By Tom Murphy –

The Galil family of small arms was designed by Yisrael Galil and Yaacov Lior in the late 1960s and produced by Israel Weapon Industries Ltd. (formerly Israel Military Industries Ltd.; now IMI Systems Ltd.) located in Ramat HaSharon, part of the Tel Aviv District. The Galil is basically a clone of the Finnish RK-62, a copy in itself of the ubiquitous AK-47. The weapons system is chambered for the 7.62x51mm NATO round or the 5.56x45mm NATO.

There are four variations of the Galil: Standard rifle with a 21.1-inch barrel, the SAR, a 13-inch barrel carbine, ARM light machine gun and the MAR, or compact carbine, also known as the Micro Galil. The MAR is a reduced- size version of the SAR. It is equipped with a folding tubular aluminum stock and can be easily fitted with a suppressor and still keep its overall length below that of the SAR. It was popular with the Israeli Police and Special Forces.

JAXX Industries, located in Henderson, NV, builds their own version of the MAR—the Micro Galil .300 AAC Blackout as a Short Barreled Rifle, or pistol. Basically, it’s the IMI Micro Galil with updates and is chambered for the .300 AAC cartridge. It’s built on a milled, not stamped, receiver and has a suppressor-ready 9.5-inch barrel. A very rare left-hand charging handle kit completes the picture.

The barrel is made from 41v50 steel which is 4145 steel with vanadium added to increase toughness (and that makes it harder to machine).

The JAXX Micro Galil is primarily intended to use a suppressor and may not cycle completely with subsonic ammunition if one is not fitted. It’s shipped with a 13×1 RH to 5/8-24 thread adaptor which will allow many different 30-caliber suppressors to be fitted. What would really set this SBR off visually would be a Russian PBS-1 suppressor screwed onto the end of the barrel. Dead Air Armament (deadairsilencers.com) manufactures the Wolverine PBS-1, a vastly improved copy of the Russian version.

JAXX builds all their Micro Galil SBRs using parts kits off of used weapons. The one tested here had very little evidence of prior use. Mostly what could be seen was some cosmetic wear. However, bear in mind, this rifle is JAXX’s test gun. I have no idea as to how many rounds have been down the barrel. IMI is known for building weapons slightly more reliable than anvils, so there’s no concern about operation, or longevity. This Micro Galil was finished in what JAXX calls Midnight Bronze which gave it the look of a battlefield implement—I found it pleasing.

JAXX offers an almost unlimited number of finishes, engravings and coatings on their products. Call them to discuss your wants and needs (jaxxindustries.com / 702-485-4722).

The Micro Galil comes with three different magazines: TAPCO, IMI and ProMag. Only the TAPCO and IMI magazines were used. Both functioned as expected. Personal opinion—the SBR looked better with the original 35-round IMI magazine.

The left-side cocking handle reciprocates when operated, and a spring-loaded dust cover keeps the larger bits and crud out. The right side of the receiver has the typical Kalashnikov-design safety that when in the “fire” position, leaves an opening about 3 inches long and 3/8 inch wide where the hammer and the back of the bolt are clearly visible. This doesn’t seem to be much of a problem with dirt accumulation in any of the multi-millions of AK-types floating around the world, so it’s good to go here.

Disassembly is similar to an AK platform. Remove the top cover by depressing the lever marked “B” on the rear of the operating spring carrier. Push the spring rod forward and lift out the spring and rod. Then the bolt can be withdrawn to the rear. Assembly is the reverse.

This prototype came with no selector markings. JAXX can replicate the Israeli selector markings on top of the button safety on the left side of the receiver to go along with the military style of the Micro Galil.

Anyone who has field stripped a Kalashnikov design rifle or pistol will have no trouble disassembling this Micro Galil. Pop off the receiver cover, remove the return spring and strip the bolt out of the milled receiver. This is as deep as you need to go for field cleaning. Assembly is the reverse.

This is an interesting rifle. With the stock folded, it and three magazines easily fit into a small backpack. Totally invisible. I’d probably get a backpack with some small rabbits on it, but I have a strange sense of humor.

As with all SBR weapons, all NFA laws must be followed. The lawful transfer of an NFA firearm generally requires the filing of an appropriate transfer form with ATF, payment of any transfer tax imposed, approval of the form by ATF and registration of the transferee. Approval must be obtained before a transfer may be made.

.300 Blackout Ammunition

The .300 AAC (Advanced Armament Corporation), also known as the 7.62x35mm, is a cartridge developed for use in the M4 carbine. The idea behind its inception was to develop a cartridge with ballistics similar to the Soviet 7.62x39mm in an AR platform and use the standard AR magazine at its normal capacity. It’s based on the .300 Whisper developed in the early ‘90s by J.D. Jones of SSK Industries. It was envisioned as a multi-purpose cartridge using both light bullets at supersonic velocities and heavier bullets over 200 grains at subsonic velocities.

AAC began development of the .300 Blackout in 2009 but completed most of the work in 2010. It was designed with a specific shorter range focus to equal or surpass the 7.62x39mm Soviet, while working through a suppressor. A standard AR-platform bolt will work; the only change needed is the barrel.

By Kyle Shea

Brannigan’s Diamondback

I doubt there is a single person in the world who does not know who John Wayne was. He starred in over 140 films, including in a number of Westerns. Some of these include: “True Grit,” “Sands of Iwo Jima,” “The Longest Day,” “The Searchers,” “Island in the Sky,” the 1960s version of “The Alamo” and “The Cowboys.” His last performance was in “The Shootist,” although he did voice a character (Garindan) in “Star Wars: A New Hope.” He died in 1979—missed but never forgotten.

In 1975, John Wayne starred in “Brannigan,” a film about Chicago Police Detective Jim Brannigan who goes to London to bring a notorious crime boss back to America. Upon arriving in the English capital, the crime boss is kidnapped, and a ransom is demanded for his release. So Brannigan must join forces with local law enforcement to find the crime boss, rescue him and bring him back to the United States to face justice for his crime.

John Wayne plays the main character Jim Brannigan. Judy Geeson plays a police officer who escorts Brannigan around London. The leading police officer in London is played by Richard Attenborough, and the crime boss is played by John Vernon. One especially good performance in the movie is by Daniel Pilon. He plays a hitman targeting Brannigan, and there were a few scenes where it almost looked like he was going to succeed.

In the movie, Jim Brannigan carries a double-action .38 Colt Diamondback as a side arm. First produced in 1966, it was popular with civilians and law enforcement. It has a four-inch long barrel and carries six .38 special rounds through a cylinder system. Other Colt Diamondback models shoot .22 Long Rifle ammunition.

The opening credit scene of the movie has the camera scanning the .38 Colt diamondback up and down, with some close ups as well. One scene where Brannigan uses the .38 Colt Diamondback is when he is confronted by a bad guy in a car. He dodges the car a few times before he shoots the villain through the windshield with his revolver. Throughout the movie, Richard Attenborough’s character gives Brannigan a hard time for having the gun and the two square off a few times over it.

Other guns in the movie include a Colt Detective Special used by Richard Attenborough’s character, Sir Charles Swann. Daniel Pilon’s character uses a Mauser M712—the select-fire “Schnellfeuer.” Some mobsters are seen using an M1911 (not an “A1”) and a Walther P38K (The shorty P38 pistol). In one scene, a trap set for Jim Brannigan involves a double-barreled shotgun, which is tied to a string attached to a door.

“Brannigan” isn’t a great movie by any means, but it is still enjoyable to watch. John Wayne is great, of course, but the other actors are good as well. The setting in London is nice, and the action scenes are well done, including a fun car chase. John Vernon and Daniel Pilon both play villains very well, and Richard Attenborough does a nice job as a British police chief. In general, “Brannigan” is a gem to add to your John Wayne collection.

Show Changes and the Challenge of Form Processing

I’ve returned from Kentucky after representing the NFATCA at the bi-annual Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot. Also representing the NFATCA were board members Curt Wolf, Bob Landies and Robert Segel. There have been significant changes for the event that have been evolving for quite some time now. I’d like to brief you on those changes and also what was discussed at our regular Thursday afternoon meeting at “The Creek.”

Knob Creek Format Change

First up is the really big news: Beginning with the spring event, Knob Creek will be morphing into a two-day show. Set-up for vendors will still happen on Thursday. It’s the rest of the show that changes! The show will be open from 9:00am until 9:00pm on Friday and Saturday. There will be a night shoot on both days to help entertain the crowds. Vendors may begin tearing down after 9:00pm on Saturday, or, vendors may choose to come back Sunday morning for tear down. Knob Creek will provide security overnight and through 11:00am on Sunday. Most are viewing this change as being responsive to the changing atmosphere of the event and are eager to see the change be well-received.

Attendance was fairly strong during this fall production. Savvy buyers were snapping up deals on parts kits and accessories. Some machine guns did change hands, as well. There was a gentleman who had a table full of rotary 26.5mm flare launchers that looked like something from a science fiction movie. Those seemed to draw a lot of attention, and I believe he sold all but one or two (he had dozens). The weather was damp and cold. This was actually a good thing! There were no pesky fires started on the mountainsides by tracer fire and no stoppages as a result. The line was hot and rolling, and the crowds seemed to be very much into all the lead going down range. The dust was held down, mostly as a result of the very much appreciated concrete floor installed under the pole barn. The morning invocations went as expected. And the always tongue-in-cheek bake sale to raise funds for the Kentucky Diabetes Network was a success.

NFATCA Current Events

The Thursday meeting held by the NFATCA in the range house reviewed current events on the minds of everyone. Curt Wolf reviewed the proposed changes in administration of ITAR from State Department to Commerce Department. Although not complete, these changes are welcome and needed. However, Curt rightly pointed out that manufacturers of NFA items such as suppressors and machine guns will still be regulated by State, along with the continued need for complicated registration and payment of onerous fees. We will continue to advocate via various avenues for the reduction or elimination of this burdensome regime, especially for those who do not export. I also detailed the challenges currently being experienced by many with forms processing. It is true that Form 1 is back online with the eForms system. It is also true that the NFA Division is still not capable of receiving electronic fingerprints. As a result, using eForms for a Form 1 will require a somewhat complicated “dance” that entails a portion of the process online, a receipt of a cover letter for use with hard copy fingerprints and then mailing in of the fingerprint cards with the cover letter. It is hoped that the NFA Division will be able to fine tune this process and then return Form 4s to the eForms roster in short order. The NFA Examiners appear to have broken the backlog of most of the transfer and making applications. Dealers are reporting Form 3 approvals in terms of days or hours. End user processing is still problematic, though. Some forms have been languishing for a year or more. And some current submissions are dealing with a reported bottleneck at FBI for background check processing. NFATCA has a scheduled meeting with ATF senior management and will obtain more detail on the FBI logjam. The capacity crowd at the meeting in the range house/snack bar was strongly encouraged to make sure to get out and “vote red” in the upcoming election. The reminder should not be necessary, though. As NFA enthusiasts, we should always vote in every election, and we should always make sure that we are voting for candidates that support the Second Amendment. The meeting wrapped up with a complimentary BBQ dinner, provided by Knob Creek proprietors, Kenny & Tracy.

The NFATCA attends many events each year to ensure effective membership outreach. Fall and Spring Knob Creek, SAR West, SHOT Show and the NRA Annual Meeting are always on our roster. If you are attending any of these events, make sure to stop by and say “hi.” We’d love to hear from you. As we pass 15 years of service to the NFA community, we want to thank you for your continued support. If you already are a member, thanks! If you are interested in becoming one, you can sign up at nfatca.org today.

How U.S. Foreign Policy and National Security Concerns Impact International Trade

Many companies in the firearms and ammunition industries are increasing their efforts in global trade. There are many reasons for doing this, not the least of which is the significant downturn in the U.S. market since President Trump took office. As demand in the United States has decreased, companies are looking to the international marketplace to fill the gap. In addition, the Trump Administration has rolled out new policies to spur exports of U.S. military equipment abroad, including finally moving forward with the complete overhaul of the export controls over most firearms and ammunition. These so-called “transition rules” (see my 2-part Legally Armed series in Small Arms Review, Vol. 22, No. 8 (October 2018) and Vol. 22, No. 9 (November 2018)) are expected to be finalized at the end of 2018 or in the first quarter of 2019.

Despite the many draws, however, the decision to enter into the global marketplace must take into consideration the enormous amount of government oversight and risks inherent to bureaucratic permissions. As many readers know, a fundamental principle of the U.S. import/export control laws is that appropriate government authorization must be in place prior to either exporting or importing firearms or ammunition, as well as all parts, components, accessories and attachments. That authorization can be a license, agreement or other form of authorization (e.g., license or permit exemption, retransfer approval) issued by the controlling agency of the U.S. Government. Without such authorization, the company cannot lawfully proceed with an export or an import, as the case may be.

The licensing process is cumbersome and expensive. Noteworthy is the fact that many U.S. businesses have been deterred from venturing into foreign markets because of the complexity of U.S. import and export laws governing firearms and ammunition. But for those who have decided to play in this sandbox, the challenges do not end with getting authorization from the U.S. Government. There may be limitations on the license or permit (the dreaded license “provisos”) or required notifications (example, submitting a list of serial numbers of all firearms actually received by the foreign customer). But these pain points are often outweighed by the overall pleasure in obtaining the approval.

It is too tempting to take for granted that once an authorization is received it will remain valid for the term granted on the license. A done deal, so to speak. But such complacency presumes that the geopolitical relationships of the United States and its allies remain static. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Always lurking beneath the surface is the possibility that the U.S. Government may take away the permission to export or import at any time. Government authorization to export or import is not irrevocable. Indeed the ability of a U.S. company to engage in international trade is not a guaranteed right. With a rapidly changing international marketplace, it is vital that U.S. businesses keep this in mind.

When faced with a revocation, suspension or an amendment that changes the scope of an open authorization, companies may wonder how the U.S. Government has the authority to seemingly take away something that had been previously granted. The question may arise as whether such an action is a “taking” of property and if a company’s “due process” has been infringed in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Though decided several years ago, the B-West Imports, Inc. v. U.S. case, 75 F.3d 633 (Fed. Cir. 1996), still stands as precedence and is illustrative of the U.S. Government’s broad authority to revoke, suspend or amend approved import or export authorizations. In this case, several munitions importers challenged a federal ban on the importation of defense articles from China. The ban originated in a press conference President Clinton gave on May 26, 1994, in which he announced the renewal of the Most Favored Nation trading status for China. Despite extending this status, however, President Clinton also made clear that his administration would implement certain trade sanctions against the country because of China’s continuing human rights abuses. One of the sanctions was a ban on the importation of munitions from China.

Two days after the president made this announcement, the Secretary of State advised the Secretary of the Treasury (at that time, the U.S. Treasury had jurisdiction over imports of defense articles under the Arms Export Control Act or “AECA”) to “take all necessary steps to prohibit the import of all defense articles enumerated in the U.S. Munitions Import List.” Consequently, the U.S. Customs Service advised its agents that the embargo was effective on May 28, 1994, and that all permits for importing munitions from China had been rendered null and void. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) advised permit holders that in light of the embargo, all permits were revoked, effective immediately. Subsequently, the U.S. Congress passed legislation that provided some relief to importers by allowing shipments in transit to the United States in a Customs Bonded Warehouse or Foreign Trade Zone as of May 26, 1994.

The plaintiffs in the case, B-West Imports, Hing Long Trading Co., K-Sports Imports, Inc., Century Arms, Inc., Intrac Corporation, Northwest Imports, J’s Pacific Enterprise, Inc., and Sportarms of Florida, filed suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). They argued the government’s actions exceeded the scope of authority granted by the AECA and that the revocation of import permits violated the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The CIT granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, finding the AECA authorized the President to order a ban on importing arms from China because of the statutory grant of authority to “control” arms imports, and such control includes the ability to totally prohibit such imports. Further, the lower court held that ATF was authorized to implement the ban by revoking or withholding regulatory approval (i.e., the permits). The court rejected plaintiffs’ constitutional claims on the grounds that there was no statute or regulation that gave the parties a property right to import firearms or other munitions into the United States from China. In other words, by virtue of granting a permit or license to import products into the United States, the government does not confer to the permit holder a legitimate claim of entitlement that invokes the government’s obligations under the Due Process Clause. According to the court, because the statutes and regulations governing arms imports make it clear that the business of importing into the United States is subject to such extensive government controls, the government’s denial or revocation of an import permit cannot be regarded as a taking of property within the meaning of the Takings Clause. See generally, B-West Imports, Inc. v. U.S., 880 F.Supp 853 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1995).

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding no statute or regulation that grants a right to engage in the import of defense articles. Indeed the appellate court reiterated that nothing in the statute or regulations state or imply that an authorization, once granted, becomes irrevocable. As there is no right infringed, there is no valid due process argument to be made that a revocation of an open import permit constitutes a taking of property.

To drive home this point, the appellate court cites the Mitchell Arms, Inc. v. United States case (7 F.3d 212 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), another case in which the court rejected a takings claim. In the Mitchell case, ATF revoked import permits for certain “assault weapons,” resulting in Mitchell losing the opportunity to sell the firearms in the United States under an existing contract. The Mitchell court held that ATF’s revocation of the import permits did not amount to a taking under the Constitution.

Mitchell’s expectation of selling the assault rifles in domestic commerce was not inherent in its ownership of the rifles. Rather, it was totally dependent upon the import permits issued by ATF. In short, Mitchell’s ability to import the rifles and sell them in the United States was at all times entirely subject to the exercise of ATF’s regulatory power. Consequently, any expectation which arose on Mitchell’s part as a result of the import permits did not constitute a property right protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Mitchell at 217.

This same rationale is equally applicable to export licenses issued by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC). The receipt of an export approval from DDTC necessarily comes with it the chance that it could be revoked, suspended or amended by DDTC for foreign policy or national security reasons. Section 38 of the AECA grants the President the authority to control the import and export of defense articles “in furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign policy of the United States.” As the B-West court points out, the U.S. Government’s authority to act in foreign affairs is broadly construed and has been held to include the ability to prohibit particular export and import activities, even if previously licensed.

With this broad authority comes the known commercial risk that approved licenses and permits may be suspended or revoked by the same government agency that granted them in the first place. Companies assume this risk when they choose to engage in heavily regulated activity, like importing and exporting firearms and other munitions. With the rapidly changing international landscape, it is more important than ever that companies keep this in mind when participating in international trade. Maintaining a robust compliance program, screening each transaction for prohibited parties, countries and end-uses, and generally keeping aware of current events can go a long way in staying ahead in the export control game.

The government giveth, the government taketh away.

•••

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

About the author

Johanna Reeves is the founding partner of the law firm Reeves & Dola, LLP in Washington, DC (www.reevesdola.com). For more than fifteen years she has dedicated her practice to advising and representing U.S. companies on compliance matters arising under the federal firearms laws and U.S. export controls. Since 2011, Johanna has served as Executive Director for the Firearms and Ammunition Import/Export Roundtable (F.A.I.R.) Trade Group (http://fairtradegroup.org). She has also served as a member of the Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG) since 2016. Johanna can be reached at jreeves@reevesdola.com or 202-715-9941.

Finnish elite shooter badge for machine gun. This Finnish badge was issued to “Vailo-Ampuja” or “Elite Shooter” machine gunners. The first of these badges was issued in 1933 (March 6) and continued being issued until the end of World War II. A very scarce two-piece badge because it has a gilt Maxim machine gun inside a white metal wreath meaning it was issued to someone on the permanent staff. Outside edges have civil guards influence with branches of the evergreen tree. Screw-post back.

African Gold Coast Territorial Force machine gun officer’s silver plate collar badge (circa 1920s-1930s). White metal trumpeting elephant atop gold colored banner with “G.C.T.F” to center atop silver-plated crossed Vickers machine guns. Rear maker marked “Firmin London” with two lugs to the rear. The Gold Coast was a British colony in the Gulf of Guinea in West Africa.

Glass souvenir of the 2/ 1st Australian Machine Gun Battalion on the occasion of the Fifth Australia Wide Reunion in Adelaide in 1982. Clear glass with gold rim. Approximately 5 inches high. Rear of glass has famous poem In Memory of Fallen Comrades: “They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old, age shall not weary them nor the years condemn, at the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.” “LEST WE FORGET.” The 1st Machine Gun Battalion was a World War I raised unit in 1918 and part of the Australian Imperial Force consisting of four machine gun companies fighting in the final days of the war. The unit was disbanded in mid-1919 during the demobilization of the AIF after the war. The second 1st Machine Gun Battalion was raised for service during World War II as part of the 6th Division seeing service in the Middle East, Egypt, Greece, Crete, Syria and Palestine. It later fought a defensive role in the New Guinea campaign and the Borneo campaign. The battalion was disbanded in early 1946.

Indian Army Sikhs Machine Gun Corps other ranks brass cap badge. The five-pointed star affixed to the top denotes instructor. Two lugs to the rear.

Malta-assigned other ranks machine gun section brass cap badge. Machine Gun Corps insignia with Malta banner below. Slider to rear.

Pair of Italian officer’s silver cufflinks for the 42nd Infantry Regiment. Crown to top with “42” in center with crossed rifles and water-cooled FIAT Revelli M1914 machine gun below. Each cufflink and connecting bar marked “800” indicating silver content of 80%.

Canadian veteran’s blazer patch for the North Nova Scotia Highlanders Machine Gun Regiment. Green thistle and wreath with purple embroidery and bullion-stitched lettering on black felt. Though this unit existed in Canada for a long time, it was under this “M.G.” designation for only a little less than 10 months in World War II. This unit was placed on active service on Sept. 1, 1939, as the North Nova Scotia Highlanders (M.G.). It then mobilized on May 24, 1940, as the North Nova Scotia Highlanders (having been switched from machine gun to regular infantry, the M.G. designation was dropped from its insignia). Battle record included the Normandy Landing, Authie, Chambois, Boulogne, Breskens Pocket, the Rhine and Northwest Europe.

German Reichswehr period (end of World War I in 1918 and the rise of the Third Reich in 1933) 0/5 liter pottery beer stein marked, “19. Bayer. Inf. Rgt. 1. Batl. 4. (M.G.) Komp” and “Weihnachten 1930” (19th Bavarian Infantry Regiment, 1st Battalion, 4th Machine Gun Company and Christmas 1930). The central image is of a German soldier training with the MG08 (Maschinengewehr 08) mounted on the sled mount. Pewter hinged lid with relief helmet and acorn leaves. Maker marked on bottom Villeroy & Boch, Mettlach.

By Dickson Ly

When one purchases a new rifle scope, most of the time it comes packaged with a set of loose, cheap bikini-type covers that most owners would simply leave in the box. When one acquires a high-end rifle scope from reputable brands such as Schmidt & Bender and Nightforce, they include a set of quality flip covers that are made in Canada by a company called Tenebraex. I had the opportunity to visit Tenebraex during my time in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, thinking it would be a brief factory tour, but I was mistaken.

The Tenebraex building simply has the company signage above its entrance. From the outside one would not guess they produce the majority of scope flip covers for both OEM and aftermarket. Paul Boese who is the General Manager greeted me and walked me through the factory tour.

Tenebraex Corporation was founded in 1992 in Boston, Massachusetts, but its assets were purchased by entrepreneur Andrew Webber on August 9, 2013, and operation was moved to his home town of Halifax. Tenebraex became a division of Armament Technology which is also their exclusive distributor worldwide. Their product portfolio includes KillFLASH® Anti-Reflection Devices, Tactical Tough® Scope Covers, Weapon Sight Polarizers and Laser Filter products. They supply KillFLASH® to various U.S. and NATO military forces by the millions.

Tactical Tough Flip Covers

One may not realize, but producing a set of properly fitting flip-up scope covers is not easy. One might be familiar with cheap flip covers that are made in generic sizes, down to the millimeter. However, the dimension can be half a millimeter or quarter of a millimeter off resulting in the flip covers being too tight or too lose. Years ago I purchased a set for my Leupold IER scope according to the fitment guide on the manufacturer’s website; the covers ended up just slightly loose, and they came off after firing a few rounds from my .308 bolt gun. I removed them, and swore I’d never buy another set again regardless of price.

Paul Boese says often times scope manufacturers provide scope dimensions that are rounded off and are not exact. It creates quite a problem when the dimensions are off even by half a millimeter as that can cause the covers to either come loose during use or not fit at all.

Moreover, the scope specifications can change from production batch to production batch, and manufacturers do not inform Tenebraex so often times they find out the hard way—after customers purchased the covers, and they ended up not fitting their scope.

They have over 200 unique item numbers or SKUs in their system, but it boils down to seven different sizes of flip covers. For the objective cover, they would design an adapter of the right diameter and thread pitch that will fit the specific scope.

Currently only Tangent Theta, Schmidt & Bender and Nightforce produce their rifle scopes with the Tenebraex profile that is multiple, machined, flat surfaces surrounding the edge of the scope housing that allow the flip cover to rotate and lock in almost an infinite amount of positions, which their flip covers will fit without the use of an adapter ring. One would think there needs to be a universal standard for flip covers; however, a lot of optic manufacturers simply believe their proprietary design is better or they manufacture their own flip covers for their own rifle scopes.

In an attempt to reduce production cost and offer customers more competitive price, they have introduced Multi-Dimensional Tactical (MDT) flip covers which instead of using a machined aluminum adapter, it uses flexible rubber that can be stretched and fit over a wide range of dimension instead of an exact fit.

The polymer components are made by suppliers in Ottawa, Canada, as well as Boston, Massachusetts. Each component is serialized by batch and properly tracked just in case an issue arises they can locate the problematic batch which indicates when they were produced and where they were delivered to.

The Final Assembly

Each flip cover is offered in color black, RAL8000, coyote brown and desert sage colors. The three latter colors are all considered different shades of tan; however, when it comes to supplying to government contracts, the color specification is rather specific, and they cater to this type of request from their clientele.

In addition, many models are offered in a see-through option, either in clear or amber lens, which allows the operator to aim and fire shots without flipping up the covers. Ironically, this creates more reflection due to the use of transparent polycarbonate, even with anti-reflective coating applied. The lens can also get scratched, in which case you’re better off flipping them up. Tenebraex produces them due to contract requirements.

Anti-Reflective Device (ARD)

The anti-reflective device is often marketed under the registered trademark of KillFLASH® and is an absolute necessity in the modern battlefield. The modern soldiers are equipped with rifles that have an optic mounted, and the light reflection from the optic’s objective lens can give away their position possibly from miles away. The ARD mounts in front of the objective are made up of a short tube with a honeycomb-like grid.

The ARDs are made in-house in Tenebraex’s Halifax facility. The honeycomb grid is made of a large sheet of aluminum or fiber. It then gets sprayed with the proprietary XLUME® coating which absorbs light and reduces reflection and then it is cut to shape. The tooling that is used to cue the sheet looks like a cookie press except it’s made of steel. The shape, thickness and density of the honeycomb sheet vary and are dictated by variables such as the objective size and magnification range to name a few.

Tenebraex also produces ARD for binoculars, laser rangefinders and other vehicles—basically anything that uses a lens in the battlefield that can reveal your position to the opponent.

Interestingly, ARD is only visible to the user in a non-magnified 1x optic. For scopes like the Trijicon ACOG or other long-range rifle scopes, ARD is not visible as the user’s eye sees right through it. There’s a very slight reduction of brightness when the ARD is mounted, but the tradeoff is well worth it in a tactical situation.

Tenebraex engineers work closely with optics manufacturers, and they are trying to streamline the design of optics with integrated ARD and flip covers as part of the original design, instead of an afterthought with the use of adapters which result in increased cost and a more bulky, less elegant design.

Weapon Sight Polarizers

Polarizers are an accessory that’s often overlooked by many law enforcement procurements. Polarizers are designed to allow the shooter to look through glass as they cut the glass reflection of a car’s windshields. Law enforcements purchase specialized ammunition such as ones with bonded bullets that are designed to retain their shape and maintain trajectory after going through glass. If one cannot clearly see his/her target behind glass due to reflection, the type of ammunition used is rather a secondary problem since he/she won’t be able to take a clean shot.

The Weapon Sight Polarizer mounts onto the eyepiece and is designed to be rotated for adjustment. When not in use, it can be removed by lifting it up and leaving it above the eyepiece; it will be retained by the lanyards.

Currently this product is restricted to military and law enforcement; however, one can easily make his own using polarizer filters made for camera lenses.

Weapon Laser Filters

In the modern battlefield, lasers are heavily used by infantry, land and air vehicles by NATO for ranging and labeling targets. It’s not unreasonable to assume there’s an increased risk of eye damage by friendly fire.

Tenebraex currently produces a laser filter designed for the Trijicon ACOG made under contract for the U.S. government. The idea is to protect the troop’s vision from both friendly and foe lasers but more so from sophisticated opponents in potential future conflicts.

There were published reports of Latvian troops getting eye damage, some even getting blinded, during a recent training exercise close to the Latvian-Russian border.

This is troubling as IR lasers are not visible to the naked eye during daytime. Potential laser weapons do not make any noise and can be fired discriminately from long distances without being spotted.

There are also reports of European troops getting eye damage by friendly fire from the laser rangefinders on tanks. Incidents like these are purely due to negligence, but they do occur.

Paul tells me that they are working on laser filters that will not fall under ITAR and will be made outside of the United States. Whether there will be any interest in the commercial market for this product is yet to be seen.

Part of a Family

How does Tenebraex maintain an inventory that can meet the demands of government contracts, OEM and the aftermarket? Andrew Webber tells me that he pays his employees well, over what the actual position entails. Moreover, he values each one of his employees and treats them equally regardless of their position in the company. This way when a worker foresees a potential issue, he or she can speak up, and the issue can be avoided altogether. When the company shows a profit by the end of the fiscal year, each employee is eligible for a healthy bonus. Due to these factors, turnovers are extremely low, and I can tell that the employees are happy to be working there instead of simply going through the motions of “doing the job” and getting a paycheck.

They’re also not driven by demands of double-digit growth year by year over the span of decades like many large corporations dictated by shareholders and accountants. Instead, they strive for slow, steady growth that is more realistic in todays’ globalized economy.

Covert Ops Led to Experimental Smith & Wesson Model 76 Submachine Gun

During the 1961-1975 Vietnam War, the United States Navy had begun to procure submachine guns for use by its SEAL teams; a special operations force operating in-country. SEAL teams often used foreign submachine guns for their more covert operations for plausible deniability. Unhindered by any political, official standards or requirements for their proposed submachine guns to meet, the SEAL’s weapon of choice was the reliable and accurate 9mm m/45, Swedish K submachine gun. One of the Navy requirements for a submachine gun class weapon was the ability to drain water quickly from the receiver.

Problems with the military procurement of the Swedish submachine guns were eventually encountered due to Sweden’s long-standing position as a neutral country, along with their outspoken protest of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

During the early spring of 1966, the U.S. Navy Department contacted Smith & Wesson representative Mr. George Ersham to inquire about the possibility of the U.S. company designing and manufacturing a weapon that would be similar in concept and operation to the Swedish K. By the fall of 1966, the Development Section of Smith & Wesson received an official written request from the Department of the Navy for the development of a new 9mm submachine gun. Corporation officials met with SEAL Team One at the Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, in San Diego, California, to discuss the project. During the meeting, Smith & Wesson officials were provided with a list of the characteristics desired in the proposed submachine gun. The rival Colt firearms company had the military market virtually sewn up at the time. Mr. Gunn recognized that a lucrative military order could help sustain his company’s future well into the 21st Century.

Mr. Dwayne Charron of the Research and Development Section of Smith & Wesson was chosen to head up the project. Mr. Charron was well qualified for the task, having a lot of experience with the development and design of many of the company’s firearms. The model designation assigned to the submachine gun project was the number 76. It was nothing other than a control number, having no other significance.

The X-Series Submachine Guns

Smith & Wesson routinely assigned a letter “X” prefix to experimental or preproduction projects. After a project had been developed and tested, blueprints were sent to the Engineering Department where final tolerances and dimensions were used to draw production blueprints. Firearms made from the prints were used to manufacture tool room models of the proposed gun. Those guns were designated with a letter “T” prefix for “Tool Room.” The letter “T” was occasionally used on a production weapon that had been modified.

The first experimental samples of the Model 76 were completed in the fall of 1966-1967 and were assigned serial numbers X-185 through X-219. The early X-185 gun lacked a buttstock and sights. On gun X-186, a folding stock and sights were added. Two X-prefixed guns, X-186 and X-219, were later modified for the caseless ammunition project. To make the weapon as light as possible, there was one prototype gun; X-188 was made with an aluminum alloy receiver. Later there was a request issued for nine additional aluminum receivers; these were serial numbered X-210 to X-218. Most of the receivers were not assembled into functioning weapons. Apparently, there were problems, and the aluminum receiver concept was abandoned.

By January 1967, a prototype weapon was completed and ready for extensive field-testing. At this point the magazine for the 76 project had not been developed, so modified Swedish K magazines were used. Due to cost considerations, it was decided not to key the barrel for consistent indexing with the receiver. This saved a few machining processes to the barrel and receiver. The weapon that was designed by the engineers at Smith & Wesson looked somewhat similar to the Swedish submachine gun it was to replace, but there were a number of differences. Primarily, the Smith & Wesson submachine gun was lighter in weight, more ergonomic, slightly smaller in size, handier, featured a more positive safety, and it was select-fire.

The T-Series Submachine Guns

During May 1967, the first 10 Tool Room submachine gun models had been assembled. They were assigned serial numbers T-1111 to T-1120. During testing, a few failure-to-feed stoppages occurred. The problem was traced to an oversized magazine housing and was easily solved by inserting a U-shaped piece of steel to align and secure the magazine.

The X and T models of the M76 were fabricated in a number of configurations for testing and evaluation purposes.

The production of the first test lot of 100 guns commenced on June 24, 1968. Each gun had a four-digit serial number with a “T” prefix. The “T” prefix indicated that the guns were completed in the Research and Development Department’s Tool Room and not regular production pieces. The serial numbers of the early pre-production models were marked on the left side of the magazine well. The “T” series models were often configured differently. Most of the T series guns lacked the barrel jacket as seen on production guns. The method of securing the barrel to the receiver was different on guns that lacked a barrel jacket. A barrel retaining catch was utilized, similar to that of the U.S. M3 submachine gun. The strut arms of the early stocks were straight while the later production models curved around the back of the receiver tube. The sides of the plastic grip were smooth. A total of 105 T prefix weapons were built by the Research and Development Department from November 1966 to April 1971. Most of the T-series weapons studied during the research for this article had a medium gray parkerized finish while most of the U-prefix production submachine guns were parkerized with a gray-green finish.

As the Tool Room models were refined, the factory began to fabricate fixtures and gages and provide drawings to outside vendors for components that were not made in-house.

After preliminary testing, a small lot of 100 Smith & Wesson T-series submachine guns were produced for further testing in-house and in the field. During the early months of 1968, the final design of the weapon began to materialize. After a few last-minute minor design changes were implemented, the weapon went into production as the Smith & Wesson Model No. 76–9mm Submachine Gun. In addition to the Navy contract, the Smith & Wesson Company had planned to offer its new American submachine gun to U.S. law enforcement agencies, for replacement of its aging Reising and Thompson weapons.

To facilitate manufacture of the M76 submachine gun, Smith & Wesson opened a completely new manufacturing facility called the Annex. Also, commonly known as Department 10, the 10,000-square-foot building was located on Stevens Street, in Springfield, Massachusetts. The new Smith & Wesson division began operations during 1968, specifically to manufacture the submachine gun. Department 10 had 20 employees in 1968 and was headed by foreman Lou Jarvis. While some parts were machined in the main plant, most of the welding and assembly was performed in the Annex building. Upon final assembly, the completed submachine guns were then transported back to the main plant for a final inspection before packaging and shipping.

The U-Series Production Model

The Model 76 submachine gun design was a basic, simple, but durable weapon primarily made from heavy sheet metal stampings. The receiver tube was produced from heavy 120-inch-thick seamless steel tubing. The inside of the thick receiver tube was broached (often-called “sand cuts”) to help prevent stoppages from sand or any foreign debris that may collect inside the receiver. The appendages: the sights, magazine housing and sling attachment points were heliarc-welded to the thick receiver tube.

The fixed sling loops were intended to employ the common U.S. issue M1 carbine sling. The ejector was also attached to the receiver tube by two vertical welds. The fixed magazine well was flared at the bottom for fumble-free insertion of a magazine. The trigger, trigger bar and sear were in a removable sheet metal housing that is located under the receiver tube. The trigger guard is also a simple steel stamping attached to the trigger housing by a single rivet. For use in Arctic climates, the trigger guard can be rotated out of position allowing the weapon to be operated with gloves or mittens. The Model 76 was following the concept of the World War II British Sten and U.S. M3 submachine guns: simple and cheap.

The 8-inch barrel can be easily removed for cleaning or replacement via a knurled barrel nut. A heavy, tubular shroud with 28 cooling ports was later introduced in order to protect the operator’s hands from an overheated barrel. The threaded barrel nut was incorporated as part of the shroud. The sights are calibrated for a 100-meter range and are nonadjustable. The Model 76 is capable of both semiautomatic and full-automatic fire, by means of an ambidextrous M16-style semiautomatic-automatic-safe selector lever.

The buttstock folds and locks to the left side of the receiver as to not interfere with the cocking handle if the weapon is fired with the stock folded. The Smith & Wesson 76 is finished in a military-style, medium gray-green phosphate; the M76 has an overall length of 20.25 inches with the stock in the folded position. With the stock extended the length is 30.38 inches. Loaded weight with a 36-round magazine is 8.67 pounds.

The first six production guns have unique serial numbers beginning with a letter “U” followed by six digits. These submachine guns were numbered U001001 through U001006. In June 1968, regular production began starting with serial number U101 until production ended with submachine gun serial U6100, built July 5, 1974.

The serial numbers of the production guns were marked on the right rear side of the receiver tube. There were a reported 6,000 production Model 76 weapons manufactured. A few minor variations appear in the production models. During 1969, the barrel jacket was changed from seamless tubing to a less expensive design made from a piece of flat sheet metal, which after cooling holes were punched into it, was rolled into a tube and welded along its seam. Another minor detail noted on some guns are two holes in the front of the magazine housing; the purpose of these holes is for a jig to hold the piece in place for a welding operation.

During July 1974, production of the Model 76 was terminated. The decision was made due to declining demand for pistol-caliber submachine guns, which were being replaced in law enforcement and military organizations by modern assault rifles.

The original retail cost of a Smith & Wesson Model 76 submachine gun in 1969 was $76.50. Today, all models of the Smith & Wesson M76 submachine guns are considered Curio & Relic firearms by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The United States Navy purchased a number of the Model 76 submachine guns and classified them: Navy Mark 24 Mod 0, NSN 1005-01-013-6050. Each of the weapons was issued with four magazines. The SEALs also requested that Smith & Wesson design a suppressor (silencer) for “their” Model 76s, to reduce the weapon’s report and muzzle flash. Smith & Wesson’s Dwayne Charron designed the Smith & Wesson M76 suppressor as a complete unit that would easily replace the weapon’s standard barrel.

The barrel inside of the Smith & Wesson suppressor has a series of ports to reduce the velocity of standard 9mm ammunition to subsonic levels and to eliminate the sound generated when the bullet exceeds the speed of sound after leaving the barrel. Mr. Charron received patent number 3,713,362 on June 30, 1973, for his suppressor design. Production of the suppressors built by Smith & Wesson was limited to a few units.

Above: The Thorpe E.M.1 automatic rifle in profile (left-hand side). (N.R. JENZEN-JONES/ARES)

Introduction

When the Second World War broke out in 1939, the standard British service rifle was still the rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield (SMLE), by that time known simply as “Rifle, No.1.” A successor had already been adopted and put into mass-production but this, the No.4 rifle, was simply a re-engineered SMLE; still chambered for the outdated rimmed .303 cartridge and still a manually operated firearm. Surprisingly, self-loading rifles had been trialled soon after the turn of the century, culminating in the adoption (but not the issue) of the Rifle, Self-Loading, Pattern 1918. This weapon was intended for use by aircrew; a relic of the early war in the air. However, in 1940, a new future rifle specification was issued by the British War Office, specifying a weapon of SMLE (i.e., relatively short for the period) with overall length, a 22- to 24-inch barrel, a maximum weight of 10 pounds, semi-automatic-only operation by means of either gas or recoil, a bayonet similar to the No.4 pattern and—perhaps most interestingly—a calibre of 7.92mm.

By contrast, post-war Britain was determined to replace its full-power service rifle, submachine gun and light machine gun with one universal weapon or family of weapons in an intermediate calibre and capable of automatic fire. This was partially realised with the introduction of the Enfield Weapon System/SA80 in 1985. However, the ambition originated with the Small Arms Calibre Panel of 1945, which decided upon a new “ideal calibre” cartridge of the following specifications:

Calibre—.27 in
Bullet weight—130 grains
Bullet length—1.03 inches
Charge weight—19.1 grains
“Round length”—1.5 to 1.8 ratio

This new round would become the .280 Enfield, which was eventually (albeit briefly) adopted as the “7mm Mk.1Z.” The next step, logically enough, was to agree to a new War Office specification (which became WOPS No.9, issued in September 1947) for a new universal “Infantry Personal Weapon,” intended for use out to 600m, as opposed to the 1000m of prior doctrine. At this time, three new weapons were already under development, all of which were developed further, to a greater or lesser extent, as a result of the new specification. The real intention here seems to have been to combine the best features of existing cutting-edge designs into one new weapon. The two most promising were Korsak’s 7.92x57mm light machine gun and an automatic rifle developed by a team led by Stanley Thorpe, at that time chambered for the intermediate 7.92x33mm cartridge. The new requirement specified a light weight of between 7 and 8 pounds, a short overall length and rifle-grade accuracy with a closed, front-locking bolt and long barrel and automatic fire capability. This was further refined, following an ADE meeting of May 27, 1947, to require a bullpup configuration and gas operation.

As per this latest thinking, Thorpe’s E.M.1 was given a drastic redesign into a bullpup weapon chambered for .280 calibre; although no details or images of the original, conventionally configured prototype survive. This redesign might explain the incredibly complicated trigger mechanism—of which, more later. One early prototype included an FG 42-style integral bipod that was soon dropped in favour of a detachable version. Only one prototype survives, which resides in the Royal Armouries collection. Its trigger group is missing, but aside from a straight magazine released using a long magazine release lever, it is very close to the final design.

Nomenclature

Confusingly, both the Korsac and Thorpe designs received the designation “E.M.1” (for “Experimental Model 1”). This might have made sense given their differing roles; there would be a British E.M.1 rifle and E.M.1 light machine gun, just as there was an M1 Rifle and an M1 Carbine in U.S. service. However, this does not seem to have been how the system of nomenclature worked in practice, since there were in fact two weapons designated “E.M.2”, as well as two designated “E.M.3” and one designated “E.M.4!” Rather, it seems that E.M. designations were “rebooted” in 1948, superseding existing ones and creating the following two series, which we have numbered for clarity:

Series 1 (to May 1947)

• Korsak E.M.1 (gas-operated, rotating bolt, 7.92x57mm)
• Jezioranski E.M.2 (blowback, inertia-locked, 7.92x33mm)
• Metcalf E.M.3 (gas-operated, roller-locked, 7.92x33mm)*
• *NB the Series 1 E.M.3 became the Thorpe E.M.1 in Series 2.

Series 2 (1948 onwards)

• Thorpe E.M.1 (gas-operated, roller-locked, .280 Enfield)
• Janson E.M.2 (gas-operated, flapper-locked, .280 Enfield)
• Hall E.M.3 (gas-operated, dropping block, .303 Rimless)*

*This appears to be an error of some sort, as the Hall self-loading (semi-automatic-only) rifle had never progressed beyond the mock-up stage and had, in fact, been discontinued in 1947. This second E.M.3 can thus be ignored for practical purposes.

Regardless, the key thing to remember is that Korsak’s series 1 E.M.1 LMG shares a design lineage with Janson’s later series 2 E.M.2 rifle, whereas the Thorpe E.M.1 rifle was of a totally different design. The Thorpe shares a design lineage with the earlier Metcalf E.M.3, as noted above.

Both the Thorpe E.M.2 and Korsak E.M.1 (and later Janson E.M.2) did share German inspiration, however. Korsak’s LMG had been closely based upon the FG 42 automatic rifle, and Thorpe’s rifle also took cues from the FG 42’s pinned trigger group and the pistol grip shape of the second model. The gas system and working parts were based upon the German Second World War Gerät 06, however. One variant, the roller-delayed blowback Gerät 06H (H for “half-locked”), is often touted as a putative “StG 45” that would have replaced the long-stroke, gas-operated StG 44. This elegant and lightweight design evolved into the extremely successful CETME, G3 and MP5 family of small arms. However, with delayed blowback as-yet unproven in a full-power long arm, Thorpe chose to revert to a mechanism wherein the rollers positively locked the bolt closed—just as a tilting or rotating bolt would—relying upon a gas piston to unlock the bolt. Instead of the short-stroke gas piston of the Gerät 06H, however, he opted for a long-stroke gas piston.

Description

Sources disagree on when the first Thorpe prototypes were completed and proofed; either June 1948 (Edwards, 2014) or December 1949 (Dugelby, 1980, 41). Nomenclature was further complicated by the use of a codename: “COBRA.” Unlike the rival E.M.2, the Thorpe E.M.1 made use of the latest manufacturing techniques to produce square-section pressed and welded steel body with reinforcing ribs. Its receiver should therefore have been cheaper and quicker to produce had it reached the mass production stage. Unfortunately, other assemblies were not so well designed for modern industry.

Interestingly, specific mention was made in its provisional manual of its in-line design, intended to manage recoil. This was of course one of the much-touted features of the later Stoner/ArmaLite AR-10 and AR-15 series of rifles. The weapon also included an StG 44-inspired sprung “ejection opening cover” (dust cover) which, together with a well-sealed architecture, would have limited internal contamination in the field. Less prescient was the incorporation of a mechanism to automatically drop the bolt and chamber a round upon the insertion of a loaded magazine. As on the E.M.2, the magazine catch doubles as a bolt release catch. Pushing it forward releases the magazine as one would expect, but pushing it to the rear activates the bolt hold-open catch and releases the bolt. Unlike modern hold-open devices, the E.M.1 locks open when empty whether or not a magazine is fitted. This means that the user must manually close the bolt as well as “ease springs” (i.e., dry fire) whenever the weapon is cleared. Also shared with E.M.2 is the built-in charger guide in the rear of the magazine body. This slides upward to receive a charger clip of cartridges for rapid loading.

There is a combined safety catch and “change lever” (selector switch) conveniently positioned for use by the right thumb. Much of the rear portion of the body and grip frame assembly are, in British fashion, clad with a walnut veneer. Sling loops are provided on the bipod lug and on the bottom of the butt-plate assembly. Notably, provision is also made for an optional bipod, although this is hardly of quick-detach design, requiring the removal of the front handguard/heat-shield assembly to access the circular bipod lug. The cyclic rate of fire is a controllable 600rpm, although this was probably a beneficial feature given the .280 Enfield cartridge produces somewhat more felt recoil than smaller intermediate cartridges such as 5.56x45mm.

Along with the E.M.2, this weapon was one of the first to offer an optical sight as standard, specifically the Universal Optical Sight or “UOS” with a simple sheet steel protective cover. The UOS was adjustable for elevation and windage and featured an inverted pointer with graduations for 300-900 yards—despite the original requirement for 600 yards maximum. Finally, as befits a 1950s military rifle, the Thorpe rifle was fitted for both bayonet and an optional rifle grenade projector, attached by means of the same twin lugs on the barrel near the muzzle. The socket bayonet was of a combat/utility knife pattern sensibly shared with the E.M.2. The grenade launcher attachment had a built-in flip-up leaf sight graduated to the terrifyingly short ranges of 50, 75 and 100 yards. Official reports were positive, praising the ability to perform all functions without removing the weapon from the shoulder as well as the weapon’s accuracy, balance and low recoil. The trigger, whilst unconventional in form, is of typical military style, with a single stage, some take-up and a pull just shy of 7 pounds. Due to the unusual trigger mechanism, it is free of the typical bullpup linkage rod foibles.

With the benefit of hindsight, however, there are some obvious flaws. The UOS sight has a tiny field of view, is non-magnifying and is not adjustable without a tool. Worse, there are no integral iron sights or indeed any emergency backup sights on the weapon. This is a heavy weapon and feels every ounce of its more than 10 pounds (when fitted with an empty magazine), although the rebalancing effect of the bullpup design compensates somewhat for this. The 8-pound E.M.2 clearly had the advantage in this respect. It is also extremely difficult to cock due to the need to overcome the resistance caused by the interface of piston, cocking plate and upper sear. Once the upper sear is out of its corresponding bent on the piston, the working parts move with ease. The weapon might have benefitted from a lever-type cocking handle offering some mechanical advantage as on the CETME/G3 series.

Operating System

Where the gun really falls down, however, is in its mechanical complexity. The bolt carrier group is unnecessarily complicated, with an additional assembly known as the “piston extension.” In most firearms, the striker or hammer is cocked by the bolt carrier as it travels to the rear. Because of the extremely compact in-line design of the EM-1, the bolt carrier group equivalent is located adjacent to the gas piston rather than directly below or above it as in most gas-operated designs. This means that the piston extension is also offset to one side, requiring a unique circular “cocking plate” with its own captive spring to translate the backward movement of the piston into a rotary cocking motion for the so-called “hammer” plunger (see below). This plate is actuated by a machined surface on the gas piston. If this seems confusing, that is because it is! However, the provisional manual for the type helps a great deal.

Trigger Mechanism

The trigger mechanism within the grip frame consists of a hinged (not sliding as its appearance might suggest) trigger assembly containing a sheet metal primary trigger, solid “upper trigger” and a disconnector pawl. This is acted upon by the rotating selector, which also activates an elaborate out-of-battery safety housed at the rear of the trigger group. There are no sears contained with the trigger group; instead, it engages with an extremely convoluted internal fire control group housed in the body of the rifle. This group houses the two safety/auto and primary (known as “upper” and “lower”) sears as well as a plunger (confusingly called the “hammer”) into which corresponding bents are cut. This plunger reciprocates in the housing under tension from its own spring, in effect operating like a backward-acting striker. Instead of directly impacting the primer—it is afterall travelling in the opposite direction!—it strikes the top of a lever in yet another assembly, which in turn pivots to thrust the firing pin forwards.

This Heath Robinson-esque arrangement was designed simply to connect the bullpup trigger to the working parts some distance behind it. Korsak’s LMG had used a long “slide” to allow its more conventional sears to interface with the working parts. Modern bullpups invariably make use of a long linkage bar, resulting in an inferior trigger pull. It is not clear whether Thorpe had anticipated the trigger bar solution and was actively seeking to avoid it, or whether the design team had simply not realised the potential of the simpler bar idea.

Fire selection is more conventional. On automatic, the trigger pawl provides support for the “upper trigger,” which in turn presses upward on the lower sear, allowing the working parts to continue cycling until the trigger is released or ammunition is expended. With the selector set to semi-automatic, its lower portion (inside the housing) pushes against the lower part of the trigger pawl as the trigger pushes the latter to the rear. This rotates the upper part out from under the upper trigger. This disconnects the trigger and requires the shooter to manually reset it for the next shot. The third selector position is a traditional applied safety that rotates the same lower portion of the selector forward to physically bar the trigger from moving to the rear. The mechanism incorporates two additional mechanical safeties. To prevent malfunction and out-of-battery discharge, the safety sear is lifted by another machined surface on the piston to release the “hammer” plunger onto the lower sear only when the bolt is fully forward. Finally, a pair of vertically acting appendages or “safety levers” are (on “safe”) cammed up into the underside of the fire control unit, blocking both the hammer and the piston itself. On semi-automatic or automatic, they are withdrawn from engagement. They are not connected to the trigger itself and do not impinge upon its action.

End of the Road

As NATO trials approached in the early 1950s, the decision was taken to withdraw the Thorpe E.M.1 on the basis that Janson’s E.M.2 rifle was in a more advanced state of development. A comparison by the author suggests that the Thorpe was simply the more flawed of the two. Both designs featured a substantial number of complex machined components, but the trigger mechanism of the E.M.1 added an additional level of difficulty in terms of manufacture and maintenance. Likewise, the more advanced pressed steel construction, whilst it might pay dividends in ultimate manufacturing cost, was an unknown quantity in 1950 and required new tooling and expertise to perfect for mass production. Russia was at this time struggling with the “Type 1” stamped metal AK; Enfield faced similar challenges with its SA80 project as late as the 1980s. The E.M.1 was also 2 pounds heavier than the lighter and generally more svelte E.M.2. Finally, aside from the obvious extravagance of wood veneer, the weapon featured two separate handguards. The front handguard, together with its own metal armature, could have been left off the rifle entirely were it not for the recommended grenade launching and bayonet fighting stances illustrated in the manual. The sheer quantity of wood on the weapon (the front handguard was even named the “fore-end”) seems designed to fend off inevitable criticism from those used to the walnut and steel of traditional infantry rifles of more conventional designs. Whatever the specific relative merits of the two rifles, the Thorpe E.M.1 was discontinued in early 1950, shortly after the provisional manual was printed. This allowed all efforts to be focused upon the more promising Janson E.M.2.

•••

(This article is adapted from a chapter in Mr. Ferguson’s forthcoming book on British bullpup rifles, which will be published by Headstamp Publishing in 2019. HeadstampPublishing.com)

Special thanks to the National Firearms Centre at the Royal Armouries, who graciously allowed ARES access to their world-class collection for research and photography.

This is Part 2 in a series of posts examining the developmental history of the United Kingdom’s E.M.1 and E.M.2 designated firearms. Part 1, “British Korsak E.M.1 Light Machine Gun,” appeared in Small Arms Review, Vol. 22, No. 9.

See armamentresearch.com for further original content.

Above: An early Patchett machine carbine, with its stock in a folded position. The first Patchetts were designed during World War II.

Classic Submachine Guns, Carbines and Pistols Refined

The Patchett Submachine Gun

The Sten machine carbine (the term “submachine gun” was not used by the British until 1954) was hurriedly conceived during the early stages of World War II, as Great Britain, seriously short of weapons for defense, was facing an invasion by the German Army. The Sten was a rather crude, but reliable and deadly weapon. After the threat of invasion subsided, work began on developing a more refined submachine gun.

George Patchett was an experienced gun designer who went to work for the Sterling Armament Company during World War II. Mr. Patchett designed a fair number of prototype weapons based on his ideas. By 1943, George Patchett’s submachine gun was developed enough to be tested by the military. Designated as the Patchett Mark I machine carbine, the weapon used a number of parts from the Lanchester machine carbine. The Mark I’s magazine housing was attached at a 90-degree angle to the receiver and fed from Sten or Lanchester magazines. After testing, the Patchett Mark I was considered suitable for service, but with plenty of Sten Mk II and Mk IV submachine guns still in service, there were no large orders for the Patchett forthcoming. Undeterred, development of the Patchett continued with the introduction of the Mk II model in 1946. One of the primary features of the Mark II was its magazine housing oriented at an 82-degree forward angle, to accept Patchett’s new double-feed, curved magazine—a vast improvement over the Sten magazine. Finally, during 1953, the Patchett Mark II was adopted as the Gun, Sub-machine, 9mm L2A1. During 1955, the Mark III model was introduced. The Patchett name was dropped and replaced with the name Sterling. The official designation was the Sterling Submachine Gun Mk III, L2A2. The Sterling company continued further development of the weapon resulting in a final version designated as the Sterling Mk IV L2A3.

The Sterling Mark IV L2A3 submachine gun was produced in Great Britain by Sterling and the Royal Ordnance Factory at Fazakerly. Submachine guns produced at Sterling had serial number prefixes using the letters “KR,” “S” and “US.” Fazakerley weapons used the prefix “UF.” Production began during 1955-1956 and ceased at Fazakerly in 1959, Sterling in 1988. The Sterling Mark IV L2A3 remained in British service until 1994.

Sterlings destined for British military service had a Sunkorite 259 satin black painted finish. Commercial Sterlings had the black crinkle finish. The British use of the term “commercial” is a bit misleading. Sales to Commonwealth and governments, other than the British military, were considered “commercial” sales. The Sterling was also licensed for manufacture in Canada as the C1 submachine gun and India as the SAF Machine Carbine A1.

For the police market, Sterling introduced a semi-automatic-only version of the Mk IV L2A3 submachine gun called the “Police Carbine.” The Police Carbine was also available to civilians in countries such as South Africa. Sterling ads boasted, “The Sterling submachine gun has been modified for use by police and civilians in troubled parts of the world,” and the “Perfect weapon of self-defense for those obliged to take such precautions.” The Police Carbine operated the same as the submachine gun, firing from an open bolt. The semi-automatic-only function was made possible by adding a block to the selector lever, preventing it from being rotated to the A (automatic) position. It was soon discovered that the Police Carbine could easily be converted to select-fire by removal of the block or installing a submachine gun selector lever. Police Carbines can easily be identified by their serial numbers that began with a letter “P.”

The U.S. Market

During the 1980s, a new breed of firearm was introduced to the U.S. civilian market; copies of military submachine guns and rifles. The big difference was the clones were semi-automatic-only and had to adhere to strict provisions set by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to make them difficult to convert to full-automatic.

Rifle Caliber

Popular U.S. offerings for the market were Colt’s AR-15 rifle, a civilian version of the U.S. military M16, and the Springfield Armory, Inc. M1A copy of the M14. However, both the aforementioned rifles were available before the 1980s. The M1A rifles went into production in 1971; the Colt AR-15 in 1964. Both became popular when many enthusiasts discovered them in the monthly periodicals of the day, followed by special editions of 1980s magazines focusing entirely on the new breed of semi-automatic firearms and the quickly growing accessory market that soon followed.

Many of the semi-automatic firearms were imported. Companies like Heckler and Koch (HK) offered copies of their .223 caliber HK33 as the HK93 and the .308 G3 as the .308 HK91. Other popular firearms were FN’s Belgian-made SAR (FN FAL), China’s AKS rifles and Austria’s Steyr AUGs. Some of the imports were quite expensive, a few costing twice as much as a Colt AR-15.

Pistol Caliber

U.S.-manufactured pistol caliber semi-automatics included the West Hurley Auto-Ordnance M1927A1 Thompsons, MAC-10s, SWD’s M11/Nine, Nighthawk carbine and Wilkinson Arms Linda pistol and Terry carbines.

Foreign submachine gun copies included the Heckler and Koch MP5 designated in semi-automatic-only guise as the HK94; Action Arms imported semi-automatic models of the famous UZI submachine gun. Some of the lesser known imports of the 1980s were the British Sterling Mark 6 carbine and Mark 7 pistol, semi-automatic copies of the British Mk IV L2A3 submachine gun.

As per the ATF requirements after 1982, the semi-automatics had to operate from a closed-bolt position.

The introduction of the semi-automatic clones occurred prior to May 19, 1986. This allowed the legal registration and conversion of the firearms into machine guns. After May 19, 1986, the laws were changed making full-auto conversions illegal except for what would be known as restricted post-May dealer samples. Many AR-15s, UZIs, AKs and HK94 carbines were converted prior to the cut-off date. One select-fire conversion that was seldom seen was the desirable British Sterling Mk IV L2A3.

Sterling Mark 6 Carbines

The British-made Sterling Mark 6 carbines were imported by Parker Arms and Armscorp of America. However, the majority of the carbines were imported by Lanchester USA of Dallas, Texas. The suggested retail price of a Sterling Mark 6 was nearly double that of the popular UZI carbine in 1983. Due to their high price, limited advertising and availability, only a small number of the Mark 6 carbines were sold in the U.S.

The primary differences between the Sterling Mark 6 carbine and the Mark IV L2A3 submachine gun were the carbine’s 16-inch barrel and its closed-bolt operation. The receiver itself was similar to its submachine gun counterpart. The overall length of the Mark 6 Sterling is 35-inches with the stock extended and 27-inches with the stock folded. The carbine uses the same 34-round magazines as the submachine gun.

Sterling Mark 7 Pistol

The Sterling Mark 7 was a pistol variation of the Mark 6 carbine without a buttstock. The Mark 7 featured a 4-inch barrel extending through an 8-inch long barrel shroud. The pistol came with a 10-round magazine.

An import ban enacted in 1989 ended most of the importation of foreign semi-automatic rifles and carbines.

Police Automatic Weapons Services (PAWS)

Oregon Class II manufacturer, Bob Imel, had an interest in the British Sterling Mk IV L2A3 submachine gun design. To produce a U.S.-made copy of the Sterling, he formed the Police Automatic Weapons Service better known by the initials “PAWS.” During the 1970s Imel began to manufacture parts and receivers many years before the original surplus British Sterling part sets became available. The results of his efforts were the PAWS ZX-5 submachine gun in 9mm and the ZX-7 in .45ACP. The PAWS guns were only slightly different cosmetically than the Sterling Mk IV L2A3 submachine guns. The 9mm ZX-5 was designed to accept unmodified Sten magazines, in place of original Sterling magazines, due to cost and limited availability at the time. Because of the magazine-well configuration that was oriented 90-degrees to the receiver, the PAWS ZX-5 cannot accept original Sterling curved magazines. The .45 caliber ZX-7 model uses modified M-3 Grease Gun magazines. There were only a few hundred transferable ZX submachine guns made and registered, in .45 and 9mm, before production ceased with the enactment of the May 1986 McClure-Volkmer Amendments to the Gun Control Act, banning the manufacture and registration of transferable machine guns.

After the 1986 ban, Mr. Imel decided to create a semi-automatic carbine version of the PAWS submachine gun, in both 9mm, the ZX 6 and .45 ACP the ZX 8, with the parts left over from his machine gun production line. At that time the market for semi-auto submachine gun clones was flourishing. He started with an ATF-approved receiver design that was similar to and built to the same standards as his submachine guns but that used a closed-bolt design. The carbines came fitted with a 16.5-inch barrel and an UZI-type barrel nut. The blow back carbines weighed 7.5-pounds unloaded and were approximately 35-inches long with the stock in an extended position.

Prior to the 1986 machine gun ban, a number of submachine guns were constructed from part sets. Although the receivers could not be imported, it was legal (AFTER ATF approval) to assemble and register a machine gun with a new U.S.-made receiver. Many World War II submachine gun receivers were made of tubing for ease of wartime manufacturing. One of the most popular was the British Sten Mk II, primarily due to a large number of inexpensive parts. Another popular “tube gun” was the German MP40. Made in smaller numbers were the subguns like the Swedish K due to a limited number of spare part sets.

Submachine gun part sets from the Mk IV L2A3 Sterling were conspicuously absent only because the weapon was still in service with the British and many other countries. Although there were a very small number of original Sterlings in the U.S., most were dealer samples. The desirable Sterling submachine gun was seldom encountered in collections or on the firing line. It wasn’t until around 1994 that Sterling part sets began to be imported. However, eight years after the machine gun ban, there were relatively few registered receiver tubes available that had not been assembled into guns.

Stan Andrewski, a Class II manufacturer from New Hampshire, discovered that Sten Mk II receiver tubes shared many of the same dimensions as the Sterling Mk IV L2A3 submachine gun, except for the position and width of the cocking handle slot. The Sten’s slot is located at 50 degrees on its receiver, while the Sterling’s slot is located at a 60-degree position and is narrower than the Sten’s. Mr. Andrewski believed that the Sten-to-Sterling conversion had merit and sought permission from the Firearms Technology Branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for the conversion. Although ATF eventually granted permission for the Sten-to-Sterling conversion, narrowing of the cocking handle slot was not permitted. This hurdle was overcome by modifying the cocking handle, so the interior portion engages the bolt while the exterior handle travels in the 10-degree offset slot. This is achieved by cutting off the handle section itself and then MIG welding it back at a slightly lower position. The cocking handle has flange added to it, so it fits properly in the wider slot and retains the bolt at the correct angle. The cocking handle and cocking handle block are modified by drilling a hole in each, so the plunger protrudes through them to secure the cocking handle. This makes it a little harder to remove the cocking handle because the plunger must be depressed with a small diameter pin punch, while at the same time pulling outward on the cocking handle sometimes requiring a third hand to accomplish. Due to Mr. Andrewski’s efforts, a number of transferable Sten guns were reconfigured into Sterling submachine guns. Florida Class II manufacturer Don Quinnell also began performing the conversions. Finally, after many years, a transferable “Sterling” submachine gun was available!

Since the initial conversions were approved in 1997, a small number of virgin pre-1986 registered DLO, and a few Wilson-made receiver tubes have surfaced with a Sterling-spec narrow cocking handle slot, allowing an unaltered cocking handle to be used. This quickly resulted in the Sten-tube conversions with the wider cocking handle slot to be snubbed by some and bestowed with the rather condescending nickname “Stenlings.” However, in reality, both are still just “tube guns,” in turn probably slighted by the handful of fortunate owners of “real” British-made Sterling Mk IV L2A3 submachine guns.

With a large number of Sterling parts kits (less receivers) being imported, it was only a matter of time before someone would begin assembling the parts into a semi-automatic carbine. To comply with U.S. laws, the carbines had to have a barrel with a minimum length of 16 inches. Wise Lite Arms of Boyd, Texas, produced a semi-auto carbine and pistol version of the classic Sterling. The carbines were assembled using a mix of newly made U.S. parts (bolt and barrel) and parts from demilitarized Sterling Mark IV parts kits. The Wise Lite carbines operate from a closed bolt to comply with U.S. laws. The pistol version lacking a butt stock has a 4.5-inch barrel.

There aren’t a lot of original accessories available for Sterlings, other than slings, magazine pouches and bayonets. Spare parts kits can still be found; however, many of the kits were bought by fans of the “Star Wars” films. The weapons carried by the Storm Troopers in the films were Sterlings modified for a futuristic look.

(Dan’s note: most of the original “Star Wars” used Sterlings were deactivated to UK standard and sold on the market in the UK.)

By Alton P. Chiu

Avtomat Kalashnikov, a storied and proven rifle, is adored by both militaries and citizens alike. However, its propensity for vigorous cycling and ejection can cause complications with sound suppressors as well as induce premature wear and tear even when unsuppressed. The KNS adjustable gas piston mitigates this overgassed condition that factory rifles commonly arrive with.

Principle of Operation

Unlike an AR-15 gas block, the AK’s is interference-fitted to the barrel and requires a shop press to remove. Although aftermarket adjustable gas blocks exist, they cannot be easily installed at home. The KNS adjustable gas piston changed that as it only requires one to field-strip the rifle; installation can be accomplished by hand tools. No permanent modification is necessary, so there are no qualms partnering it with a collectable parts kit.

A hole at the tip of the KNS piston channels excess gas to a vent further back on the piston, whereby it makes its way out of the gas tube. The size of the piston vent hole is regulated by a collar in order to soften the recoil impulse and facilitate controllable rapid fire. The collar moves axially along the piston by threading around it like a nut.

KNS produces variants with different thread pitches, hole distances and working lengths to fit the AK family (including but not limited to AKM, Arsenal, Yugo, Krinkov) and even its extended cousins (e.g., Valmet, Galil). For this article, the AGP-A-20S model was evaluated on an Arsenal SLR106F chambered in 5.56x45mm which sported a 16-inch barrel.

Installation

The rifle was field stripped and the bolt carrier, sans bolt, was removed to a vise. Note that the bolt carrier is hollow, and the vise jaws should be applied to the piston to avoid damage. The author then searched for the rivet securing piston to carrier with a good light source in order to remove the OEM piston. During installation at the factory, a rivet was bucked on both sides into the countersunk holes on the carrier. The excess material was then ground down and finish applied over. The one on the Arsenal ran side-to-side and was fairly well hidden. The author prepared the rivet for drilling by first creating a divot with a center-punch. A 5/64-inch drill bit was applied about 2mm deep before the punch and hammer were used in earnest to drive out the factory rivet. The OEM piston could then be unthreaded from the carrier.

The KNS piston came pre-drilled in two axis so that a hole is visible with every quarter turn. The piston was then threaded into the carrier until the holes were aligned and the roll pin inserted. This pre-drilling saves the end user from needing a drill press as in the traditional assembly process. As with the factory counterpart, there was some wiggle in the KNS piston to carrier fit which did not impede function.

The author found the installation procedure quick and easy, requiring only a standard hand tool he already owned. However, KNS also offers an installation service with same-day turnaround for a small fee.

Shooting Test: Methodology

Since the test rifle is chambered in 5.56x45mm with a 1:7 twist barrel, the author used five different ammunition loads (in both 5.56 and .223 pressures) as the treatments. Changes in group size, point-of-impact and felt recoil (measured qualitatively) form the response variables.

Federal XM193 55gr and XM855 62gr represented the 5.56 pressured ammunition. Wolf Polyformance 62gr HP and 55gr FMJ provided data for .223 pressured ammunition. Lastly, the author’s handload for across-the-course high power matches (75gr Hornady HPBT, 24gr Ramshot TAC, CCI #41, LC case) provided a data point in between the two pressures.

To reduce the atmospheric effects, targets were placed 25m distant. To reduce the effects of a heated chamber, five shot strings followed by a 3-minute cool down period were observed. To reduce bias from factors such as shooter fatigue and lighting variations throughout the test session, a random treatment (i.e., ammunition) was drawn for each five shot string with no repeats allowed. The strings were repeated until 10 shots were fired for each treatment. To avoid swapping pistons repeatedly, the author first collected factory piston data in one session with KNS piston data collected later. The sights were not adjusted during testing, and a 6 o’clock hold was used on a 4cmx4cm square.

Shooting Test: Data and Discussion

Following KNS instructions, the author started with the collar fully closed and then opened five clicks at a time until short-stroking occurred. The collar was then closed two clicks at a time until reliable cycling was achieved. Wolf Polyformance 55gr FMJ had one out of 10 failure-to-cycle with the OEM piston, but it adamantly refused to cycle even with the KNS piston collar fully closed. Wolf Polyformance 62gr HP had four out of 10 failures-to-cycle with the OEM piston and also wholeheartedly declined to cycle a fully closed KNS piston. While their muzzle velocity data are included in this article for completeness, they are considered “no-tests” and not further analysed. Note that this is not an indictment on the ammunition, rifle, or piston; it merely illustrates the challenge in achieving reliability across numerous variables.

Using the OEM piston, the empty brass of XM193, XM855 and 75gr handload all exhibited dents from impacting the dust cover and were flung to a 2 o’clock position 15 feet away. The excess gas also drove the rifle off-target with every shot. Using the KNS piston, XM193 cycled reliably with the collar 13 clicks open, XM855 11 clicks open and 75gr handload five clicks open. As adjusted, none of the brass exhibited dents. XM193 and 75gr handload deposited brass at 3 o’clock four feet away while XM855 ejected brass at 4 o’clock 10 feet distant. All three ammunition types cycled notably softer with the rifle staying on target. As the tabulated data shows, there was no discernible difference in muzzle velocity between the OEM and KNS pistons.

On the other hand, plots of the shot groups show a shift in point-of-impact but not in group size. While not statistically significant, the shift does illustrate an interesting trend. 75gr handload shows a marginally decreased group size (0.2 MRAD) with the KNS piston as well as a sizeable lateral shift of the group center (0.9 MRAD). XM855 exhibited a nearly identical group size and marginal lateral shift of the group center. XM193 displayed no change in group size and a diagonal up-and-right shift in group center. While providing a reason would be pure conjecture, it is reasonable to expect needing a re-zero after installing the KNS piston.

Also, note the horizontal pattern of the 75gr handload compared to the predominantly vertical pattern of the XM855 and the circular pattern of the XM193. It is reassuring that changing the piston did not visibly affect the way the rifle patterns.

Conclusion

The KNS adjustable AK gas piston is a worthwhile addition for mitigating the overgassed condition that factory rifles commonly suffer from. It notably reduced recoil and muzzle jump while the resulting slower bolt speed should increase parts life. Indeed, this piston may help a shooter win so much that one gets tired of winning.