon, the train was rolling and to oppose the Ross was unpatriotic. The horrified British had already turned the gun down and tried to bring Canada to her senses.

They were too late. Sir Charles packed his plant off to Quebec. While this was catastrophic for some workers in Connecticut, most of the parts were subcontracted, and the American firms now shipped parts to Quebec.

The first Ross rifle to enter Canadian service was patented in 1903 as the Mk I. The integral Harris magazine held five .303 rounds and a “cut-off” restricted firing to single shots to conserve those in the magazine for emergency. A large thumb-operated lever depressed the magazine follower to allow easier loading. Care still had to be taken to place the rim of each cartridge in front of the one below to prevent a double-feed.

The straight-pull action has inherent disadvantages. Most high-caliber gun designs employ “primary extraction” because the cartridge case expands in the chamber on firing and tends to stick. Primary extraction moves the casing back a short distance while usually twisting it slightly. This done, the case can be easily extracted. While all this activity can be engineered into a straight-pull design, it is more simply done in the upward stroke of a turn-bolt handle. And, on the loading motion, the downward stroke of the bolt handle provides greater leverage to seat the next round and lock the action. This fundamental weakness would prove critical in the Ross. The extractor saw numerous modifications until a reinforced version was introduced in the Ross Mk II rifle.

The earliest guns may have gone to Canadian Fisheries followed by 1000 guns to the North-West Mounted Police. These ‘Carbines’ had 26-inch long barrels and lacked the bayonet attachment which might snag in a horse scabbard. The Mounties soon traded the Ross back for their Winchesters and Lee-Metfords. These are rare today because most were destroyed in an Alberta warehouse fire soon after being recalled from service. Forgeries abound.

The next group went to the Canadian Army. Numerous flaws soon showed up in design and quality control. Tales of sights and bayonets coming loose are exaggerated, while the stories of mis-assembled bolts flying out apply only to commercial rifles and the later Mk III. It is a very difficult situation to arrange, and at worst the bolt can only go back until stopped by the bolt stop.

The receiver was redesigned, and in 1905 a new version with a 28-inch barrel was patented as the Mk II. This model saw continual development from 1905 to 1911. The Mk II** had a 30.5-inch barrel specifically for target work and was disqualified at first at Bisley because the longer barrel prevented the gun from accepting a bayonet. The emergency addition of a new lug solved this on the spot. Numerous modifications were made to the standard 28-inch barrel Mk II and not reflected in model designations. When the Mk II ***** was reached, development ended. In 1917 the United States bought 20,000 Canadian Mk IIs for training. These can be identified by the flaming bomb stamps on their stocks. Any Mk II snipers encountered are not factory-made. Only the Mk III sniper (covered in the next part of the article) is considered authentic.

The Mk III military rifle was patented in 1910 with a new look and a longer 30.5-inch barrel. It was issued from 1912 on; although 1913 is the first date observed. The vertical locking lugs of the Mk I and Mk II were eliminated in favor of a series of teeth, similar to interrupted threads, which travelled horizontally in the receiver. This had first been introduced in the commercial “Deerstalker.” Cock-on-closing gave way to cock-on-opening, and the early staggered stack magazine was replaced by a single-stack box loadable by stripper clip. Better in many ways, the Mk III was also made heavier, longer and clumsier by various government demands.

Home from the Klondike, the restless McBride moved from city to city working for his father’s law practice. He served in several National Guard units and was a Captain by 1907. He was also the Indiana state rifle champion in 1905, 1906 and 1907 and an expert with the Colt 1911, Gatling gun and Colt 1895. Off the ranges, he served as the Indiana Secretary for the National Rifle Association.

McBride doubtless saw the Ross rifle in international competition. Ross Mk II rifles in .303 won many matches before World War I.

In 1907 Ross first offered his new .280 cartridge in the also new Ross “Scotch Deerstalker” sporting rifle. This was basically a heavy barrel Mk II** with the interrupted thread locking system soon to appear in the Mk III. The rimless .280 propelled a 140-grain bullet at over 3000-fps. Ross had hoped the .280 would be adopted throughout the British Commonwealth. World War I made any such change impossible.

In 1913, the Canadian team showed up at Camp Perry with .280 “Military” rifles Ross made up in Mk III military configuration. They weren’t issue, and the team wasn’t allowed to use them. One was displayed in the NRA collection. It has a flat floorplate instead of the usual visible magazine.

Politically, Sam had astutely supported Robert Borden, an up-and-comer who became Prime Minister. Sam’s reward was appointment as the Minister of Militia and Defense in 1911. But, as a Brigadier General in the militia, he was out-ranked by his own General Staff. The Minister promoted himself to Lieutenant General to outrank them all.

In 1914, McBride was scouting for the railroad in western Canada when he heard the United States was sending a force to Mexico. Mac rushed home and took command of a National Guard company. They trained all summer but were never called. Then, an Austrian Arch-Duke was killed in Sarajevo and in August 1914, Europe fumbled into war bringing Britain and her Commonwealth with her.

The General Staff of the Canadian Army had an elaborate mobilization plan. It would unfold automatically and finally make the irksome Hughes irrelevant. Hughes saw the trap. He informed the nation the regular Army would not mobilize and an Expeditionary Force of militia would go overseas instead. Regular officers rushed to transfer to the militia. All had to be personally approved by Sam, and this opened the door for McBride.

Hughes hired his officers, opened training bases, ordered equipment and seemingly organized Canada’s war effort single-handedly. His hasty contacts for equipment resulted in some poor quality goods and doubtful designs. He was accused of corruption but was only guilty of bad judgement. Canada declared war on August 4, and the 18,000-man Canadian Expeditionary Force landed in England on October 14, 1914.

McBride had to resign from the National Guard before he took the train north in January 1915. He by-passed the crowded border recruiting stations, going straight to Ottawa to present himself at the office of Lieutenant General Sam Hughes. Hughes welcomed the brash American with an Officer’s commission. Until McBride’s unit formed up, he would serve as a weapons instructor for Lt. Colonel William S.P. Hughes. Ninety miles south in Kingston, Hughes’ younger brother was training his 21st Battalion for France.

Canadian winters can be brutal, and cold days usually ended in the officers’ mess. Sam had campaigned for a dry militia but once elected, let commanders do as they chose. Most commanders, William included, let the men choose. Unfortunately, McBride chose too much.

Colonel Hughes sent a note to General Hughes. The Colonel asked Sam to recall McBride to Ottawa. It is unlikely McBride was ever aware of the note. McBride thought he was being recalled to go to the front. When he learned he was going to Bermuda, he says he kicked up enough fuss to get himself thrown out.

Months later, McBride’s puzzled father wrote Sam Hughes asking why his son was now a private … and in a machine gun section. He asked if liquor was involved.

General Hughes asked for a report. McBride’s commander in Ottawa recounts how McBride acquired a horse and, before several hundred admirers near Parliament, mustered an impressive one-man show to announce he hadn’t joined to guard some tropical island.

His new commander was part of the audience. When McBride came to morning parade, two days later, he was dismissed. Several days after that, the Colonel found McBride in a hospital and took his resignation. He confirmed Robert McBride’s suspicion that liquor was involved.

In his books, McBride writes he called Colonel Hughes and asked if he could join the 21st in the ranks. He says Colonel Hughes was happy to have him. The books don’t mention it, but the Colonel must have added … with the Minister’s approval. McBride visited Sam’s office again. A sympathetic General Hughes gave McBride another chance.

Back in Kingston, McBride was assigned to the machine gun section commanded by another American, Hugh Norton-Taylor. The early machine gun sections were traditional catch-alls for misfits, but McBride actually knew something about the guns.

Canada was an early adopter of the belt-fed Colt M1895 gun, buying it in .303. The gun was never known as user-friendly but a skilled and gentle hand was rewarded with excellent performance. Most battalions had four Colts. The 21st sailed with two extra, purchased by Colonel Hughes’ prison system colleagues.

Every man wielded an Mk III Ross rifle, with some unease. Overseas, the gun had jammed in close combat during the Second Battle of Ypres. It was claimed the rifle was too finely made to tolerate mud and rough handling. There is truth to this, but the fatal flaw was a specific and avoidable mistake. Before the war, the British re-designed the .303 cartridge, rechambering their Lee-Enfields to a slightly larger size than the Ross. Canadian experts said the chamber of the Ross was already large enough to take the new British ammunition in a pinch, and the tighter fit could only increase accuracy anyway. The chambers were not reamed out. It was all about the money. Besides, the experts said, the men would have Canadian ammunition of the right size, so it hardly mattered.

But, the British Army took all the Canadian-made .303 ammunition away from the first Canadian troops when they arrived in Britain and issued it to their machine guns at the front where it worked quite well. The poorly made British ammunition issued to Canadians in return was responsible for the tragic story of the Ross to follow.

The 21st Battalion set sail on May 6, 1915, a day before the Lusitania was torpedoed. On the news, McBride and Art Redpath were ordered to lash their Colts to the rails. The show of force apparently worked, and the Battalion landed safely at Plymouth, England.

The 21st went to West Sandling, a training camp for the Second Division close to the English Channel. Instructors fresh from the trenches brought the 21st up to speed. McBride says they sawed down the legs of their Colt tripods.

The Battalion crossed the channel on September 15, 1916. They set out for Ypres in Belgium. McBride was now a Lance Corporal in charge of Gun Number Six.

In McBride’s loader and good friend was William Emmanuel Bouchard, born 1893. Another crewman was Bruce Shangrow. He lied about his age and joined at 16. He got home. Coney McFarlin was 19 when they landed in France. He was hit by shrapnel, gained a limp and lost part of a finger a few months later. The same grenade killed Sam Comego. Charlie Wendt was shot, age 21, near Captain’s Post in 1915 and died later at Casualty Clearing Station No. 3. Arthur Toms had a run-in with an ammo limber shortly after they arrived. He rejoined the gun crew for Christmas. He would be 20 when he and Bouchard disappeared September 16, 1916. McBride’s friends Sandy McNab and Art Redpath were both wounded in October and sent home.

Ypres is 25-miles from the English Channel. In the initial German attack, it was occupied and then abandoned. When the Germans were forced back, they realized Ypres blocked them from the Channel. Ypres was suddenly vital to the Allied supply lines and soon took on symbolic value for the amounts of blood spilt. McBride’s battalion filed into the trenches stretching southwest from the village of St. Eloi.

This sector was shaped by a failed German push to the southern outskirts of St. Eloi. The stab had ended in a ponderous mass of German sandbags called “The Mound.” The front line was at its narrowest here, a bare 70 yards of blood-soaked mud.

Colonel Hughes stationed McBride’s machine gun section in the ruins on his right. The body of a French sniper in the rubble gave the place the name Sniper’s Barn. The barn and farm exist today in their rebuilt form.

The trenches ranged across and down the slope into no-man’s land. Across 200 yards of swamp, the ground rose again up to the German trenches. Wire had been strung and wrecked, trenches dug and destroyed, and many lost bodies festered in the mud.

One of first things the men at Sniper’s Barn noticed was a blue and white flag just in front of the enemy line. The outgoing British commander told Hughes it had been captured earlier by French troops and flown from the Allied trenches to taunt the Germans. But, after the British took over, the Germans recovered it. The flag was booby-trapped, and Hughes ordered no one was to attempt to get it without his written permission. To McBride it was a red flag to a bull.

To be continued…

Thanks to Al Lloyd, Barry Delong, Carol Mintoff, Dan Shea, G. N. Ted Dentay, Gary Flanagan, George McBride Hoster, James Samalea, Lisa Weder, Michael Leonard, (reprints of “The Ross Rifle Story” see ross.rifle.story@sympatico.ca), the late R. Blake Stevens, late Geoff Winnington-Ball and late Michael D. Edwards, Library and Archives Canada, the Canadian War Museum and Movie Armaments Group.

The author has written numerous articles for Soldier of Fortune, Small Arms Review and Small Arms Defense Journal. His books are available on Kindle.

When it comes to discussing World War II history, particularly in the European theater, people often discuss the major European countries involved such as Germany, Britain, France and Italy. Neutral countries such as Switzerland and Sweden were often left out of history books, but they were very much involved in preparing for war in case they were to be attacked or invaded by Germany or Russia.

During my stay in Sweden I was advised by Håkan Spuhr, the founder of Spuhr optic mounts (see my factory visit on SADJ, Vol. 10, No. 2), that I should make a short trip to Djuramåsa, an area north of the coastal town of Hälsingborg, to visit Beredskapsmuseet—The Swedish Military Readiness Museum. During my initial research, Google Maps showed a small building in the middle of large, secluded farm lands. I thought to myself, what could possibly be that interesting in such a small facility? I was in for a big surprise.

The museum operating hours were cut short due to the early winter season in Sweden, but Johan Andrée, the museum chief, was kind enough to accommodate my travel schedule and have the museum opened just for me. While the museum was technically closed, there is a lot of work to be done, and there were a few volunteers present.

The main attraction is the 29-ton, 15.2cm (6-inch) heavy gun called “Maja.” There are a total of four heavy guns in Battery Hälsingborg—Maja, Asta, Sonja and Brita, each named after the most beautiful girls in Djuramåsa. They’re also the girls who lived closest to the guns. Maja has a range of 24km. With a crew of 9, it can be ready to fire in less than 5 minutes and has a rate of fire of 3 rounds a minute. The guns are operated manually, which means they have to be aimed, loaded and fired without any electronic motors. The four guns are manned by 56 men with 18 officers and NCOs.

My jaw must have dropped when I first saw Maja. It’s beautifully preserved behind a giant glass enclosure like a model car at a toy store except much larger. I had never seen a 29-ton coastal gun let alone anything like this before during my many museum visits in various countries.

Each projectile weights 46kg (101 pounds) with recoil force of 60 tons. During its first test fire, people were advised to move all their livestock away from the area and open all doors and windows to prevent damage. One resident forgot to move his 2 cows from a nearby farm; the pressure wave gave the cows heart attacks, and they died. In addition, all the windows broke at a nearby greenhouse.

Amongst the many interesting facts, the four heavy guns along with five machine gun bunkers, a control center or “Battle Command Center” and a bomb shelter took only 47 days to build with help from 2,000 people working non-stop around the clock. This is a feat that sounds rather difficult to achieve today let alone from 70 years ago.

The guns were originally built to both defend and attack coastal ships as well as the nearby country Denmark.

With a short walk, we arrived at an underground bunker called The Gun Hall. There it housed the largest known small arms collection in Sweden. The guns, ranging from rockets, water-cooled machine guns, Browning BAR, to P38 pistols are well-organized and hung behind large glass display walls. It was great to know that none of them is deactivated and all are in working condition. Do note, however, that this facility is well secured with multiple cameras and motion sensors as well as a bunker entrance the size of a bank vault door.

What is not displayed, however, are the stories of each gun when they were donated to the museum either by the original owner or deceased family member. Each of the stories are documented in the museum in thick binders. I was told by Johan that they have plans to expand The Gun Hall with small plaques next to each gun with a short description of how the guns were used and acquired.

It has been 20 years since the museum opened, but Johan is still enthusiastic when it comes to discussing every detail of every artifact in the museum. It was a childhood dream of his to open a World War II museum. He strongly believes showcasing these weapons in his museum, as each gun tells a unique story of the people that used them during war times. Unlike other European war museums, such as The Royal Danish Arsenal Museum in Copenhagen, where I was told they had the largest arms collection in Europe but were all hidden in their archives due to political correctness, the weapons represent part of history, and without them we will never be able to prevent the same tragedy of war from happening again.

If you ever find yourself in Sweden or Denmark, I would highly recommend you to visit this museum. The volunteer staff spoke perfect English, and guided tours can be arranged. This is one of the most unique museums I have personally seen. Needless to say it’s a true hidden gem, and I look forward to revisiting it again.

I want to thank Johan and his volunteer staff for their sincere dedication to the museum and for their time for providing me the guided tour.

HI-POINT
1095TS Edge 10mm Semiauto Camo Carbine

Hi-Point’s 1095TS Edge 10mm carbine (auto-wrapped in Realtree’s Edge Camo pattern) is threaded for a suppressor and comes with a thread protector. If one wishes for noise reduction, serious bullet energy at longer ranges, reduced carbine recoil and a reasonable price, this is the gun. The carbine comes with various Picatinny rail attachment points and may be purchased with optional laser, red dot, optical sights, tactical lights, vertical grip and several other options. hi-pointfirearms.com

SMITH & WESSON
SW22 Victory Target Pistols

Smith & Wesson Corp. announced four new Performance Center SW22 Victory Target pistols to the Performance Center’s rimfire line of handguns. The Performance Center SW22 Victory Target pistols are chambered in .22LR and are designed specifically for target shooting competitions. These pistols feature 6-inch target barrels, muzzle brakes and Tandemkross hiveGrips, among many other high-performance features. The Performance Center SW22 Victory Target pistols ship with two 10-round magazines and a Picatinny-style rail for the quick mounting of an optic and are available both with and without a Vortex Viper Red Dot Sight. smith-wesson.com

AMERICAN BUILT ARMS CO.
MOD*X GEN III Modular Rifle System—LITE Version

American Built Arms Company (A*B Arms brand) has introduced the latest version of their best-selling chassis for the Remington Model 700 SA; the A*B Arms MOD*X GEN III Modular Rifle System—LITE. The A*B Arms MOD*X GEN III Modular Rifle System—LITE is a lightweight (1 lbs. 10 oz.), ergonomic, drop-in chassis for the Remington 700 Short Action. It serves as a modular foundation on which tactical accessories can be added according to the operator’s needs. The system includes a multi-point radial cut inlet which allows barreled action to sit in stress free for utmost accuracy (no V-block) and 11.5-inch, free-floating modular forearm (13.5-inch upgrade available). abarms.com

AIMPOINT
ACRO Series Sight

Aimpoint introduced their new line of red dot sights, the Aimpoint ACRO (Advanced Compact Reflex Optic) Series. The unique small sight design of the Aimpoint ACRO series electronic red-dot sight was developed for use on pistols and other weapon platforms. The ACRO P-1 optic can perform under tough conditions while adding negligible size and weight to the equipment. The ACRO P-1 sight is a 1X (non-magnifying) parallax-free optic that features a 3.5 minute of angle (MOA) red dot for fast target acquisition. It is fully submersible to 25m and allows continuous operation for over 1 year on a single CR1225 battery. Dot intensity is adjusted with side push buttons. aimpoint.com

CMMG INC.
BANSHEE Series

CMMG has announced the addition of the new BANSHEE series of short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and AR pistols. The BANSHEE’s sleek new design sports the shortest barrels CMMG offers in 9mm, .45 ACP, 300 BLK and .22 Long Rifle. This ultra-compact and lightweight platform is extremely portable, making the BANSHEE a great option for close protection, home defense, plinking, competition shooting or any other application that benefits from the reduced size. The BANSHEE line offers an ambidextrous charging handle, safety selector and sling plate and comes standard with CMMG’s cerakote finish, an RML M-Lok handguard and Magpul MOE pistol grip. cmmginc.com

ALIEN GEAR
ShapeShift Shoulder Holster

The ShapeShift Shoulder Holster, available in black and brown, includes edge-bound premium English Bridle Leather and CoolVent Neoprene and offers multiple configurations of the company’s injection-molded polymer handgun shell and single- or double-cloak mag carriers. The shoulder holster is anchored to the beltline and centered between the shoulder blades. It can be configured with one handgun and two mag carriers, two handguns or four mag carriers. aliengearholsters.com

STREAMLIGHT
Jr. F-Stop Flashlight

Streamlight Jr. F-STOP is an ultra-compact 2AA alkaline penlight that allows users to smoothly transition between spot and flood beams to meet both close-up and area lighting needs by simply sliding the flashlight’s bezel. The penlight features the latest in power LED technology, providing 220 lumens, 5,600 candela and a 150m beam distance on the spot setting. The flood setting offers 250 lumens, 360 candela and a 38m beam distance. Its run time is 6 hours; 10 hours with (L91) lithium cell batteries; it weighs 4.4 ounces; it’s IPX4-rated for water-resistant operation; and is impact-resistant tested to 1m. streamlight.com

BLACK RAIN ORDNANCE
Amend2 AR-15 Laser-Engraved Magazine Mod2

The Amend2 30-round magazine is a sturdy, reliable 5.56×45 NATO (.223 Remington) AR-15/M4/M16 magazine made of advance polymer material. It is a light, durable and excellent alternative to the standard M4/M16 USGI aluminum magazine. blackrainordnance.com

Features include:

• Laser designs on both sides of the magazine
• Sturdy impact resistance polymer with textured grip
• Anti-tilt super follower
• Heavy duty, non-memory and non-corrosive stainless steel spring
• Made in the US.

BLACK RAIN ORDNANCE
Muzzle Flash Regulator—Master Key

For pistols or short barrel rifles, the muzzle flash regulator with master key weighs 9.8 ounces, is 3.2 inches long, has a 1.375-inch outside diameter and comes in 5.56 and .308 calibers. Thread for 5.56 is 1/2-28; .308 is 5.8-24. blackrainordnance.com

POF-USA
Renegade Plus SPR .224 Valkyrie

POF-USA announces the addition of the .224 Valkyrie caliber to the award winning Renegade Plus family. Embodying everything a direct impingement AR-15 can be, the .224 Valkyrie Renegade Plus boasts virtually every luxury one would want in a long-range MSR package. Featuring a 20-inch 1:7 twist match grade barrel, 3.5-pound flat single stage trigger, 9-position adjustable gas block, Ultimate Bolt Carrier Group with patented roller cam pin, heat sink barrel nut, 14.5-inch M-LOK compatible free-floating handguard, fully ambidextrous billet lower receiver and more. pof-usa.com

••• EXPORT CONTROLS UPDATE •••

U.S. Government Proposes Transitioning Certain Firearms and Ammunition from ITAR to EAR
(This is the first of a two-part series.)

On May 24, 2018, the U.S. Government announced its intent to transition most firearms and ammunition away from the export controls of the Department of State to those of the Department of Commerce. The cited reason for the change is to revise the scope of the Department of State’s jurisdiction to cover only those weapons or articles that are inherently for military use or that provide the United States with a critical military or intelligence advantage. All other items will transition to the Department of Commerce’s control.

As expected, the proposed rules have prompted a considerable amount of objection. Political adversaries to President Trump have accused the Administration of catering to the gun lobby with callous insensitivity to the brutal crimes inflicted on American society. Similarly, anti-gun groups such as the Giffords Law Center and others have spun the proposed transition as making it easier for weapons to flow because there will be little or no oversight into the activities of arms manufacturers and brokers of semi-automatic assault weapons.

Contrary to those opinions, the fact is the proposed transition rules are not a decontrol over the manufacture, transfer or export of firearms and ammunition. Indeed, the proposed changes are a shifting of oversight responsibility that is long overdue and will help strengthen the national security of the United States by ensuring that export licensing authorities can focus on reviewing proposed exports of items warranting stringent controls rather than waste resources on export licensing for springs and bolts or for items that are abundant throughout the world.

Indeed there will be many positive things that come out of the proposed transition for the firearms and ammunition industries. However, the changeover to a largely unfamiliar regulatory scheme will not be easy, as we have seen with the other defense sector industries that already have dealt with the “Export Control Reform” efforts of the Obama Administration.

This article is the first in a two-part series that will examine the proposed transition rules, the potential impact on the firearms and ammunition industries and responses to the predominant objections to the proposed rules.

I. The Export Control Lists

Under current U.S. export controls, two primary federal agencies with licensing jurisdiction are the Department of State and the Department of Commerce. (The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) also issues licenses under U.S. economic and trade sanctions. However, this article does not address OFAC licensing, as the focus is on the State and Commerce proposed transition rules.) The Department of State, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, controls the exports and temporary imports of “defense articles” and “defense services” through its regulations known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Articles and information subject to the ITAR are listed on the U.S. Munitions List (USML).

The Department of Commerce controls through its regulations, known as the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the exports and re-exports of items not listed on the USML, which may have civilian-, military-, terrorism- or weapons-of-mass-destruction-related applications. Items subject to the EAR are listed on the Commerce Control List (CCL).

Currently, most small arms and ammunition are listed on the USML and therefore subject to the license requirements and restrictions of the ITAR. The only firearms not controlled under the ITAR are certain types of non-combat shotguns and associated ammunition, both of which are listed on the CCL, and as an important aside, currently require licensing to most countries in the world.

Both the ITAR and the EAR prescribe export license requirements and restrictions in furtherance of the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. However, there are some significant differences between the two regulatory regimes. Below are some illustration of key differences.

1. Controls over Technical Data

ITAR controls apply to exports, re-exports and temporary imports of not just hardware but also technical data (including software) and assistance related to defense articles. ITAR controls over so-called “Defense Services” are broad and extend to use and operation, not just design, development and production.

By comparison, the EAR controls only transmission of certain technology, and there is no corresponding concept of defense service controls. EAR controls over “technology” are more narrowly focused than the ITAR controls over technical data and apply in limited contexts. Consequently, there are many activities involving training, presentations and demonstrations to foreign persons that may not trigger a license requirement under the EAR as they do under ITAR.

In addition, the EAR do not control published technology or software “when it has been made available to the public without restrictions upon its further dissemination … .” For example, subscriptions available without restriction, libraries or other public collections open to the public and from which the public can obtain tangible or intangible documents, unlimited distributions at a conference, seminar, trade show or exhibition generally accessible to the public, public/unlimited distribution in any form, including posting on the Internet on sites available to the public. Many may rejoice over this, as the ITAR still do not recognize the Internet as being in the “public domain.”

As further illustration of technology not controlled under the EAR, the BIS proposed rule cites the example of a gun manufacturer posting a firearm’s operation and maintenance manual on the Internet, making it publicly available to anyone interested in accessing it and without restrictions on further dissemination. According to the proposed rule explanation, such operation and maintenance information included in that published manual would no longer be “subject to the EAR” as placing it on the Internet would put it in the “public domain.” Nonproprietary system descriptions, including for firearms and related items, are another example of information that would not be subject to the EAR.

2. Controls over Brokering

The ITAR control “brokering activities,” which is defined as any action on behalf of another to facilitate the manufacture, export, permanent import, transfer, re-export, or retransfer of U.S. or foreign defense articles or defense services, regardless of origin. However, there are no similar controls on the EAR side. I will address the impact of the proposed rules on brokering in more detail below.

3. Registration

The ITAR require registration of all U.S. manufacturers, exporters and brokers of defense articles and defense services. The annual fee for this registration ranges from the minimum $2,250 to $2,750 plus $250 for each license/approval obtained during the preceding 12-month period. Conversely, the EAR do not require registration, and there are no fees associated with license applications.

4. Re-exports of Parts and Components

Under the ITAR, any change in end-user or end-use as described in the original export license requires, with very few exceptions, prior authorization from the Department of State. This re-export or retransfer approval requirement extends to all USML-listed articles, even parts and components that are incorporated into a finished item overseas, and follows the articles for life, regardless of the number of times the article changes hands. This causes foreign customers great consternation and is what many have termed the “ITAR taint.” Currently, all parts and components for firearms listed in USML Cat. I are also defense articles, down to springs and bolts, and therefore subject to the ITAR licensing requirements and restrictions for re-exports.

The EAR re-exports controls over parts and components are very different. Foreign-made commodities that incorporate EAR-controlled U.S.-origin commodities may be subject to the EAR only if they have de minimis level of U.S. content. What constitutes the de minimis level depends on the commodity and the destination country for the re-exports and may range from no de minimis levels (for items subject to higher controls) to 10% or 25% de minimis.

II. Efforts to Reform U.S. Export Controls

In 2009, the Obama Administration announced its intention to reform the U.S. export control system, which it saw as overly complicated with too many redundancies to effectively support the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. Through this “Export Control Reform” (ECR) initiative, the U.S. Government would bring U.S. export controls in line with current global threats by focusing on critical technologies and strengthening the competitiveness of key U.S. manufacturing and technology sectors. ECR was to consist of three stages: Phases I and II would focus on reconciling the various definitions, regulations and policies for export controls, while building toward Phase III, which would create a single control list, single licensing agency, unified information technology system and enforcement coordination center.

By the time President Trump took office in 2017, significant strides had been made under ECR, but clearly it was still a work in process. Phases I and II were largely complete, but not all USML categories had been revised to transition items no longer warranting control as “defense articles” to the CCL. Those untouched by ECR? Categories I, II and III, which control firearms and ammunition.

III. Proposed Rules to Transition Firearms and Ammunition from USML to CCL

After much anticipation and false starts, the Departments of Commerce and State finally published on May 24, 2018, their respective proposed rules to transition most firearms and ammunitions from the USML over to the CCL. Although no longer branded “ECR,” this is a continuation of the U.S. Government’s effort to modernize U.S. export controls and better focus ITAR controls over only those weapons or articles that are inherently for military use or that provide the United States with a critical military or intelligence advantage.

Contrary to many of the objections voiced by politicians and anti-gun groups, the transition from USML to CCL will NOT result in a decontrol of firearms or ammunition. Firearms transitioning from the USML to CCL will be subject to controls under National Security (NS), Regional Stability (RS), Crime Control and Detection (CC), Firearms Convention (FC), United Nations Sanctions (UN) and Anti-Terrorism (AT). Indeed, the proposed rules make it abundantly clear that BIS will require licenses to export or re-export to ANY country firearms or other weapons that transition from the USML to the CCL. Yes, this includes Canada.

The chart summarizes the firearms and ammunition slated to transition from the USML to the CCL once the rules are finalized.

Not all firearms and ammunition are slated to transition over to the EAR. Indeed, there are several types of firearms and ammunition that will remain subject to the ITAR. For example, some of the firearms that will remain in USML Cat. I include fully automatic firearms to and including .50, fully automatic shotguns, regardless of gauge, silencers, mufflers and sound suppressors and specially designed parts and components therefore and magazines and drums with a capacity greater than 50 rounds.

In addition, it should be noted that the words “combat shotguns” (currently in the text of USML Cat. I(d)) do not appear in the proposed Department of State rule. However, the companion Commerce proposed rule states that “combat shotguns” and fully automatic shotguns are subject to the ITAR. Nowhere is the term “combat shotgun” defined, so it is unclear at this point whether the USML Cat. I will include a specific entry for “combat shotguns” in addition to fully automatic shotguns.

The types of ammunition that will remain in USML Cat. III include ammunition preassembled into links or belts and projectiles that contain a core or solid projectile produced from one or a combination of the following: tungsten, steel or beryllium copper alloys.

For a complete list of the articles targeted to remain on the USML and subject to the ITAR, please consult the Department of State proposed rule, available on the Federal Register website at federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/24/2018-10366/international-traffic-in-arms-regulations-us-munitions-list-categories-i-ii-and-iii.

IV. Conclusion

On May 24, 2018, the U.S. Government announced its intent to change forever the way firearms and ammunition are exported. In addition to examining the potential impact the transition will have on the firearms and ammunition industries, the next “Legally Armed” column will review and respond to the objections raised by certain politicians, the anti-gun community and international non-governmental organizations. Please stay tuned.

•••

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.

NOTE: The “Legally Armed” column in SAR Vol. 22, No. 7 on “The Impact of Mass Violence on Gun Control in the United States” contained erroneous dates. Please note the following:

1. The section related to the Brady Act contained a section header that read “1991.” The heading should read “1993.”

2. The Fix NICS Act of 2017 was enacted as part of the consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (signed by the President on March 23, 2018). This occurred after the column was drafted, but before the column was published in SAR.

About the Author

Johanna Reeves is the founding partner of the Washington, D.C. law firm Reeves & Dola, LLP (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. Since 2011, Johanna also has served as Executive Director for the F.A.I.R. Trade Group (the Firearms and Ammunition Import/Export Roundtable) (fairtradegroup.org). Since 2016, Johanna has served on the Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG). Johanna can be reached at 202-683-4200 or at jreeves@reevesdola.com.

Confused by California’s Gun Laws? See the Attorney General

Jeffrey Scott Kirschenmann of California, CEO of Scott Kirschenmann Farms, Inc., was recently charged with a dozen weapons-related felonies, after he attempted to comply with California’s state-mandated gun registration laws. He attempted to register an AR-15 using the state’s website and electronically submitted photographs of the firearm, which he was required to do by the end of June. Investigators seized two “silencers,” 230 rounds of ammunition and 12 firearms in the search. On May 17, the district attorney’s office charged Kirschenmann with a dozen felony weapons-related charges. He was subsequently released on $150,000 bond.

According to retired Kern County Sheriff’s Office Commander Joe Pilkington, a court-recognized firearms expert, California’s rapidly changing gun laws have created a significant amount of confusion with regards to what requirements are currently mandated. He suggests that anyone struggling to understand the current requirements should meet with a licensed firearms dealer.

That is really bad advice. Most licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) are not lawyers. As such, practicing law by giving legal opinions, advice and direction is not one of the best places for an FFL to be. It’s actually a horrible place to be. Legal advice should be obtained from a lawyer. Preferably one who specializes in the subject matter at hand. Obtaining legal advice from FFLs, friends who mean well, the Internet, social media or the folks on the line at the shooting range is a recipe for disaster.

It is often said that there are 50,000+ laws, rules and regulations that control firearms in the United States. The United States Code, the Gun Control Act, the National Firearms Act, the Tax Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, state laws, municipal laws, codes and regulations and EPA (really) … . There are any number of ways that one can run afoul of the law. For most of the things that collectors, dealers, manufacturers and importers do, there are easily accessible best practices and guides. But there are always questions beyond the run of the mill. When those question arise, it is best to seek competent legal direction.

This does not always mean hiring an expensive lawyer! Contrary to Mr. Pilkington’s advice, the first place a California resident with questions should go to for direction is to the State Attorney General’s office. Getting direction from those who will be enforcing and interpreting the law is always the best, first inquiry. The same mode holds for local and federal issues. Start with the folks who will be responsible for the issue at hand. This is not the clerk at the county tax desk. This is not the NFA Division receptionist on the phone. Each regulatory agency has a specific office tasked with providing an official, legal opinion. That is where you should start.

The same holds true for the legal documents that you may be using to acquire firearms or create legal structures for your business. When there is a problem, go to who wrote the instrument. Trusts, articles of incorporation, etc. Sure, it’s cheap and easy to use a trust in a box or an online template to build your LLC. And most of the time they work in an adequate manner. But who do you go to when something goes wrong? That FFL who sold you the inexpensive trust is not the lawyer who created the document and should not be dispensing legal advice. It should also go without saying that Facebook is not the best resource for addressing legal woes.

The NFATCA has often written in this column about the perils of obtaining legal advice from unqualified resources. It bears repeating because the consequences of violating federal, state and local laws can be significant. Confiscation and loss of property, staggering fines and incarceration are all part of the potential penalties for running afoul of the law. Do you really want to risk that on the word of a random profile of a Facebook group member? The NFATCA spends a great deal of time answering questions and pointing people in the right direction. We also connect people with qualified experts when the need is present. We want to make sure that you get what you need, when you need it. We tip our hats to those who have supported our efforts over the past 15 years, and we thank those who continue to do so.