Don’t Fake Your Love Letters

One of the great challenges of writing a regular column for a magazine is embracing the lag between writing the column and having it published. There’s a lot that goes on in between those two events, and it takes effort and time to get things right. That lag also means that it can be difficult to maintain a firm connection with current events, but I don’t think that this column will have a problem with currency in this issue. As this column is being written, there is a small kerfuffle (always wanted to use that word in this column!) on social media regarding a small aspect of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

The latest topic that is fanning the flames is the current activity deployed by ATF’s NFA Division in regard to dealer sample machine guns. Back tracking a moment, the machine gun world in the United States is divided roughly among fully transferable firearms, so-called “pre-May” dealer samples and post-May dealer samples, also known as “posties.” FFL/SOT’s have been able to obtain these posties by way of submitting documentation, along with the Form 3 application for transfer, that establishes that the firearm is particularly suitable for use by a law enforcement agency (or military unit). Such information must show why a sales sample of a particular firearm is suitable for such use and the expected governmental customers who would require a demonstration of the firearm. Information as to the availability of the firearm to fill subsequent orders and letters from governmental entities expressing a need for a particular model or interest in seeing a demonstration of a particular firearm would establish suitability for governmental use. This documentation is often called a “love letter” and has been a long-standing component of the NFA landscape. Some dealers obtained these love letters with ease, and others encountered great difficulty. Apparently, ATF has now decided that some love letters are not quite what they seem and have begun verification of the letters.

Of course, there is a great deal of jumping to conclusions: “Love letters are dead!” “Prices will sky-rocket for the going-out-of-business posties!” “ATF is changing the rules again!” “I predicted the end of this!” A copy of a recent rejection of a love letter has surfaced, and it seems to be the focus of the consternation as shown above.

As is often the case, the ire of social media may, indeed, be slightly misplaced. Most, if not all, FFL/SOTs are still able to utilize bona fide love letters to justify the acquisition of a postie. There is no end to the process, as codified in Federal regulation. There is no change at the NFA Division in Martinsburg, West Virginia. NFA Division has always investigated transfer requests that may be viewed as suspicious. Yet seeing proof of NFA Division doing its job has become a cause celebre’ for the denizens of Facebook and gun forums. Nothing has changed. You can still use a love letter to obtain a postie. What you cannot do is abuse the system. And you absolutely must make certain that the love letter process is legitimate: The CLEO executing the validating statement understands what he or she is affirming and that NFA Division may actually verify the document. Further, the love letter states that a demonstration is requested for contemplation of a future purchase. Don’t submit the letter if you have no intention of doing the demonstration! In short, don’t fake the love letter.

The NFATCA reviews these types of issues on a very regular basis. Let us know if you run across something that catches your eye! We will be happy to check things out and provide some basis in fact for what appears to be happening. Send us an email at info@nfatca.org. Or visit us online at nfatca.org or facebook.com/NFATCA.

A Word to the Wise— Don’t Forget About OFAC!

Oh, who? OFAC. It is the Office of Foreign Assets Control, a small but extremely powerful agency in the U.S. Department of the Treasury charged with administering and enforcing the economic and trade sanctions of the United States. OFAC’s mission is based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals against certain foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, weapons proliferators and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States. Its primary statutory authorities are the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) and the United Nations Participation Act (UNPA). These laws are implemented principally through presidential executive orders and OFAC regulations, codified at 31 C.F.R. Ch. V. In certain instances, Congress may legislate certain sanctions. This is true for the sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Venezuela and Russia. Most recently, Congress passed the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which imposes new sanctions on Iran, Russia and North Korea.

All too often, U.S. companies engaged in international trade focus on the export license requirements and restrictions of the U.S. Departments of State and Commerce, but fail to appreciate the swift and harsh repercussions that can come about, usually first in the form of blocked or frozen funds or enforcement penalties, when U.S. sanctions are violated. It is important to remember that OFAC sanctions apply regardless of whether an export license has been obtained from either the U.S. Department of Commerce or the U.S. Department of State.

A. U.S. Sanctions—What Are They and Who Is Subject?

OFAC implements approximately 30 sanctions programs, which range from comprehensive to limited, through blocking (freezing) assets and implementing trade restrictions. Because the sanctions are imposed, modified or lifted depending upon the foreign policy and national security objectives of the U.S. Government, each program has different levels of restrictions and can vary significantly depending on the target.

1. Comprehensive Sanctions

The comprehensive sanctions, so termed because of their broad scope of coverage and geographic orientation, generally prohibit the following activities: direct and indirect exports and imports of goods, technology, services, trade brokering, financing or facilitation, as well as any attempt to evade or avoid the sanctions. These restrictions apply to most goods, technology and services; although there are certain limited exceptions. North Korea, Iran, Syria and Cuba are examples of comprehensive sanctions.

2. Limited Sanctions

OFAC also implements limited sanctions that target individuals and companies owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of certain regimes, as well as individuals, groups and entities, that engage in certain activity, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers, so-designated under sanctions programs that are not country-specific. These sanctions are “list-based,” meaning the targeted entities and individuals are listed on any one of OFAC’s sanctions lists, such as the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (“SDN List”), the Non-SDN Iran Sanctions Act List and the Sectoral Sanctions Identifications List (“SSI List”), implemented pursuant to the Russian-Ukraine Sanctions. These sanctions generally prohibit transferring, paying, exporting, withdrawing or otherwise dealing in blocked property.

The SDN List is the largest list of sanctioned and blocked persons that OFAC maintains. It contains over 5800 entries, including individuals, entities, vessels and aircraft designated or identified as blocked under a particular sanctions program. All property and interests in property of a SDN that comes under U.S. jurisdiction is immediately blocked or frozen, which imposes an across-the-board prohibition against transfers or transactions of any kind involving the property. When a corporation, including a bank, blocks a prohibited payment it must report the action to OFAC within 10 days.

OFAC defines “property” in sweeping terms to include anything of value. This includes money, checks, drafts, debts, obligations, notes, warehouse receipts, bills of sale, evidences of title, contracts, negotiable instruments, trade acceptance, goods, wares, merchandise and anything else real, personal or mixed, intellectual property and intangible assets. “Property interest” is defined as any interest whatsoever, direct or indirect.

OFAC offers a Sanctions List Search application to the public that enables searches against all the OFAC lists. This tool is available at sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov. The sanctions lists are updated frequently, so it is critical that U.S. companies and individuals wishing to engage in international business check the transaction parties against the OFAC lists early and often. Many of the individuals and entities named on the list are known to move from country to country and may end up in unexpected locations. Furthermore, OFAC’s sanctions programs are constantly changing, so it should be checked frequently and before each new international transaction.

It is important to note there are several U.S. Government lists in addition to the OFAC lists that U.S. persons should check before proceeding with any transaction involving the export, reexport or import of goods, services or technical data, to ensure no parties are debarred or require special licensing. These lists are maintained by other federal agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Commerce and State. The Consolidated Screening List (CSL) is a list of parties for which the U.S. Government maintains restrictions on exports, reexports or transfers of items. The CSL is accessible at build.export.gov/main/ecr/eg_main_023148, and there is a CSL search engine, downloadable CSL files and other tools to aid industry in conducting party screening.

3. The 50% Rule

U.S. persons are prohibited from dealing with SDNs wherever they are located and all SDN assets are blocked. In addition, entities that a person on the SDN List owns (defined as a direct or indirect ownership interest of 50% or more in the aggregate) are also blocked, regardless of whether that entity is separately named on the SDN List. This is known as the 50% Rule and can be quite daunting from a compliance and due diligence perspective.

For example, under the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations (examined more closely below), OFAC regulations at 31 C.F.R. § 589.406 state: “[a] person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to §589.201 has an interest in all property and interests in property of an entity in which it owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest. The property and interests in property of such an entity, therefore, are blocked, and such an entity is a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to §589.201, regardless of whether the name of the entity is incorporated into OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).“

OFAC’s 50% Rule speaks only to ownership, not to control. Consequently, transactions with a company in which a sanctioned entity owns 50% or more interest are prohibited in the same way as transactions directly with the sanctioned entity, regardless of whether that company itself is listed on any of OFAC’s lists. According to its Frequently Asked Question No. 40, “OFAC urges persons considering a potential transaction to conduct appropriate due diligence on entities that are party to or involved with the transaction or with which account relationships are maintained in order to determine relevant ownership stakes.” This means that U.S. exporters and importers should conduct thorough due diligence to determine whether the 50% rule applies to any party to a transaction.

B. OFAC Jurisdiction

OFAC has sweeping jurisdiction over U.S. persons and persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction. This includes U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens (“green card” holders) whether in the United States or abroad, entities organized and formed under U.S. law, including foreign branches, and any individual or entity physically located in the United States at the time of the activity, regardless of nationality. Under certain sanctions programs (Iran and Cuba), entities owned or controlled by a U.S. person and established or maintained outside the United States are also subject to OFAC’s jurisdiction.

OFAC sanctions also prohibit the facilitation of foreign trade with targets of U.S. sanctions. The facilitation prohibitions prevent U.S. persons from undermining sanctions through indirect support and apply to approving, financing, guaranteeing or otherwise assisting foreign trade with a sanctions target, changing policies or procedures to permit foreign affiliates to engage in activities with a sanctions target that previously required U.S. approval and even referring declined business opportunities to a foreign party.

C. The Ukraine/Russia-Related Sanctions Program

In 2014, President Obama issued four Executive Orders in response to the Russian Federation’s actions against Ukraine. These Executive Orders had a significant impact on the firearms and ammunition export/import industries. It started with EO 13660 (March 6, 2014), which declared a national emergency to deal with the threat posed by the actions and policies of certain persons who had undermined democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine, as well as threatening peace, security, stability, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

The scope of the Russian sanctions were subsequently expanded by EO 13661 (March 16, 2014), 13662 (March 20, 2018) by adding persons/entities to the SDN or prohibiting transactions with certain Russian sectors. Kalashnikov Concern was one such entity added to the SDN List on July 16, 2014, pursuant to EO 13662.

These sanctions, known as the “Sectoral Sanctions,” were introduced in EO 13662 and are implemented through Directives. They impose prohibitions on U.S. persons for certain specified transactions with entities identified in the Sectoral Sanctions Identification List (“SSI List”). Under Directive 3, which applies to the defense and related materiel sector of the Russian Federation economy, U.S. persons are prohibited from transacting in, providing financing for and other dealings in new debt of longer than 30 days maturity of persons determined to be subject to this Directive, their property or their interests in property. OFAC also applies the 50% Rule to entities on the SSI List. All other activities with these persons or involving their property or interests in property are permitted, provided such activities are not otherwise prohibited pursuant to Executive Orders 13660, 13661 or 13662 or any other sanctions program implemented by the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

In December 2014, the President issued and EO 13685, which prohibits U.S. persons from exporting or importing any goods, services or technology to or from the Crimean region of Ukraine or from undertaking new investment in the Crimea region.

D. OFAC Compliance and Enforcement

OFAC may learn about violations in a number of ways, including self-disclosures, blocked and rejected property reports, current investigations, referrals from other U.S. agencies as well as foreign government agencies, informants, disgruntled employees, public interest watch dog groups, competitors and other publicly available information.

The penalties for violating OFAC sanctions are substantial and depend on the sanctions program. Treasury imposes civil penalties, while criminal cases are prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Under IEEPA, civil penalties can be up to $250,000 per violation or twice the transaction value, whichever is greater, but OFAC must adjust penalties upward pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.

It is also important to note that OFAC violations are subject to strict liability. This means that OFAC only has to prove a violation occurred. OFAC does not have to prove the U.S. person intentionally or knowingly violated the sanctions. In addition, OFAC violations also lead to denial or debarment of export privileges under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

In evaluating whether to impose civil penalties, OFAC looks at the characteristics of the violation, including whether the violation was willful or reckless, what was the harm to the sanctions program, the extent of remediation and the awareness of the conduct. OFAC also takes into consideration the characteristics of the violator, including the presence of an effective compliance program, cooperation with OFAC, previous enforcement actions and steps to ensure future compliance/deter similar actions. OFAC publishes a base civil penalty calculation matrix which takes into consideration (1) whether there was a voluntary self-disclosures; and (2) whether the violation was egregious.

OFAC’s responses to violations can range from a no-action letter, a cautionary letter, a finding of a violation or a civil penalty. Violations may also result in referrals to the Department of Justice for criminal enforcement, blocked funds and seized goods, license revocation, as well as negative publicity or loss of business.

E. Illustrative Enforcement Case—JPMorgan Chase

In October 2018, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan”), settled potential civil liability for apparent violations of multiple sanctions programs, including the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations and the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations. The cost of the settlement to JPMorgan was $5,263,171. It should be noted, (1) the settlement amount does not include the amount paid in attorney’s fees to negotiate the settlement; and (2) the total base penalty amount for the violations was $7,797,290, but the amount was reduced in part because JPMorgan voluntarily self-disclosed the apparent violations, which OFAC also found to be non-egregious case.

OFAC took into consideration several facts and circumstances, some of which were aggravating factors, and others were mitigating. Among the aggravating factors, OFAC determined JPMorgan appears to have acted with reckless disregard for its sanctions compliance obligations when it failed to screen participating entities in particular settlement transactions even though the bank had the necessary information to enable screening. Further, OFAC found JPMorgan engaged in a pattern of conduct in missing red flags and other warning signs on several occasions, including two separate occasions in 2011 when the bank received express notification from its client regarding OFAC-sanctioned entities participating in a settlement mechanism.

Included in the mitigating factors was the fact that JPMorgan cooperated with OFAC’s investigation of the apparent violations, including by entering into a retroactive tolling agreement (and multiple extensions thereof) to toll the statute of limitations. Also, the bank took several steps as part of a risk-based sanctions compliance program to prevent similar apparent violations in the future.

Among other things, this case exemplifies the significant risks when a U.S. person fails to take adequate steps to ensure transactions in which it engages or processes are compliant with OFAC sanctions, and the aggravating factor when a U.S. person has actual knowledge or reason to know, prior to the transaction being effected, of an SDN’s past, present or future interest in such a transaction. Likewise, the case also underscores the importance of a compliance program and the mitigating weight proactive measures may have if properly implemented in the wake of discovering violations.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

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 (reevesdola.com). For more than 15 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.

“The Foreigner”

Jackie Chan is one of the greatest martial arts masters in the world. He has been starring in movies since the 1960s and is well known for his physical comedy and for doing his own stunts. Some of his movies include the “Rush Hour” movies, “Shanghai Noon,” “Shanghai Knights” and “The Forbidden Kingdom.” One of his most recent movies is “The Foreigner.” Based on the book, The Chinaman, by Stephen Leather, Jackie Chan plays an older man named Quan who loses his daughter when she is killed in a terrorist bombing. Filled with anger and wanting revenge, he spends the rest of the movie hunting down the people responsible for his daughter’s death. In order to accomplish this, he pursues and pressures a Northern Ireland politician named Liam, played by Pierce Brosnan, believing he knows the location of the terrorists.

In one scene in the movie, Jackie Chan’s character smuggles a gun into an apartment using a tool bag. The gun is an ArmaLite AR-180 without the buttstock and has an improvised suppressor at the end of the barrel. The ArmaLite AR-180 is the semi-automatic version of the AR-18, a rifle designed by Arthur Miller—the same man who helped design the AR-15 with Eugene Stoner, who later designed the Stoner 63. The ArmaLite AR-180 shoots 5.56x45mm NATO from a number of different capacity magazines at a rate of 750 rounds per minute. The AR-180 in the movie was made by the Sterling Armaments Company in the UK. There was also a special prop gun made for the movie. The rifle was not a big hit in the market, but it was influential in the creation of other rifles, including the Japanese Howa Type 89.

Another gun used in the movie is the SIG SG 552 Commando. It is used by Liam’s nephew Sean, played by Rory Fleck-Byrne. He uses it on a hunt for Quan in the woods near where his uncle is hiding. The SG 552 Commando was produced in Switzerland by SIG Combibloc Group. It is one of many variants of the SIG SG 550. It has a shorter barrel than the other variants, and it shoots 5.56x45mm NATO from a number of different magazines at a rate of 700 rounds per minute. The gun is used by a number of different countries, including the UK, Finland, Malaysia, Italy and the country that produces it, Switzerland.

Other firearms used in the movie include the Beretta 92FS, Glock 17 and Heckler & Koch USP used by the terrorists in a gun fight with Quan. British authorities carry HK G36C rifles during a raid against the terrorists, while snipers use Lewis Machine & Tool’s L129A1 rifles to cover them. In one scene in the film, security officers at an airport are seen carrying HK MP5A4 submachine guns while looking for a bomb. A Makarov PM, an M3 Grease Gun and an HK USP Compact also make an appearance in the movie.

Both Jackie Chan and Pierce Brosnan do an excellent job with their performances, especially when they are in the same room together. The rest of the cast does a good job with their roles as well, including Rory Fleck Byrne and Charlie Murphy. The movie did well at the box office but had mixed reviews from critics. It is still a very well done movie and is certainly worth a watch. Whether you buy it or rent it, please enjoy the film, as well as any movie starring Jackie Chan.

Guns of the Cold War

Communist Bloc Handguns does a wonderful job of describing and illustrating the various handguns originating in the former Soviet Union and other communist countries.

Drawing on author George Layman’s 21-year career in the U.S. Army as an Intelligence Analyst and Translator and his lifelong interest in guns, this title will provide many details about “ComBloc” sidearms. This information has been difficult to find in the past.

The bulk of the book is comprised of the first 10 chapters. They detail the various communist countries that actually produced arms, rather than simply buying guns made elsewhere. The chapters are arranged alphabetically (the exception being the USSR being moved to Chapter 1) and then chronologically. This way, we read about Soviet production of the M1895 Nagant Revolver, followed by the TT-33 Tokarev, then the 9x18mm Makarov, and finally the extremely rare 5.45x18mm PSM pistol. The following chapters cover arms from Bulgaria, China, Czechoslovakia (still one country at the time), DDR/East Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia (still one country at the time).

The final three chapters are: Miscellaneous & Post-Cold War Copies, ComBloc Surplus Ammo and Shooting ComBloc Handguns. The Post-Cold War Copies chapter deals with commercial production (mainly for the U.S. market) following the collapse of the Iron Curtain. While Russia and China seldom sell their surplus military arms, they have willingly produced new commercial copies for the civilian market.

This is a high-quality book, with many clear, crisp, color photos throughout. The photos have a professional studio lighting look to them, which really makes them pop. The quality glossy paper also helps this effect. Many of the photos, and the guns themselves, are from one private collection. Beside the guns, there are many holsters and accessories featured as well.

This is another quality title from Mowbray Publishing. Regular readers of this column may recognize Mowbray as the source of other fine books reviewed recently by this author. These include: The Italian Vetterli, Military Rifle Disassembly and Reassembly, Military Pistol and Revolver Disassembly and Reassembly, and the superb M1 Garand Rifle book by Bruce Canfield.

Communist Bloc Handguns

Author: George Layman
Publisher: Mowbray Publishing, www.gunandswordcollector.com
ISBN: 978-1931464819
Paperback: 8.5” x 11”, 160 pages, 452 color photos
MSRP: $39.95

Small Arms Technology in the Face of Opposition

Genesis

Better known than either the Korsak E.M.1 or the Thorpe E.M.1 bullpup firearms covered so far in this series, is the so-called “Janson E.M.2.” It is often incorrectly supposed to be a direct ancestor of Britain’s present-day L85, but in fact, only the concept was retained in the SA80. Stefan Kenneth Janson was the Anglicised adopted name of Captain Kazimierz-Stefan Januszewski, who in 1949 was head of a team of immigrant firearms designers based at Cheshunt, under the aegis of the “C.E.A.D.” or “Chief Engineer & Superintendent of Armaments Design;” in turn part of the Armament Design Establishment (ADE), which had been relocated from RSAF Enfield during the war.

It should be noted that Janson’s E.M.2 was the second weapon to bear the designation. The first, developed c1945-1947, was an inertia-locked blowback design with fluted chamber credited to a Lieutenant Jeziorański (whose name was habitually misspelled in official British documents). Work on this original E.M.2 was ordered stopped in 1947, save for a trial to be carried out with a weapon converted to chamber the U.S. T65 cartridge; unfortunately, nothing is known about this weapon. It seems to have been at this point that the weapon was retrospectively dubbed “E.M.2 Jesieranski.” (There is some disagreement on whether “E.M.” stood for “Experimental Model” or “Enfield Model.”) The Jeziorański E.M.2 bore two ADE codenames during development: first “Mamba” and latterly (c.1951) “Yellow Acorn.”

Around the same time as this, the Korsak E.M.1 was selected as the starting point for the development of a potential new service rifle. Januszewski, who had worked under Korsak on the E.M.1, was selected to take the helm on this new project. Assisting was Sydney Hance, who would go on to design the original incarnation of the SA80. Leading the Armaments Design Establishment was Colonel Noel Kent-Lemon of the Royal Artillery, who would later shepherd into service the L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle.

Description

Januszewski’s design retained the receiver arrangement of Korsak’s gun, inspired by the FG42 (1st model), with its push-button disassembly latch, rotate-to-remove butt-plate/return spring/guide rod assembly and push-pin grip frame. The magazine shares the built-in sliding charger guide of the Thorpe E.M.1 and a similar rocker-type magazine catch arrangement. Later variants included a welded-on shroud/guard to prevent accidental activation. This is located on the left side of the receiver, most likely to prevent a soldier’s own equipment from fouling the catch. It is not clear from the provisional manual which hand was used to remove and fit the magazine, but in any case, the shroud does not prevent access by the support hand thumb if the weapon is loaded as per modern practice. This modification would certainly have been required for military issue, given the exposed location and weak spring of the magazine catch.

The rest of the weapon was substantially redesigned. It was significantly lightened, partly by virtue of a permanently fixed “pencil”-profile rifle barrel, rather than the heavy barrel of the Korsak. This was now chambered for the new .280 Enfield intermediate cartridge. The gas system reverted to long-stroke operation, still with a typical rotary adjustable gas plug having Normal (“N”), Excess (“E”) and (in later variants) Shutoff (“S”) positions. Roller-locking was also abandoned, but there was no return to the twin front rotating lugs of the FG-42. Instead the Korsak’s rollers were replaced by a pair of laterally-acting, wedge-shaped lugs, close to those used in the German G41 and G43 rifles. These are forced into recesses in the receiver by means of the firing pin assembly, which is driven between the lugs when the weapon is in battery. When the lugs are not engaged, they prevent the firing pin from being released prematurely. There is no bolt carrier but rather a very complex bolt assembly (“breech block”) with the outer forward portion acting as the bolt face, with the two lugs positioned just behind it. Cocking is achieved by the round lug on the piston assembly, which fits into a hole in the bolt (breech block), and when the piston is pulled back (either by hand or in recoil) the firing pin/striker is withdrawn, allowing it to be caught by the spring-loaded sear on the bottom of the bolt. Cocking the weapon is difficult, in large part due to the physical effort required to draw back the striker. Designs that use the bolt carrier to override a pivoting hammer simply afford more mechanical advantage than those that require the user to pull back a striker spring via a mechanical linkage—in this case, the piston itself.

The entire trigger group was redesigned. The trigger mechanism was much simpler than Thorpe’s E.M.1 and even Korsak’s ingenious “slide” trigger linkage. However, it did resort to a form of the now-standard linkage bar approach, referred to as the “tripping lever.” Although this is rather shorter and more rigid than is typically found in modern bullpups, the trigger pull remains indistinct and measures at a staggering 15 pounds on a trigger tester gauge. It is one of the worst triggers that the author has ever experienced, second only to the 20-pound pull of a “Brown Bess” musket! Other examples have been tested with lower pull weights, with the average likely sitting around 11 pounds. The safety catch is borrowed from the M1 Garand, being easily reached and operated by the trigger finger with some potential for accidental operation of the trigger due to the location of the safety lever inside the trigger guard. It also actuates a “safety bar” at the rear of the trigger group, which intrudes upward into the bolt and prevents the sear from being operated.

The fire selector (“change stud”) is a cross-bolt type similar to that of the German StG 44, with the right-hand position (which shows the marking “R” for “Rounds” or “Repetition”) being semi-automatic and the left (“A”) for automatic fire. The selector has a slot cut in the top that on semi-automatic mode is positioned under the center portion of the trigger bar (“tripping lever”). This does several things to the trigger bar/tripping lever. First, it pushes the large projection at the rear of the bar upwards and into a corresponding curved recess in the head of the bolt. This means that the bolt must now override the tripping lever (which it does as soon as it begins to move backward after firing). Second, it permits the bar to pivot about the axis of the selector “stud” and drop down into the slot in the selector. Finally, the bar is now free to reciprocate a short distance (there is a short track cut into the center of the tripping lever where the selector passes through). This angling and sliding of the trigger bar activates the disconnector (“sear lever”) by elevating it such that the bolt can override it and push it down. The tripping lever bears upon the disconnector (sear lever), which sits adjacent to it inside the trigger mechanism housing. This in turn pulls the sear lever downwards and out of engagement with the sear (which is housed within the bolt in this design). The weapon will now not fire again until the trigger is released, which permits the tripping lever and therefore the sear lever (disconnector) to pop back up again and reconnect the trigger with the sear lever.

Adoption

Although the weapon was developed in parallel with the Thorpe E.M.1, it was agreed with the Americans that the latter would be dropped from comparative trials in order to speed up the selection process. The E.M.2 was also clearly the more mature and user-friendly of the two. Trials at home and abroad convinced British authorities that this was the No.4 rifle replacement that they needed, and a unilateral decision was taken to adopt the weapon. This was despite the E.M.2 and indeed the other rifles having effectively failed U.S. trials on the basis of insufficient lethality.

These trials also concluded that the U.S. T25 Lightweight Rifle and the developmental T65 7.6 2mm (.30 caliber) round submitted for testing were “not suitable for Army Field Forces use because of its excessive recoil, blast, flash and smoke,” and nonetheless concluded that “of the basic types submitted for the test, the British .280 round is preferred.” This position was effectively overturned by the U.S. Board of Ordnance, which refused to accept any cartridge less powerful than the .30-06 in service with the M1 Garand. If anything, the U.S. at this stage favored the Belgian FN Herstal design that would become the FAL, but at the same time was obviously not yet convinced by the .280 cartridge; facts not lost on E.M.2’s detractors.

It is worth noting that Britain had not been wholly obstinate in its adherence to the .280. Compromises between the two calibers were offered by the UK, Canada and Belgium for NATO trials as early as 1950. These consisted of the “7mm Compromise” (7 x 51mm, in two different bullet weights), “7mm Optimum” (7 x 43mm, again with two different bullets), “7mm Second Optimum” (7 x 49.15mm) and “7mm High Velocity” (7 x 49.5mm). These pleased neither side, however. One might reasonably predict—as British E.M.2 detractors did—that the U.S. would come to adopt the FN rifle and the 7.62mm cartridge. Nonetheless, the E.M.2 was officially adopted in 1951 as Rifle, No.9 Mk I (note that the “other No.9” rifle, a .22 training weapon, is actually Rifle, N9; apparently the only “Naval Service Designation” ever applied to a small arm).

The latter variant (there had been several) of the .280 Enfield cartridge was adopted alongside it as “Cartridge, 7mm S.A.A. Ball, Mk.1Z.” According to Anthony Williams, this definitive version of the 7 x 43mm cartridge fired a 9.0 g bullet at 777 m/s (140 grains at 2,550 fps). The broader politics surrounding the adoption and cancellation of the E.M.2 are well detailed in the PhD thesis of Dr. Matthew Ford (chapters 4-6) and in his recent book Weapon of Choice.

E.M.2’s initial supporters included the Armament Design Establishment whose future depended upon a home-grown design and the Director of Infantry, for whom it seemed to fit the bill as a tactically flexible individual weapon. In particular, Infantry wanted a lightweight yet controllable automatic rifle in order to shift the fire base of the infantry section (squad) away from dependence upon the Bren LMG. Some later observers have argued that these institutions, along with the Director General of Artillery/Director of Artillery (Small Arms), worked together to try to ensure that the E.M.2 would be adopted regardless of external factors. In fact, as external circumstances changed, support for E.M.2 fell away. In the end, the No.9 rifle was to become the shortest-lived British service arm in history.

Decline

The E.M.2 was never to enter mass production. Famously, it was sunk by none other than Winston Churchill, whose Conservative party won the General Election in 1951. The E.M.2 had been something of a pet project for the outgoing Labour government, and Churchill was skeptical. After the U.S. announced in January 1952 that they would not adopt the .280 caliber, Churchill revealed a joint U.S.-UK decision made during talks in Washington that month. Both nations would hold off on adopting a new rifle and would reconsider their options. The actual exchange upon which all of the rumour and speculation about backroom deals with the U.S. is based follows below:

“Mr. Wyatt—Asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement, consequent upon his conversations in the United States of America, on the future of the .280 rifle.”

“The Prime Minister—As was indicated in the Communiqué which was issued after my talks in Washington on 9th January, neither we nor the United States consider it wise to take the important step of changing our rifles at the present time, and we shall both continue to rely upon rifles and ammunition which are now in stock or are being produced. Both countries will produce new rifles and ammunition on an experimental scale only, and this will apply to the production of the.280 rifle in the United Kingdom. Every effort will be made to produce a standard rifle and ammunition for all N.A.T.O. countries.”

“Mr. Wyatt—Does that mean that Her Majesty’s Government have now abandoned the hope of persuading the Americans that our rifle is better than theirs?”

“The Prime Minister—I see no prospect of carrying out that process of conversion.”

—House of Commons Debate
February 20, 1952, Vol 496 c234 234

.280 was clearly dead, and the E.M.2, despite continuing experimental work, was in serious trouble. It was clear that Churchill was going to go all-in on a common NATO rifle in a common NATO caliber, and that the Americans were unlikely to change their minds on E.M.2, even given a caliber change. Despite the politics involved, the move was arguably not a political one. As his later clarification (in which he also backs E.M.2 as a possible special-issue weapon for Paratroopers) shows, Churchill was convinced of the need for NATO standardization of both ammunition and small arms. This was partly to ease logistical supply in the field, but also in order to be able to better exploit the American industrial base that had allowed the Allies to win the Second World War. If Britain found itself short of rifles with a NATO/U.S.S.R. conflict looming, it would be able to place an order for more rather than rely on its own very limited production capability.

Standardization of small arms between the western powers was not a new idea. The standing British intent during the Second World War had been for Britain to adopt the .30-06 cartridge and the M1 Garand rifle; until it became apparent that the U.S. was determined to replace them. As British advocates and close-run comparative trials had failed to convince the U.S. or Canada of the superiority of either the .280 cartridge or the E.M.2 rifle, Churchill felt that British effort should concentrate upon convincing both countries to adopt the FN FAL alongside the nascent 7.62mm NATO cartridge. In fact, it appears that he took his decision under the illusion that this was practically a foregone conclusion, and, for a time, it looked as though he might have been right. Canada adopted the FAL in 1953, which only added momentum to the British drive toward the type. Of course, it soon became apparent that the U.S. was going to ditch the T48 FN FAL just as it had the E.M.2, and instead go it alone with a rechambered and modernized M1 Garand (T44, the future M14).

Although it was his primary motivation, Churchill’s standardization argument does not reflect his full view on the controversy. Whereas he claimed that he regarded the two designs as “neck and neck,” at one point even stating that he thought the .280 rifle “the best,” he was clearly not personally convinced by the E.M.2. In fact, Churchill was chief among a number of detractors in positions of influence that helped kill the weapon off even after it was successfully converted to 7.62 x 51mm. He was opposed to the very idea of a weapon designed around controllable automatic fire and was convinced that soldiers would waste precious ammunition if given the opportunity to do so. This appears to have naturally led him (and others who thought as he did) to view the more traditionally designed FAL in a full-power chambering—and especially a version modified for semi-automatic fire only—in a more favorable light. He further believed that “… the F.N. is a better weapon both with the bayonet and with the butt and is capable of giving confidence to a soldier in a mêlée.”

There had been engineering difficulties with converting E.M.2 to the new T65 cartridge, with the result that the three initial prototypes had had to be withdrawn from U.S. trials in 1952. By the time that small quantities of functional 7.62 x 51mm E.M.2 rifles had been produced, the type was already out of the running. Five thousand FAL rifles (X8E1) had already been ordered in December 1953 for troop trials and had acquitted themselves well. For its part, the E.M.2 had lost some of its favorable handling characteristics in the conversion to 7.62mm, losing any edge in performance (other than its shorter overall length) that it may have had over the FAL.

The Legend

Today, despite a very positive British military experience with the L1A1 SLR rifle, the E.M.2 enjoys a near-mythical “what might have been” reputation among small arms enthusiasts (especially British ones). This was cemented almost as soon as the rifle had failed and only grew with the distance of time. George Wigg MP reflected the views of many in Britain when he told Parliament that it was “… the finest rifle in the world” in 1963. In reality, the .280 Enfield cartridge failed to make its case as a substitute for existing full-power offerings. The weapon itself was also outperformed in trials by the FN, if only marginally. E.M.2 did come out on top in the U.S. sand and mud tests, for example, as this U.S. trials report shows (pp. 21-22).

There was a reasonable chance that the U.S. might adopt the FAL, and indeed Canada, Belgium and other countries did, making it a NATO standard rifle, if not the NATO standard that Churchill had sought. Januszewski’s is a complex and expensive design by comparison with the FAL, with its many different curved surfaces and recesses, each requiring separate or even multiple machining operations. Dugelby alleges that the bolt carrier assembly alone cost £50 to produce; well over £1,000 in today’s money, although it must be remembered that this was for a pre-production, practically hand-built weapon. Significant cost savings would no doubt have been made in a final redesign for mass-production, aside from the sheer economy of scale. For example, the wooden furniture and walnut veneer was slated to be replaced with a polymer fore-end and fiberglass cheekpiece, respectively. Yet as cheaply as the E.M.2 might have been made in the long run, it could not be made (or maintained) as cheaply as the FAL. Even the ADE admitted that the E.M.2 was costlier to produce, although it claimed that this was by design, since the weapon had been intended to serve (if required) as a “sniper rifle” (hence the complex bolt with its twin front locking lugs and, presumably, the machined receiver). One estimate placed projected production at six FAL rifles for every five E.M.2 models. Britain simply could not afford as many of the latter. Keeping the E.M.2 would have been just as political a decision as ditching it; taking a risk on an unproven and expensive home-grown design (even in 7.62 NATO) in order to prop up the UK small arms industry. It seems unlikely that such a “boutique” gun would have found success on the export market, and production would in any case have struggled to meet even domestic needs.

In any case, it is all too easy to criticize in hindsight those who made the “safe” call in the interests of international cooperation and a future where NATO, and especially the United States, would set military priorities and trends for decades to come. The FAL was not only cheaper, but faster and less risky to produce. With the Cold War burgeoning and with a substantial British post-WWII economic deficit, it made a lot of sense to license the FAL, especially if the gamble on NATO standardization had paid off. Churchill was not a lone voice of opposition to this mould-breaking futuristic weapon. There were inevitable complaints that a bullpup rifle could not be used for parade square drills. The weapon was light and compact certainly, but ergonomics were by no means stellar (and the trigger really is terrible). Recent developments in so-called “general-purpose calibers” indicate that the vaunted .280 cartridge was probably not the “ideal caliber” that it is often still claimed to be. Even one of its most vocal advocates (Wigg) had to admit in a political rearguard action fought in the House of Commons in 1954 that E.M.2 looked “… more like the weapon associated with Chicago gangsters than a military weapon ….” In the subsequent vote, fellow E.M.2 advocate Woodrow Wyatt MP failed (albeit by only 34 votes) to gain support for his motion “that this House deplores the decision of Her Majesty’s Government to adopt the Belgian F.N. rifle for use by the British Army in place of the new British E.M.2 rifle.”

On the other hand, the E.M.2 was undoubtedly a design ahead of its time; a lightweight, straight-line design, bullpup, select-fire assault rifle fitted with an optical sight as standard and chambered for a true intermediate caliber cartridge. If we do allow the luxury of hindsight, time and experience have shown that Churchill and others placed excessive emphasis on strict standardization and interoperability, as even those nations adopting the FAL settled on different build standards. Today, NATO countries maintain their own logistical chains for the most part, and even common cartridge types are not necessarily interchangeable in the many different small arms in use across the organization.

In recent years, reliance upon intermediate cartridges and emphasis upon bullpup designs have also been challenged; although this has occurred well beyond the likely service life of E.M.2. In any case, Januszewski, Kent-Lemon, Hance and the rest of the ADE team deserve credit for pushing the small arms technology envelope as far as it would go in the face of robust opposition and very nearly succeeding. Today’s near-universal military adoption of intermediate-caliber, selective-fire rifles with optical sights (many of which embody either straight-line design, bullpup layout or both) shows that the concept was sound, even if the execution and political support was lacking.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

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, and to the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom at Shrivenham, for allowing us to handle and fire an E.M.2 rifle. Thanks are also due to Neil Grant.

This is Part 3 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, and Part 2, “The British Thorpe E.M.1 Automatic Rifle” appeared in Small Arms Review, Vol. 23, No. 1.

See armamentresearch.com for further original content.

(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)

ST ENGINEERING
Compact Personal Weapon (CPW)

ST Engineering’s CPW is a cost-effective and compact submachine gun made of strong yet light engineering plastic and aluminum alloy. Its unique cam recoil mitigation mechanism reduces recoil significantly with delayed blowback operation for accurate and controlled firing. The retractable buttstock allows CPW to be handled and carried like a conventional pistol for easy concealment for law enforcement and security forces. stengg.com/en

Technical Specifications
Species: Semi-automatic & Auto
Caliber(s): 9x19mm
Overall Length Standard Model: 393–597mm
Barrel Lengths Available: 180mm
Weight, Standard Model, empty magazine, no optic or bipod: 1.7kg
Weight, Standard Model, full magazine, no optic or bipod: 2.17kg
Feed System: Magazine

SIG SAUER
MPX Copperhead

The MPX Copperhead has a monolithic upper receiver with an integrated stock knuckle lower and a 3.5-inch barrel with integrated muzzle brake. The MPX Copperhead also comes with the new SIG SAUER Pivoting Contour Brace (PCB) giving pistol users a brace that easily adapts to the movement of the shooter’s arm with a patented swivel operation for perfect placement. sigsauer.com

Technical Specifications
Species: Semi-automatic
Caliber(s): 9mm
Overall Length Standard Model: 14.5in
Barrel Lengths Available: 3.5in
Weight, Standard Model, empty magazine, no optic or bipod: 4.5in
Feed System: Magazine

POF-USA
Revolution DI .308 and 6.5 Creedmoor

POF-USA broke barriers and won awards when they released the piston-driven Revolution. Now, they’ve introduced the Revolution DI. You get the same technology, durability, features and AR-15 size, but in a direct impingement system.

The original Revolution weighed in at a paltry 7.35 pounds. The Revolution DI weighs even less at 6.81 pounds, making it ideal for just about any situation you put it in. Available in .308 and 6.5 Creedmoor. pof-usa.com

Revolution DI .308 Win Specifications
Species: Semi-automatic, direct impingement
Caliber(s): 7.62 x 51mm NATO (.308 WIN)
Overall Length Standard Model: 34.0in / 86.36cm (collapsed)
Weight, Standard Model, empty magazine, no optic or bipod: 6.81lbs / 3.09kg (empty)
Feed System: Magazine

Revolution DI 6.5 Creedmoor Specifications
Species: Semi-automatic, direct impingement
Caliber(s): 6.5 Creedmoor
Overall Length Standard Model: 41.0in / 104.14cm (collapsed)
Weight, Standard Model, empty magazine, no optic or bipod: 8.6lbs / 3.9kg (empty)
Feed System: Magazine

WALTHER ARMS
Q5 Match Steel Frame

The Q5 Match Steel Frame incorporates all the great features of the PPQ family, only now, in a German-machined steel frame. Weighing in at 41.6 ounces and featuring the famous Quick-Defense trigger, this pistol will recoil flat and allow you to shoot fast and accurately. The machined steel frame features an extended beaver tail, recessed slide release and reversible magazine release button and front strap serrations. Optic-ready, the slide features front and rear slide serrations and a ported slide. waltherarms.com

Technical Specifications
Species: Semi-automatic
Caliber(s): 9mm
Overall Length Standard Model: 8.7in
Barrel Lengths Available: 5in -1/10
Weight, Standard Model, empty magazine, no optic or bipod: 41.6oz
Feed System: Magazine

SIG SAUER
Legion 938 Micro-Compact Pistol

The Legion Series of pistols are all-metal pistols with a Legion-gray coated slide and frame, X-RAY3 Day/Night Sights, a precision-machined aluminum trigger and custom high-checkered G10 grips with a Legion medallion. Like all Legion Series pistols the P938 features a reduced and contoured elite beavertail, which allows for a higher grip but a reduced profile, thus eliminating printing. The Legion Series P938 pistol comes standard with three 7-round magazines. sigsauer.com

Technical Specifications
Species: Semi-automatic, hammer-fired pistol
Caliber(s): 9mm
Overall Length Standard Model: 5.9in
Barrel Lengths Available: 3.0in
Weight, Standard Model, empty magazine, no optic or bipod: 17oz
Feed System: Magazine

CZ-USA
P-10 Series

After several years of hard work, production of CZ pistols in in full swing at our Kansas City headquarters. Available in the full-size F, compact C and subcompact S, the P-10 family has grown greatly. Optic-Ready versions of each are available, as well as low-capacity versions of each variant

For sights, U.S.-made P-10s feature a single tritium lamp in the front with a large orange surround and a serrated black rear. Optics-Ready versions ship with a blank filler plate, and plates for both the Trijicon RMR and Leupold DeltaPoint Pro are available. Also available are matching sights that allow the user to co-witness their optic dot with the irons. cz-usa.com

P-10 S Optics Ready (Low Capacity) Specifications
Species: Semi-automatic
Caliber(s): 9mm Luger
Barrel Lengths Available: 3.5in
Weight, Standard Model, empty magazine, no optic or bipod: 24.4oz
Feed System: Magazine

CZ-USA P-10 C Optics Ready Specifications
Species: Semi-automatic
Caliber(s): 9mm Luger
Barrel Lengths Available: 4.0in
Weight, Standard Model, empty magazine, no optic or bipod: 26.3oz
Feed System: Magazine

CZ-USA P-10 F Optics Ready Specifications
Species: Semi-automatic
Caliber(s): 9mm Luger
Barrel Lengths Available: 4.5in
Weight, Standard Model, empty magazine, no optic or bipod: 28.2oz
Feed System: Magazine

GLOCK, Inc.
G45

GLOCK, Inc. announced a new addition to the 9X19 family of pistols featuring the latest in design and engineering seen in the 5th Generation of GLOCK pistols. The G45 combines the fast handling of the G19 compact-sized slide with the full-size frame as a compact Crossover.

The G45 incorporates elements of the 5th Generation of GLOCK pistols including smoother trigger pull, enhanced frame texture, reversible magazine catch, Modular Backstrap System and match-grade GLOCK Marksman Barrel. us.glock.com

Technical Specifications
Species: Semi-automatic
Caliber(s): 9x19mm
Overall Length Standard Model: 189mm | 7.44in
Barrel Lengths Available: 102mm |4.02in
Weight, Standard Model, empty magazine, no optic or bipod: 694g |24.98oz
Weight, Standard Model, full magazine, no optic or bipod: 860g | 30.34oz
Feed System: Magazine

By Vladimir Onokoy

Venerable Russian SVDM Sniper Rifle Nearing End of Service with Russian Forces

The semi-automatic Dragunov sniper rifle, originally called “SVD” (sniper rifle designed by Dragunov), is very well known all around the world. To this day, SVD remains the main DMR (Designated Marksman Rifle) in the Russian Army and in a number of ex-Soviet states.

Unfortunately, complete absence of imports to the U.S. and other Western countries created a certain information vacuum regarding new modifications of this venerable rifle, namely the SVDS and the latter Dragunov SVDM.

This article will try to showcase some of the features of the latest Dragunov variant, since, back in the day, this author was involved in some of the technical and military trials for this rifle.

The Original SVD Dragunov

The original SVD Dragunov is still in production in its original form; the only difference one can see right away is that the original wood stock and handguard are now made of black polymer.

The civilian version of SVD Dragunov is called “Tigr,” which means—you guessed it—”Tiger.” This rifle is in high demand and is very popular with Russian hunters and gun enthusiasts who want to own this piece of Soviet small arms history.

The main difference between the SVD and the Tigr is the barrel twist rate. The original twist rate of the SVD barrel is 1:12, which proved to be very effective with 7.62x54R sniper ammo but did not work well with tracers or armor-piercing rounds.

Around 1975, the Soviet military demanded that Dragunov rifles should be able to be effectively used with all types of ammo, and after some additional testing, the twist rate was changed to 1:9. It made overall accuracy slightly worse (some claim 25% worse), but hooray, now you can accurately shoot tracers out of your sniper rifle. Isn’t that what a sniper needs the most?
It should probably come as no surprise that some veteran Russian snipers prefer Dragunovs made before 1975. The good news is that civilian “Tigers” remained at the original 1:12 twist and can often be more accurate than military SVDs.

The SVDS

The next big thing was the SVDS, DMR rifle with a folding stock designed for Airborne troops.

SVDS, designed in 1991 and accepted into service in 1995, features a folding stock that folds to the right side of the weapon (and no, you cannot shoot with a folded stock) and a shorter barrel (22.2 inches) instead of 24.4 inches with the original SVD.

Everything else remained the same. On both the SVD and SVDM scopes are mounted via a side mount, and there is no easy way to use modern front-mounted night vision and thermal devices in conjunction with a day optic.

A number of private companies offered modernization kits for the SVD, the most notable being Sureshot Armament Group (sureshot-armament.com). They offer kits for both SVD and SVDS, and recently, their products gained considerable popularity with both civilians and military snipers.

However, before those updates became available, both the Russian military and Izhmash factory came to the realization that SVD in its original configuration has certain shortcomings that should be addressed.

First, it is not easy to mount a bipod on a Dragunov. Over the years, a number of bipods were developed for the SVD, but unfortunately, none of them caught on.

By the end of 2010, modern scopes such as Nightforce, SWAROVSKI and Schmidt&Bender became very prolific in the Russian Special Forces, and SVD shortcomings designed for side-mounted scopes became very apparent.

New Generations

That is why the Izhmash factory decided to develop a new version of the SVD with integrated bipod and Picatinny rail. The first prototype was demonstrated in 2012.

The final version of the rifle was ready in 2014. It featured a quick-detachable bipod, similar to the one used in the new version of the SV98 rifle, with railed receiver cover, folding stock and a very thick and heavy barrel.

Unlike previous generations of the Dragunov, SVDM features a gasblock that is combined with a front sight, the receiver cover with the Picatinny rail is hinged, and to open it, you have to rotate the lever in the back of the receiver downward. SVDM uses standard 10-round Dragunov magazines.

There is no official information about the users of the rifle, but as always, you can get a lot of information from the open sources. For example, SVDM was demonstrated during the Open Day of the 4th Guards Kantemirovskaya Tank Division.

Another sighting of SVDM was rather unexpected. To put things into perspective, imagine the most iconic view of Russia—Red Square. After looking at the photos, we can say that the SVDM is definitely used by the unit of Federal Protection Service that is similar to U.S. Secret Service Counter-Assault teams.

As for my personal impressions, I would say that SVDM is in an entirely different class compared to the regular SVD. A much heavier barrel and heavy optics make the SVDM less maneuverable and better suited for shooting from a static, well-prepared position. It is certainly too heavy for a classic DMR used on the squad level.

During technical trials, one thing that definitely needed improvement was the optic that came with the SVDM—the 1P88-4 variable power scope. I remember once, before a demonstration shoot, I grabbed the scope to mount it on the rifle and get on with zeroing. I opened the caps and wanted to check the quality of the glass, but to my surprise, I could not see the reticle.

The Russian military industrial complex is a close-knit community, and in a minute, I was dialing on my cell phone the number of the senior design engineer from the factory that made the scope. The conversation was rather short:

“Hello, buddy! I’ve got your scope, and I can’t see the reticle. Anything you can recommend?”
“Yes, that is actually quite normal! Just play with the magnification knob; eventually the reticle will be seen.”
“Thanks pal!”

And he was right. When I got the scope to 12x magnification, the reticle suddenly appeared out of nowhere. “Well—I thought—it is true what they say, Russian scopes do actually have some very unique characteristics.” I am sure that since 2014, that scope has improved a lot.

SVDM’s Last Stand?

For now, it looks like the SVDM will be the last iteration of the famous rifle. Its potential successor is the SVCh, a semi-automatic DMR designed by design engineer Chukavin from the Kalashnikov group. The SVCh is meant to slowly replace Dragunovs, first in the Russian Special Forces and later in the “Big Army.”

However, without any doubt, even if it happens, Dragunovs will remain popular in the conflict zones such as the Middle East in Africa for many years to come.

During the pre-internet days, the selling and purchasing of machine guns was a completely different process than today. Both buyers and sellers looked to the printed classified and display ads in periodicals like Gun List, Shotgun News (now Firearm News) and the back pages of the defunct Machine Gun News magazine.

Printed ads required a couple weeks lead time to appear and could be expensive. Usually, there were no means of adding photographs. Communication between the seller and potential buyers was done by speaking on a telephone, the kind that was attached to a building with wires and could not take photographs.

When the internet became mainstream, buying and selling Class III items changed dramatically. Often transactions occur without the parties ever speaking to one another; communication is primarily by email or texting. One other phenomenon took place—as more and more people discovered the Class III world they became aware they could have a full-auto M16 instead of a semi-auto AR-15. Soon values skyrocketed, bringing prices that would be unimaginable in the early 1980s. This was due to a growing interest in machine guns and an ever-shrinking supply, due to the May 19, 1986 ban, which stopped any new registration of transferable guns. Many of the transferable guns disappeared into collections and would not surface again until their owners passed away.

However, it wasn’t long until the scammers of the world discovered the websites advertising Class III, and soon buying online became a somewhat risky proposition. The scammers are often operating from outside the U.S. and have become proficient at copying existing and older internet ads and reposting them. Often, they will lower the asking price to a level that would entice a potential “buyer” to jump on the purchase without any investigation into the seller. Due to the relatively long processing time for the “transfer” to take place, the buyer would be unaware he had been duped out of a large sum of money for months. All communication ceases once scammers receive the funds, and they vanish.

Before long, the only secure way to make a Class III purchase was from a well-known individual seller, a dealer with a good reputation or at an auction.

Auction Benefits

An alternate way to purchase a big-ticket Class III item is at an auction. An auction has become a good option that benefits both the buyer and seller. Many large collections of firearms are relegated to the auction houses by heirs of owners who have passed away. Usually, the heirs are not familiar with the protocols of Class III transfers and do not want to part out large collections piecemeal and waste their time dealing with buyer’s remorse, tire kickers or picture collectors. Buying at an auction assures the potential buyer that the merchandise does exist, and the item will be submitted for legal transfer and shipped in a timely manner.

The Rock Island Auction Company

Since 2003, one of the largest auction houses specializing in firearms is the Rock Island Auction Company (RIAC), located in Rock Island, Illinois, along the Mississippi River. The company has an 86,000-square-foot facility, with a schedule to host 11 firearms auctions in 2019; five are open to the public, and the remaining are Online Auctions with no bidders present on site.

Premiere Gun Auction

The Rock Island Auction House Premiere Auctions take place three times a year, each over a three-day period. A Preview Day is held on the preceding Thursday, and the items are put up for bid on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. A Premiere Auction consists of approximately 2,700 antique and collectible lots. Each of these auctions is made up of rare, unusual, mint and highly collectible pieces. RIAC produces a full-color, 3-volume catalog set featuring each lot with in-depth descriptions, a high and low estimate and multiple high-resolution color photos. Each volume of the catalog corresponds to a day of the auction. The Premiere Auctions are typically held in April, September and December. Each auction routinely covers the main genres of collecting from antique to modern Winchesters, Colts, U.S. and European Military and Sporting. Premiere Auctions also offer swords, bayonets, military artifacts and other related material.

Regional Gun Auction

Regional Auctions are made up of affordable antiques, beginning collectors’ items, usable sporting arms, modern firearms and many non-firearms lots. A majority of the lots have multiple firearms. A Regional Auction has routinely consisted of approximately 3,000 lots with as many as 10,000 firearms in those lots. There are two Regional Auctions per year—one in the summer and one in the winter. The Regional Auction also has a Preview Day which is held all day on the Thursday prior to the auction, and the items are sold Friday, Saturday, and Sunday; same as the Premiere Auctions. Recently, Regional Auctions have become 4-day events, with the Preview Day on the preceding Wednesday, and the items offered Thursday through Sunday. The concept of the Regional Sale was initiated by the demand that customers developed for the “everyday collector” type guns.

Online-Only Gun Auction

Rock Island Auction Company features an additional platform for selling: online auctions. Guns listed in online auctions are sold in the same manner as the other auctions, except there is no live bidding audience in the facility. Bids are accepted absentee, telephone and live on the internet during the day of the auction. The online auctions are held three to four times a year and are comprised of a myriad of firearms and related materials. Typically, items in the Online-Only auctions are placed there as they do not meet the minimum lot value to earn a spot in a Premiere or Regional Auction. The RIAC website features the entire Online-Only Auction catalog of items and is searchable by model, serial number, manufacturer, lot number, keyword and more. All items are viewable in color online, and all guns have both sides displayed.

Auction Protocol

Firearms consigned for the auction are shipped to the Rock Island Auction House; upon receipt weapons are checked to ensure they are not loaded. To remain in compliance with ATF, Class III guns are required to be transferred to the auction house. The guns and any accessories are then inventoried. A contingent of “describers” is assigned to research details and any historical significance and then write up a description for the catalog and website. The item then goes to a team of photographers who use high-end equipment to take sharp, detailed photographs. The item is then cataloged and prepared to be put up for bid.

The period from consignment to auction depends on the auction type. Premiere auctions are planned 3 months ahead of time; typically it is a 6-month process for consignors. It can be longer for regional sales since they only occur twice a year. The Online-Only Auction venue wait time can be as short as 2 to 3 months.

Buyer’s Premium

A buyer’s premium is a percentage added to a winning bid. It is how auction houses pay their bills. At Rock Island Auction Company, the buyer’s premium is 15% if you pay by cash, check or wire transfer. If paying by credit card, the premium is 18.5%.

An Inside Look at the September 2018 Auction

Small Arms Review was invited to attend the September 2018 Premier Auction as a guest of the Rock Island Auction Company to observe how the auction process worked. Featured in the 3-day event were nearly 70 Class III machine guns.

In addition to Class III, there were over 500 significant and historical U.S. military weapons dating from the Civil War, World War I, World War II and Korea. Items offered included one-of-a-kind prototype rifles, sniper rifles, bayonets, sidearms and uniforms. Some of the significant military weapons up for bid included: a presentation-grade M1 Garand rifle, serial number 1000000, which had been presented to the inventor John Garand by the Springfield Armory in 1953; and two rare Singer-manufactured 1911A1 pistols.

Along with many small arms, several military vehicles were up for bid, which included an M41 Walker Bulldog tank, an M15A1 Stuart light tank, a U.S. M3A1 Scout Car and a GMC DUKW Amphibious 6×6 truck. Non-armored offerings included several Jeeps, a BSA motorcycle and a Bofors 40mm Automatic Gun mounted on an M2A1 Anti-aircraft carriage.

Other firearms being offered at the September auction included over 400 collector-grade Winchester rifles, 750 Colt firearms and over 1,000 antique and sporting arms.

The September 2018 Auction Highlights

• Bids came in from all 50 states, Puerto Rico and 27 foreign countries.
• RIAC’s online catalog had been viewed more than 2.8 million times.
• The online live bidding platform, RIAC Live, accounted for $1 million of the weekend’s sales.

Thursday’s Preview Day was well attended. Crews from NRA-TV and Guns.com were present to document and record the highlights of the auction.

Day One

Friday the auction began. Lot 7 contained one of the finest known Winchester 1886 rifles; a stunning John Ulrich masterpiece in excellent condition representing the highest embellishments offered by Winchester at that time. Bidding opened at $300,000 and quickly escalated. Within five minutes, a hammer price of $1.18 MILLION was reached. Not quite a record, because Winchester 1886 serial 1 with ties to Geronimo was sold by RIAC for $1.265 million in May 2016.

Day Two

On Saturday, John Garand’s M1 presentation rifle sold for $287,500. The M41A1 Walker Bulldog tank went for $230,000, the M5A1 Stuart light tank for $287,500 and the M3A1 Scout Car for $65,000. Other items sold included: a rare Springfield Armory U.S. 1924 Garand Autoloading rifle sold for $150,000; a Springfield Armory Gas Trap M1-Garand for $50,000; a Smith & Wesson Mark II semi-automatic 9mm light rifle for $8,500; Johnson Automatics 1941 semiautomatic rifle $5,500; and a Colt–Auto Ordnance 1923 prototype semi-automatic rifle for $55,000. One of the Singer M1911A1 pistols sold would have been a world record at $253,000, but Rock Island sold the current world record holder last December for $414,000.

Notable Class III Items Sold

• British Lanchester Mk* submachine gun with 3-50 round magazines C&R, $16,000
• British MG40 Mk II Browning Machine Gun/Ohio Ordnance Works $14,000
• Canadian Inglis—MKI Bren light machine gun C&R, $37,500
• Rare Colt Experimental/Prototype BAR, fully automatic 1917-1918 manufacture, C&R $30,000
• Colt 1921 Thompson s/n 1852 Columbus, GA PD 97% C&R, $55,000
• Colt Thompson 1927 AC s/n 4706 85% finish C&R, $30,000
• Colt 1928 over-stamp Navy Thompson submachine gun s/n 11204 85% C&R, $30,000
• DWM—Maxim water-cooled MG 08 heavy machine gun WWI C&R, $15,000
• German MP40, bnz 43 well-documented personal weapon used by a U.S. Army 776th Tank Destroyer Battalion company commander. C&R, $37,500
• H&R Model 50 Reising submachine gun PA State Police C&R, $9,000
• Johnson 1941 light machine gun, Cranston Arms C&R, $50,000
• M1917A1 Browning water-cooled MG, Erb side-plate gun $17,000
• NESA World War II 1918A2 BAR C&R, $35,000
• Original Finnish Suomi KP31 submachine gun, transferrable C&R, $17,000
• Savage Arms British Contract 1914 Lewis Gun C&R, $17,000
• Savage NAC/Numrich Thompson U.S. 1928A1 s/n S-527235 NAC C&R, $22,500
• Steyr bnz code, German MP40 serial number 80j,C&R, $17,000
• U.S. Army M9A1 “Bazooka,” Destructive Device $6,500
• United Defense-Marlin UD-42 submachine gun C&R, $20,000
• U.S. Winchester M2 carbine, $18,000
• World War II STG 44, made by the German firm of C.G. Haenel Waffen- u. Fahrradfabrik Suhl during 1945 C&R, $27,500.

Day Three

Sunday bidding started with a deluxe Winchester Model 1873 from the Mac McCroskie Collection, in immaculate condition, selling for $184,000. A Winchester 1866 with the Henry patent barrel would bring $97,750. Antiques of an earlier era experienced some equally aggressive bidding. A 1743-dated Brown Bess musket doubled its high estimate selling for $54,625. A Revolutionary War-era “Charleville” Model 1763 flintlock quadrupled its high estimate going for $34,500 and a Solingen French sword in lot 3212 presented to the Marquis de Lafayette also doubled its estimate selling for $43,125. An exhibition version of a rare Colt-Burgess carbine, by L.D. Nimschke, reached a high bid of $109,250.

The aggressive bidding at the 3-day RIAC September 2018 auction resulted in total sales of $20 million dollars. At the end of the day, there were a lot of historic and collector firearms passed on to their (smiling) new caretakers.

For More Info

Rock Island Auction
7819 42nd Street West
Rock Island, IL 61201
1-800-238-8022
email: guns@rockislandauction.com
rockislandauction.com

By Rick Cicero

A Tool for Overcoming Physical and Mental Disabilities

Impetus for Learn to Shoot Again Program

In August 2010, I lost my right arm and leg from injuries sustained in Afghanistan. Six months later, after learning to walk again, a trip to the range with my Dad rekindled my love of shooting. Over the next several years via trial and error and with guidance from other shooting professionals in the military and police, I developed new shooting techniques to work within my physical “limitations.” I was my own worst student. I knew what a proper stance and all the fundamentals should look like, I found myself shooting well, yet I would look down and see that my stance and grip were not what would traditionally be correct. That’s when I finally came to the realization that I had to learn to shoot again using different techniques to suit my abilities.

Advancements in technology, including the SIG SAUER Brace, have been instrumental in honing my skills. Each new success is built on previous successes. After attending an Honored American Veterans Afield (HAVA) Family Day event, I became involved in supporting such activities. This organization created associations with other accomplished shooters such as Trevor Baucom and Chris Fleming, also injured veterans. The true success of that day was when I began taking fellow wounded veterans to the range, which was the impetus for what is now the Learn to Shoot Again program—LTSA.

Immediately following SHOT Show 2016, we assembled a team of combat veterans—most of whom sustained and recovered from major injuries including paralysis, loss of limbs and spinal injuries that would have sidelined most. With the support of the NRA and HAVA, the entire team became certified NRA Instructors. Additionally, SIG SAUER Academy has been instrumental in advancing the skills of the LTSA instructors by offering advanced pistol instructor and advanced carbine instructor courses. One of the main focuses of LTSA training is not only to perform, but to perform to the highest standards of the able-bodied shooter without any special considerations and in all environments. All of which lead to the most important benefits: teamwork, espirit de corps, return to a known work ethic, visual success and HAPPINESS!

LTSA has established monthly classes in Florida. Additionally, we work diligently to travel the country and bring the classes to those who will benefit from them the most. Our class format develops shooter skills to compete in pistol, carbine, 2 and 3 gun, and most recently long range.

The positive feedback within the veteran community and firearms industry has been nothing short of amazing. The industry stepped up immediately with optics provided by Leupold and SIG SAUER and rifles provided by Savage. When Kestrel offered to help, they provided directed training, products, shooting opportunities and fundraising; all of which was far beyond our expectations.

Beyond Expectations

This past April, we conducted the first full Long Range Class at the Peacemaker National Training Facility, where Katie Godfrey was a remarkable asset. Kestrel sent her with knowledge, rifles, ammo and Kestrel devices. Katie conducted her full classroom presentation followed by days on the range using the Kestrels to maximize every shot.

A unique challenge was offered to every student—those who hit a three-shot group on a Kestrel zero target at 400 yards would be given one. Even with stiff winds, every student completed the challenge and left with a Kestrel. All of these students now use the devices regularly to compete and or hunt; two of the students have become LTSA instructors.

Kestrel further surprised us by making HAVA/LTSA the benefactor of the Kestrel Challenge Precision Rifle Series (PRS) match at Peacemaker in August. Not only did Kestrel donate product, time and money, they coordinated with other industry support. Ruger donated two rifles, Leupold and Vortex donated scopes, Hornady donated ammo, and the list goes on. The funds raised from that event and match supported multiple classes for our veterans.

The greatest value of that match was to have two of our students compete and learn to be Range officers that weekend. Both Justin and Tyler have overcome significant limb and internal injuries that would have stopped most veterans. However, both of these men raised the standard by completing the match, assisting with the fundraiser and working as Range Officers for the match. Nothing can put words to the expressions on fellow shooters’ faces when they see these men in shorts and realize the injuries that no one noticed.

The secondary benefit from that match was the number of shooters who approached us throughout the day and thanked us, not for our service, but for motivating them. We have learned the unique aspect of providing a perspective to the able-bodied shooter that they often forget: it is about the team and not the individual.

Conducting training for our veterans exposes students and staff to so much more. We have encountered and overcome different physical personal challenges I would have never expected. Each student is unique in his or her own way and identical in so many others. We all come from the military whether it is the student with one leg and only two fingers on one hand, the legally blind man who can see through a very narrow field of vision or the man who comes to class in a wheelchair.

Sasquatch, a Defined Success

The success that counts the most for me is confidence and happiness in life. The particular student who comes to mind sustained a gunshot wound in combat and has significant challenges. Unlike most, he completed his tour and was discharged without a full retirement and wanted to go on as a civilian. Unfortunately, his challenges caused him severe pain and loss of consistent ability to hold a regular job. He fell into a depression like so many and expressed to me how he felt a failure.

After attending some of our classes he became a dedicated student in every way. When he told me how much our classes improved his outlook, daily habits and overall quality of life, I was left speechless. We all have demons, and this is the best medicine for so many. Who would have thought that? In true military form we all have nicknames; his is “Sasquatch” (his profile in a shadow is priceless!). He is the great giant of our team. He was among the students in the April Long Range Class and a coach at the Long Range Class just last month. He has competed in several matches and attended the NRA Instructor course. Just last week, he put those skills to work at the HAVA Family Day in San Antonio and the three day class for our veterans in that same area.

As the “Director” of LTSA, it is not a title of management, but a title of responsibility. For students and teammates like the Squatch, the resources, tasks and organization are all worth it. The trust we have in our instructors is exceptional because they are exceptional people. Often the visual prosthetic device or chair gains attention, while others are overlooked. Sasquatch raises that bar and has volunteered to be a leader. Many of us lead in the military, but so many fail to lead in the civilian world. Sasquatch has stepped up and is the remarkable example of this program for so many to follow.

LTSA Tool Box

We create tools to maintain every aspect of our lives—the LTSA tool box is no different. As firearms have advanced over the last several years, we have taken advantage of those that are most practical. We strive to train our students with readily available items that can give them the skills to be as confident and safe as other shooters.

The first tool to provide a significant benefit was the “SIG SAUER Brace,” proving to give stability to the one-armed or impaired shooter to build long-gun skills for stance, grip, sling, balance and flexibility for various platforms and calibers from a .22 to a .300BO.

The advent of ambidextrous pistols like the new SIG SAUER P320, Smith & Wesson M&P, Glocks and more are making one-handed shooting much more accessible—even for those with only a left hand or with great impairment to their right hand. Every advantage our students have helps to overcome their challenges.

Within our long range program, the benefits of left-handed bolt rifles create an option that is efficient and nothing short of a blessing. We have Savage and Remington to thank for such rifles. Even a vertical fore grip on a rifle is a huge benefit to those with prosthetic arms or limited abilities; their control improves drastically.

The Quick Clip provides multiple benefits for those with upper extremity impairments to safely change magazines, clear malfunctions or just walk while maintaining their balance. It also maintains the rifle in a safe orientation for wheelchair users while in motion. And even those with all of their appendages but who have balance issues can maintain control while walking with free arm swing.

Several other manufacturers have supported us by providing unique adaptations to firearms for better access, ergonomics and control.

As our industry develops these unique tools, our community realizes what is already available to expand their abilities. The greatest honor LTSA has is to continue to serve our country and communities through one of the best commonalities our veterans have.

Our Program is Growing

Over the last three years LTSA has trained over 300 students in classes from Florida to California and New Hampshire. We are offering classes for pistol, carbine, shotgun and even long distance rifle to 900 yards and beyond. In 2019 we will be teaching in Arizona, Florida, Maryland, West Virginia, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee and more. We will also be at events like HAVA Family Days and shooting matches around the country to Coach, RO, Compete and Inspire our veteran community to get out and join us! If you are interested in attending such a class or know a veteran who could benefit from our classes please call Rick Cicero at 434-294-5883 or email at LTSA@honoredveterans.org.

By Todd Burgreen

Why did Kel-Tec introduce a 30-round capacity .22Magnum (.22WMR), 4.3-inch barreled, polymer semi-automatic handgun into the market? Is it for personal defense, a trail/kit gun, target shooting, or dare we say just for fun? The PMR-30 seems counter-intuitive, especially when compared against other semi-automatic pistol “understudy” types most often chambered in 22LR that are modeled after a centerfire “big brother.” The “understudy” 22LR handguns offer similar feel and balance while being chambered in 22LR versus 9mm, 40 S&W, 45ACP, etc. These types of 22LR handguns are ever increasing in popularity. This is based on facilitating more economical practice/training and making sure the fundamentals of trigger control, sight alignment, grip and all the other marksmanship tenants are followed without the interference of muzzle blast and recoil; all the while maintaining similar feel and operating controls of their full-power “big brothers.”

The Kel-Tec PMR-30 stands alone and defies easy categorization. It rejects being labeled as only an “understudy.” It is easy for the Kel-Tec PMR-30 to separate itself from the competition with its .22WMR chambering and ultra-high capacity alone. However, additional PMR-30 features further add credence to its uniqueness in terms of design and construction. The PMR-30 does not pose as an understudy since controls, grip angle and other intangibles of feel do not mimic any other handgun out there. Do not take this to mean it has no value as an introductory handgun. While the PMR-30’s muzzle blast will surprise with a signature more typical of a centerfire cartridge, recoil is minimal and thus manageable by all shooters. Though popular as a manually operated rifle and revolver round, few manufacturers have attempted to build a semi-auto rifle or handgun in .22WMR. This stems from various reasons such as .22WMR cartridge length standards, the case rim specifications and variations in pressure levels of different brands of .22WMR ammunition. However, Kel-Tec decided to tackle these issues in creating the PMR-30.

Some History

Initially founded in 1991 as a machine shop, Kel-Tec CNC Industries, Inc. started manufacturing firearms in 1995. Kel-Tec prides itself on specializing in innovative rifle and handgun designs for law enforcement personnel and security-conscience citizens. Along these same lines Kel-Tec has succeeded in creating an interesting twist with many firearm designs with its out-of-the-box thinking. A brief look at their website will show the bullpup KSG 12-gauge shotgun and RFB semi-auto 7.62x51mm NATO rifle, the compact foldable Sub-2000 pistol caliber carbine and SU-16 5.56 rifle. Kel-Tec’s fresh approach to firearm design always generates interest. The PMR-30 .22WMR handgun falls squarely into this mold.

Design

Kel-Tec engineers turned to magazine design and a hybrid action combining blowback and locked breech features in an effort to tame the .22WMR chambering. The magazine is oft described as pie-shaped with the tapered end toward the bullet end of the cartridge and rim toward the wider area. Kel-Tec describes proper procedures for loading the PMR-30 magazine to help in reliable operation of the PMR-30. The requirements are not onerous with the case inserted into a segment of the magazine lips before being pushed to the rear of the magazine. After every five or so rounds are loaded the magazine is to be tapped on something solid such as a palm, leg, table, etc., to help seat the rims into the magazine without getting out of orientation sequence. The magazine loading method is straightforward and does not take any more time to complete than random jamming of rounds into a magazine. Indeed, it makes one wonder how people load magazines in any different fashion. Loading directions were purposely ignored to test the effect on the PMR-30’s reliability. It was determined that a malfunction was likely if the simple magazine loading directions were not followed—thus, best to adhere to the Kel-Tec directions.

Kel-Tec engineers continued adapting the PMR-30 to the .22WMR past the magazine design. The PMR-30 operates via a hybrid blowback/locked-breech system. One of the potential issues with .22WMR semi-automatic pistols is the wide range of pressures generated by factory ammunition. Kel-Tec designed a new action that automatically and seamlessly adjusts between locked-breech and blowback operation, depending upon the pressure generated by the particular cartridge that is being fired. In simple terms, the barrel is allowed to float forward and backward a small amount in the frame. This is very similar to any design using a variation of Browning’s tilting barrel, short recoil design; however, the Kel-Tec PMR-30 has no mechanical locking system. The method of operation is determined when the cartridge case forms to the chamber during firing. If the pressure generated in the cartridge is high enough, friction will cause the case to “stick” to the chamber walls, and the barrel will recoil with the slide until pressure drops—just like a typical locked-breech firearm. If the pressure is lower, the barrel stays virtually still, and the slide recoils like a blowback firearm. This innovative system does not require chamber-friction reducing methods like fluting or porting as seen in other .22WMR autoloaders. It allows the PMR-30 to fire a wide variety of ammunition without sacrificing reliability.

The PMR-30 follows a similar pattern to other Kel-Tec designs using glass-reinforced nylon (Zytel) and an aluminum frame in its construction with only the barrel and portion of the slide being steel. The PMR-30’s action incorporates a recoil buffer and dual opposing extractors for reliability when combined with the hybrid operating action described above. The Zytel material facilitates lower manufacturing costs as well lighter weight for the full-size frame found on the PMR-30. As for specifics, the PMR-30 is a semi-automatic, single-action pistol with an internal hammer/striker. A 4.3-inch barrel is used. Overall length is 7.9 inches, and the height is 5.8 inches. The empty weight is only 13.6 ounces. A loaded magazine weighs a mere six ounces. This means that a fully loaded PMR-30 weighs less than 1.5 pounds. Kel-Tec has installed fixed fiber optic front and rear sights onto the pistol. The front sight is adjustable for windage only. The front color is yellow/green, and the rear is orange/red. PMR-30 controls are minimal—trigger, ambidextrous safety and slide lock lever. The dust cover features an integrated Picatinny style rail for attaching lights or other accessories an end user may desire. In front of the rear sight one will find four screws indicating that Kel-Tec has tapped and threaded the slide to accommodate one of the many miniature red dot sights hitting the market. Bases are available from Kel-Tec depending on what type of red dot a user may choose. The magazine release is a European-style heel release at the base of the grip. Each pistol ships with two magazines and padded plastic case. As expected the magazines, considering the use of Zytel in the handgun frame, are constructed of high-strength polymer.

Testing at the Range

The PMR-30 was tested with a myriad of ammunition from Hornady, Winchester and Federal such as Hornady 22WMR 30gr. V-MAX and 45gr. FTX Critical Defense; Federal JHP and FMJ; and Winchester FMJ and 45gr. PDX1 Defender JHP. Kel-Tec ships the PMR-30 with recommendations and more importantly a list of ammunition that they council against—mostly non-U.S.-made .22WMR. Range time exhibited all positives in terms of performance and reliability. The trigger pull was a pleasant surprise in terms of minimal creep and weight required to initiate cartridge ignition. RCBS gauge averaged just under 4 pounds after averaging 10 pull tests.

Unequivocally, it can be reported that no issues were encountered during evaluation of the Kel-Tec PMR-30. Why such a strong statement? This is based on various reports of problems encountered in the PMR-30 that were uncovered during research of this article. This is not meant as refutation of these reports only that this PMR-30 performed without issue. In all fairness, Kel-Tec themselves admit to product evolution in the PMR-30. For example, the barrel’s twist rate was altered from 1:16 to 1:11 based on feedback from customers related to key holing issues. Another complaint often heard is that the PMR-30 is not being produced and sent to retail shelves fast enough since its 2010 SHOT Show introduction. Frankly, this is outside the preview of this article.

With a 30-round magazine it did not take long to send large quantities of rounds downrange during this evaluation, with many willing volunteers stuffing magazines and running the PMR-30’s trigger. One interesting nuance discovered with the PMR-30 was that the slide could not be “sling-shot” forward during reloads once the slide locked rearward after the last round was fired. The slide release lever had to be used. This is not a big deal, just worth noting. Another anecdote is the surprisingly loud blast and muzzle flash that the PMR-30 emits. This is based on the .22WMR being primarily chambered in rifle-length barrels and thus the use of slower burning powders that do not get consumed in the PMR-30’s 4.3-inch barrel. Quite truthfully, this made firing the PMR-30 more like the experience of firing a centerfire defensive handgun without the associated recoil. Plate racks and other targets strewn around Echo Valley Training Center (EVTC) were engaged repeatedly as were more traditional paper targets in an effort to get the full sense of the PMR-30’s capabilities.

PMR-30’s Role

As with many new products the PMR-30 was initially touted as filling a role it was never intended to do. The PMR-30 was labeled as the “poor man’s” 5.7x28mm handgun in reference to the FN FNH introduction of its Five-seveN handgun. The PMR-30’s high capacity and chambering in the .22WMR versus 22LR was behind this misleading statement. The two weapons share similar aesthetic lines, dimensions and are light weight. This is where any similarity ends as the .22WMR does not compete with the 5.7×28 in terms of velocity achieved in either a handgun or rifle and was never intended to when it was designed. The PMR-30 chronoed loads across an RCBS Chronograph in the 1200-1400fps range depending on bullet weights being fired.

Accuracy with the rimfire PMR-30 was more than acceptable and probably superior to what most users are capable of when being fired from any non-bench position which is the reasond’etre of the PMR-30 to begin with. It is no problem keeping rounds in the “A” zone of the IPSC targets back to 25 yards and very possible further out as long as users pay heed to sight alignment and trigger control resisting the temptation to blast rounds downrange knowing 30 .22WMR rounds were sitting in the magazine awaiting release.

Ammunition

In terms of ammunition, it was a surprise to find a number of .22WMR loads directed towards the personal defense realm. Both Hornady and Winchester offer prime examples of this in the form of Hornady’s 45gr FTX Critical Defense and Winchester’s 45gr PDX1 loads.

Conclusion

As questioned at the beginning of the article: is the PMR-30 a candidate for personal defense, a trail/kit gun, target shooting or dare we say just for fun? Users will have to decide what roles the PMR-30 will fill in their collection. It can be stated that the evaluated PMR-30 performed without issue, and its high capacity in a surprisingly light-weight package is extremely attractive in whatever role it is destined for.