The esoteric Lewis Machine and Tool Confined Space Weapon 300 (LMT CSW300) is the logical evolution of the many attempts to downsize the M16 rifle for special operations needs. Super compact variants like the Colt Commando date back to the late 1960s, but those had to be padded out to longer overall length with blast-reducing flash hiders to assist in cycling. The end result was a lightweight but marginally effective short barreled 5.56mm rifle used by some Special Forces and, as a survival carbine, by military pilots.

Maximizing Close-Range Effectiveness

The main problem of the Commando was that its ammunition was optimized for much longer rifle barrels. From 10.5-inch tubes, it simply lacked the velocity to make a 55gr bullet sufficiently effective past 100 yards. 7.62x35mm, also known as .300 Blackout, was developed from the start as a cartridge for short barrels, with many loads optimized for sound suppressed use. Whereas 5.56mm tops out at 77 grains, .300 BLK provides 220 grain options at the same velocity. The cartridge works with all the same components, other than the barrel. Compared to the other traditional CQB choice, 9x19mm in HK’s MP5 SD and similar submachine guns, .300 BLK gives both better subsonic performance and the option to run significantly faster supersonic bullets in the 110- to 150-grain range. Built from the ground up as a .300 BLK rifle, LMT CSW300 aimed to make the best of the recent ammunition and sound moderation developments.

LMT CSW300 Features

The core of the weapon is a 1:7 twist, 8.15-inch, chrome-lined barrel with a matched sound suppressor permanently attached for the total length of 11.8 inches. Thanks to that compact configuration, and the specialized reduced length 6-position stock and buffer, LMT CSW300 is only 24.3 inches long with the stock collapsed, 27.6 inches extended. Because it features both a sound suppressor and a barrel shorter than 16 inches even with the suppressor attached, it requires two $200 NFA tax stamps for individuals to own. The barrel and suppressor unit are removable for maintenance. The carbine is hefty for its size, with most of the 7.3-pound weight accruing to the sound suppressor, the barrel and the full-length enveloping forend. The idea behind this configuration was to maximize close-range effectiveness for entry teams, armored vehicle crews and bodyguards.

The LMT CSW300 lower receiver is enhanced with a secondary left-side magazine release. It comes with a very good, crisp two-stage trigger that permits good control even with gloves on. To institutional users, the LMT CSW300 is available in select-fire form with cyclic rates in the 700 to 900 rounds per minute range, depending on the ammunition used. The wide forend protects the sound suppressor from impacts and provides a good standoff from the barrel. At the front of the forend, two downward projections provide indexing for the support hand for maximum direction control without fingers straying before the muzzle. Applying pressure to the very end of the weapon allows precise control both in the aiming and in the recoil control stages of the shot. While the standoff between the suppressor and the forend is smaller there, the can warms up relatively slowly. With gloves on, extended continuous fire is possible before significant discomfort.

The upper receiver features an 18-inch monolithic rail equipped with high quality adjustable folding iron sights and is equally suitable for optics and night vision equipment. The carbine comes with four short rail segments for attaching to threaded holes on the sides of the forend as needed for lights, lasers and other accessories. An ambidextrous charging handle completes the composition.

Test Results

I tested the carbine with the supplied Vortex Razor AMG UH1 holographic sight and with a Primary Arms Gen II 5x Compact Prism scope. With the UH1, the weapon is extremely fast and plenty accurate—this is the real-world use configuration suitable for hitting sporting clays on the 65-yard berm off hand. The magnified optic was used for more deliberate accuracy testing from a support. The three subsonic loads, SIG SAUER and Black Hills 220gr, and Gemtech 187gr, all turned in very respectable 1.5MOA groups. Testing was done at the same 65 yards, with 1-inch spreads for all three. Remington 220gr match grouped less well at 2.5MOA. Aguila 150gr FMJ grouped at 2.25MOA—quite good for a barrel optimized for heavier bullets.

LMT CSW300 has no visible muzzle signature at all, neither flash nor any significant smoke. The rifle also eliminates most of the blowback towards the shooter effectively. The very short direct impingement gas system results in most of the gas and some of the burning powder manifesting at the ejection port. About 40% of the shots made with Remington subsonics and about 15% of the shots taken with SIG SAUER ammunition produced bright, warm fireballs at the ejection port (see photo). That makes the carbine with those rounds uncomfortable by left-handers, ambidextrous controls notwithstanding. While watching videos of other samples of LMT CSW300 in use, I did not see the ejection port flames, but it can be a known issue with short gas systems.

The Good, the Bad and the Dirty

On the plus side, these two loads functioned 100%. I had to go to the LMT engineers about the next issue. Gemtech ammunition did not produce fireballs but short-cycled consistently, ejecting empties without loading the next cartridge into the chamber. Black Hills ammunition, while very accurate, required completely manual cycling, mostly not even unlocking the bolt. This is consistent with chronographed velocities, around 850fps for the SIG and the Remington loads and under 900fps for Black Hills and Gemtech. My best guess was that faster powders used by SIG SAUER and Remington produce both the higher velocity and more of a fireball at the ejection port. The effect appeared at once on a brand new carbine, so it couldn’t have been unburned powder residue. An LMT engineer explained that the wide range of pressure curves between various .300 BLK loads requires tuning the rifle to them—in this case, by taking the anti-bounce weight out of the bolt carrier to enable cycling with the lower port pressure ammunition. Aguila supersonics mostly worked, but by then I ran into another side effect of suppressing such a short weapon: it can run dirty. All the carbon has to go somewhere, so 150 rounds of assorted subsonics were enough to gunk up the gun. Chambering the first round eventually required the use of forward assist, and I had four more failures to go into battery out of 20 rounds. LMT recommends the Hornady and Black Hills ammunition and cleaning every 200 rounds. I did not try just using 200 rounds of Hornady or Black Hills to see if I had the same issue as when all the different rounds were used.

Optimal Defense Weapon

All designs are optimized for certain features, and LMT CSW300 is no exception. Its suppressor does a great job of eliminating gas blowback and stays cool enough for firing about 100 shots in an engagement. The sound reduction is noticeable, but the report—possibly aggravated by the ejection port pop—remains unpleasant to the ear without being immediately damaging. The system is rated 138–139dB with subsonic ammunition. Given the high muzzle pressure inherent in short barrel rifles, this may be physically the best result possible. Ear plugs are recommended even outdoors with subsonic ammunition. In serious use, active hearing protection is worn anyway to attenuate the noise of the opposition’s gunfire. In sum, LMT CSW300 works as an entry or sudden self-defense weapon, provided it is cleaned regularly and compatible ammunition is used.

That Acknowledged Right

Chances are, you are familiar with machine guns. Members of the NFA community already know that machine guns are legal to own and use in most places in the United States. We also know that they can be expensive, problematic and somewhat “hungry” in terms of keeping their diet of ammunition up to snuff. We also know the most common question that is often asked by those who are not familiar with legal, fully automatic weapons: Why on earth do you need such a thing?

To be sure, the Second Amendment is not about needs or wants. It is about an acknowledged right, albeit a right that has been improperly usurped by federal and state legislation and regulation. There is no reason to justify a “need” to own a machine gun. If you want one, and have the means to acquire one, you have that right. Do it. And actually use it because it is fun to do so. Take the gun to a range or an organized shoot. Stoke the weapon with proper ammunition and let her rip. A smile will crease your face. Likely a bit of a giggle. Introduce somebody to the weapon. Somebody who has never shot one before. And you can be all but assured that the smile and giggle will likely morph into laughter and glee.

No crimes are committed. No assaults, robberies or murders. Lots of smiles and laughs are witnessed, and folks who own the weapons appear to be eager to actually share them with the novices who are drawn to the sound and the action.

Let’s use the Fall 2018 Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot as an example. The NFATCA hosted a young lady, we’ll call her Steph, to come out to Kentucky and embrace the full-on experience that is Knob Creek (that’s not her in the pictures). After signing her notices and waivers, she was festooned with her exhibitor and shooter badges. Then it was time to meet the guns.

A certain, very generous NFATCA member (who has a habit of distributing delicious fried pies) took her under his wing and gave her a tour of the dozens of weapons that he had brought for the shoot. They ranged from personal defense weapons (PDWs) to belt-fed, heavy machine guns. The manual of arms for each weapon was briefed. The safety requirements for the show, in general, and each weapon were detailed. “And which gun would you like to shoot?”

“All of them!” And so began three days of turning a significant amount of ammunition into once-fired brass. Steph fired an MP5, an AK47, the “Twins,” a Ma Deuce and more. And she laughed heartily after every mag dump and belt. You know what? Others noticed. Lots of other people noticed. Steph was having fun. Many had their smart phones recording video of the grand time that Steph was having. Several of those videos have gone somewhat viral. Steph could not stop smiling.

We wrapped the show up on Sunday and took her to the airport. She was a bit exhausted, and we asked if she would do it again. An immediate “Hell yeah!” Because it’s fun. And that’s just it: We must make the extra effort to bring new folks into this world of NFA firearms. The “old guard” isn’t getting any younger, but they absolutely do have stories to tell and guns to share. So it’s time to circle a date or two on the calendar and pencil in some range time with somebody who needs to see what fun is all about. The NFATCA appreciates the camaraderie that has grown over our nearly 15 years of serving this community. Help us spread the word. Join or renew today. And if you have questions or comments, send us an email at info@nfatca.org. Or visit us online at www.nfatca.org or facebook.com/NFATCA.

How Can a U.S. Company Import U.S.-Origin Military Surplus Firearms?

In continuation of my previous “Legally Armed” column, “How U.S. Foreign Policy and National Security Concerns Impact International Trade,” Small Arms Review, Vol. 23 No. 1 (January 2019), I thought I would delve into the complex issue of the barriers that prevent private companies from importing U.S.-origin firearms back into the United States for commercial sale. This is a surprisingly complex area where law and politics intersect with international trade and the commercial market of military surplus firearms.

There is a tremendous amount of interest among history buffs and firearms enthusiasts in the weapons of World War II and other international conflicts in which the United States was involved. Some examples include the M1 Garand, the M1 Carbine and the 1911 pistol. At the end of these conflicts, much of the most desirable materiel may have been left overseas or given to foreign governments. However, since 2013 private entities have been prohibited from importing these pieces of history back into the United States for sale to the public. This Obama-era block to private industry remains in place because of lack of action on the part of both the Republican-controlled Congress and President Trump.

How can such a prohibition exist? We are talking about U.S.-made products, so why can’t a private importer bring these back into the United States for the domestic collectors’ market if the foreign government doesn’t want them anymore?

As many readers may be painfully aware, there is an intricate process that must be followed to import any article of U.S. origin. Further, surplus military articles are subject to very high government scrutiny for foreign policy implications and the potential impact on public safety. Inevitably, political motivations also find a way into the discussion.

A. Overview of Applicable U.S. Export Laws

First, we must briefly review the U.S. laws governing the original sale and export to the foreign party. In general terms, U.S. law is structured to prevent firearms and other defense articles from being exported unless the foreign recipient promises it will not transfer, dispose or change end-use without prior permission from the U.S. Government. This restriction on transfers, change in end-use or destination applies to firearms obtained through U.S. Government Foreign Military Sales Programs, Grants (Military Assistance Program or Excess Defense Article) and Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), even when the foreign party wants to sell the firearms to a private U.S. entity many years later for import back into the United States.

Arms Export Control Act (AECA). “In furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign policy of the United States,” the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) grants the president the authority to control the export and import of classified and unclassified defense articles and defense services and to provide foreign policy guidance to persons of the United States involved in the export and import of such articles and services. The AECA restricts retransfers of U.S.-origin defense articles by requiring foreign recipients of U.S.-origin defense articles, whether by sale or lease, to request permission from the State Department before it resells, retransfers or re-exports such articles.

Foreign Assistance Act (FAA). The FAA governs defense articles provided to foreign countries on a grant basis. Like the AECA, the FAA places end-use restrictions on foreign recipients of weapons and gives a right of first refusal to the U.S. Government for any weapon a foreign government wants to sell. The FAA also requires the U.S. Government receive the net proceeds from any sale of defense articles provided as aid to a foreign country, unless the State Department waives this requirement.

Also pertinent to our discussion is Executive Order 13637 (“EO 13637”), under which the president delegated to various agencies the functions conferred under the AECA. Under Section 38 of the AECA (Control of Arms Exports and Imports), the functions related to exports, temporary imports and brokering of defense articles and services are delegated to the Secretary of State, who in turn delegated down to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs (PM). The PM oversees the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) and the Office of Regional Security and Arms Transfers (PM/RSAT). DDTC administers the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), the registration and licensing regulations governing exports, temporary imports and brokering of defense articles and defense services.

The AECA functions related to permanent imports of defense articles and services are delegated to the Attorney General. The Attorney General in turn has delegated administration of the permanent import regulations in 27 C.F.R. Chapter II, Part 447 to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). However, EO 13637 makes clear that “[i]n carrying out such functions, the Attorney General shall be guided by the views of the Secretary of State on matters affecting world peace, and the external security and foreign policy of the United States.”

The process for a private entity to bring U.S.-origin military surplus back into the United States consists of two steps: (1) the foreign owner must obtain approval to transfer the firearms to the U.S. importer; and (2) the importer must obtain approval to enter the firearms into the commerce of the United States. You may be thinking, “It’s only two steps, so how hard can it be?” Let me show you.

B. Step One: Obtain Approval for Transfer to U.S. Importer

The first hurdle an importer faces to bringing U.S.-origin military surplus firearms back into the United States is obtaining approval from the Department of State for the transfer from the foreign owner to the U.S. importer. As mentioned above, U.S. Government approval is required before a foreign end-user can transfer, sell, dispose of or change end use of any U.S. origin defense article. This rule applies even when the proposed transferee is a U.S. company interested in bringing the firearms back into the United States.

The transfer approval process begins with the foreign government owner submitting a retransfer request to the State Department, not the U.S. importer. The Bureau of Political-Military Affairs handles all retransfer requests, and the responsibility is divided as follows: (i) for exports undertaken under a foreign military or government-to-government sales program, the retransfer requests should be submitted to PM-RSAT; (ii) for exports that were direct commercial sales, retransfer requests should be submitted to DDTC.

The process for obtaining State Department approval for retransfers of U.S.-origin firearms is anything but easy. Often, the private importer cannot even get the process started because so little is known about how the firearms got to the foreign government in the first place. This is especially true for the curio or relic firearms because so much time has passed since the original export. Regardless, this history is vital to determine what retransfer restrictions attached to the firearms (remember the retransfer restrictions are created at the time of export). Without knowing the terms of the original export, it is virtually impossible to know how to go about obtaining the retransfer approval. In fact, without sufficient evidence to the contrary, for example a bill of sale, conveyance document or export license, the State Department will presume undocumented firearms to be of Grant origin.

All retransfer requests undergo an extensive interagency review prior to being recommended for approval or denial to the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs or the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security. This whole process can take years, and there is no guarantee that the State Department will ultimately approve the retransfer.

C. Step Two: Get ATF Approval for Permanent Import into the Commerce of the United States

If the State Department finally does approve the retransfer, the process then turns to the U.S. importer, who must prepare the Application and Permit for Importation of Firearms, Ammunition and Defense Articles, also known as the “ATF Form 6.”

Generally, the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits importation of surplus military firearms unless the import is for government or law enforcement end-users. ATF defines a surplus military firearm as any firearm that belonged to a regular or irregular (e.g., militia) military force at any time. See Firearms-Guides-Importation & Verification of Firearms, Ammunition and Implements of War–Surplus Military (available at atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-ammunition-and-implements-war-surplus, last visited Dec. 14, 2018).

Curio or relic firearms, however, are exempt from this prohibition. To qualify for the curio or relic designation, a firearm must fall into one of the following three categories: (1) manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date (this does not include replicas); (2) certified by the curator of a municipal, State, or Federal museum which exhibits firearms to be curios or relics of museum interest; or (3) derive a substantial part of its monetary value because the firearm is novel, rare, bizarre or associated with some historical figure, period or event. This last category requires proof of qualification by evidence of present value and that like firearms are not available except as collectors’ items or that the value of like firearms available in ordinary commercial channels is substantially less.

ATF stated policy has been to return without action any application to import U.S. origin curio or relic military surplus firearms unless the application includes a copy of the State Department retransfer authorization given to the foreign supplier. But is ATF obligated to approve an import permit for U.S.-origin firearms once the State Department has approved the retransfer? As at least one case illustrates (discussed below), State Department transfer authorization does not guarantee the importer will be able to enter the firearms into the commerce of the United States for resale.

D. Notable Cases and Recent Developments

To illustrate the difficulties in importing U.S.-origin firearms, let us review a case that gained significant media and political attention a few years ago: the case of the Korean M1 Garands and M1 carbines, which the United States sold to the South Korean government for use in the Korean War. Both types of rifles are over 50 years old and obsolete to the South Korean Government, but can bring in revenue if sold to United States importers because of the significant market of U.S. collectors and firearms enthusiasts. Because of the age of their manufacture, these M1 Garands and carbines qualify as “curio or relic.”

While George W. Bush was still president, the South Korean government submitted to the State Department a request to transfer a total of 857,470 rifles (87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 carbines) to U.S. importers. This request went through an interagency review process, but it was not until May 2009 that the State Department granted approval for the South Korean government to transfer the M1 Garands and carbines. Soon after the approval, the new Obama Administration expressed concerns, including trepidation that transferring the M1 carbines into the United States, particularly in the stated quantities, posed a significant law enforcement and public safety risk. These concerns ultimately led to the State Department rescinding its May 2009 decision to allow South Korea to transfer the M1 firearms.

In 2012, however, there appeared to be a break in the case. On January 18, the Korea Times reported that according to Lee Sun-chul, the Korean deputy defense minister for force and resources management, the U.S. Government had agreed to allow the importation of 86,000 M1 Garand rifles from Seoul. The article cited to an approval letter from the United States, dated September 2, 2011. 600,000 M1 carbines were rejected for import, reportedly because of detachable high capacity magazines.

The prospective import of 86,000 Garands was put on hold indefinitely on August 29, 2013, when President Obama announced a new policy of prohibiting commercial re-importation of U.S.-origin surplus military firearms that the United States supplied to foreign governments, either as direct commercial sales or through foreign military sales or military assistance programs. With no action from President Trump to revoke this policy, the prohibition remains in effect.

It is important to point out that the administrative blocks to the import industry from bringing in military surplus firearms back into the United States do not affect the ability of the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) from obtaining surplus firearms, such as the M1 Garand or 1911 pistols. The CMP is able to acquire U.S. surplus military firearms, including those from overseas, from the U.S. Army. The CMP then refurbishes the firearms and sells them at retail to the public participating in competitive shooting programs. U.S. citizens can purchase these firearms from the CMP, provided they are not prohibited from owning a firearm under the GCA and they are a member of an affiliated club.

On April 7, 2017, Gina Johnson, General Manager of the CMP South operations in Alabama, announced the CMP would be acquiring 86,000 M1 Garands, which the U.S. Army was due to receive back from the Philippines Government. It is unclear when these firearms will be imported, if they have not already been shipped to the United States.

On the legislative front, there have been repeated stabs at passing the “Collectible Firearms Protection Act,” although none successful. The bill would amend the AECA to allow the importation of certain curio and relic firearms into the United States by a licensed importer without the requirement of an authorization from the Department of State upon certification to the Department of Justice that such firearms are lawfully possessed under the laws of the exporting country.

The first introduction was in 2009 by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), then again in 2011, 2013 and 2015. The most recent attempt was by Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) in 2017; each time the bill stalled in committee. What is even more telling is the number of co-sponsors. In 2011 there were 142 co-sponsors. In 2013, the number was only 38, and in 2017 only 3 co-sponsors joined.

So as we near the start of a new Congress, where Democrats will once again control the House, the Collectible Firearms Protection Act is likely a dead issue. In the remaining two years of President Trump’s first term, it is possible he may take action to lift the prohibition against private industry from importing U.S.-origin military surplus firearms. Until then, at least this part of the market is out of reach.

••••••••••••••••••

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 (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 Guns of “Overlord”

On June 5, 1944, Nazi Germany was in control of most of France. The French people lived in fear of the brutal German soldiers who occupied their country. But there was hope. The French Resistance, also known as the Maquis, caused the Germans endless setbacks. In the east, millions of Soviet soldiers prepared to charge across Eastern Europe, drawing large numbers of German resources to the Eastern Front. In the south, Italy had switched sides, and the Germans found themselves in a second front against American and English soldiers. Finally, across the English Channel, a powerful force created German Chancellor Adolf Hitler’s worst nightmare: a Third Front.

In England, an alliance including the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Poland and other nations amassed a large military force and were prepared to launch a great offensive to liberate Western Europe. While the German command was distracted by a fake army miles away, thousands of Marines, paratroopers, pilots, other soldiers and equipment were prepared for battle. The date for the offensive was supposed to have happened on June 5, but the weather forced them to change it to the next day. So on June 6, 1944, one of the greatest invasions in history began. Just after midnight, thousands of American, British and Canadian paratroopers landed across northern France, causing chaos for the Germans stationed there. This was D-Day, the first day of Operation Overlord. This was a campaign to invade Fortress Europe, liberate northern France and open the door to enter the heart of Nazi Germany. On August 24, American and French soldiers entered Paris. “Operation Overlord” officially ended on August 30, with Canadian troops entering Rouen to cheering crowds.

On November 9, 2018, “Overlord” was released in the United States. The movie tells the fictional story of a group of American paratroopers dropped behind German lines on D-Day. They stumble upon a secret German facility experimenting on human beings with a strange serum. The film was produced by J. J. Abrams and stars Jovan Adepo from the new “Star Wars” movies and Wyatt Russell, son of Kurt Russell.

The Allies used a number of different firearms, but the following are the ones that were used in the movie.

M1903 Springfield Rifle is one of America’s most successful rifles. It was adopted in 1903 in response to the mixed performance of the Krag-Jorgensen Rifle. The M1903 first saw service in World War I and did well in the trenches. Even after the American Armed forces adopted the M1 Garand, the M1903 and other variants of the gun served on until the Vietnam War.

The M1903 in the “Overlord” movie is actually a variant of the rifle called the M1903A4. The main differences between the M1903 and M1903A3 guns are that the sights on the A3 were moved to the rear of the receiver, some of the parts are stamped, and many had two-groove barrels. The main difference on the M1903A4 is its sights were removed and replaced with mounts for a sniper scope. While it was a good infantry rifle, it did comparatively poorly as a sniper rifle. The gun holds five .30-06 rounds in an internal magazine like other bolt-action rifles and has a range of 1000m or more.

One of the most famous weapons of World War II was the M1 Garand. It was first produced in 1934 and saw service in dozens of conflicts across the world. It loads eight .30-06 (7.62x63mm) rounds that are loaded into the gun through the top using a clip. One problem the gun had was that the clip would cause a ping sound when it injected with the last round. Despite this minor flaw, the M1 Garand was a good rifle and was well liked by the soldiers who carried it.

Another rifle made famous in World War II was the M1 Carbine. It was produced for officers and tank crews, as well as paratroopers. From a distance, it looks like a lighter version of the M1 Garand. It shoots .30 Carbine (7.62x33mm) from 15- and 30-round magazines, with the M2 full-auto version at a rate of 750 rounds per minute. It was very light and had a range of 300 yards. There was actually a special M1A1 variant which had a folding buttstock for paratroopers. Sadly, that is not the model that was used in the movie.

The story behind the M1 Carbine is interesting. The gas piston was designed by David “Carbine” Williams, who had been sent to jail for the murder of a deputy. However, he showed such a talent for mechanical engineering that even the widow of the deputy who was killed agreed to his release to help serve his country.

I did not see “Overlord,” but from what I heard, the movie was well-received from critics. If movies like “Overlord” are your cup of tea, by all means go enjoy this film.

Special Note: June 6, 2019, will be the 75th anniversary of the D-Day invasion. There will be ceremonies throughout Normandy, and it is likely that this will be the last time for many of the real soldiers who took part in it to be there. I have signed up for a tour and will be there to report on it. If you have any interest in going, it would be a good idea to start looking into it now.

Sterling silver U.S. doughboy dog tag holder and locket. The outside of the holder is engraved “2nd Lieut. H.W. Billman 109 M.G. BN. 28th Division USA Lebanon, PA.” Upon opening, the bottom contains the actual aluminum dog tag reading “Henry W. Billman 2nd Lt. 109 M.G.B.N. U.S. N.G.” with remnants of the hanging cord that would pass through a hole in the top of the locket so it could be worn around the neck. The other side shows a period photograph of Lt. Billman and two women—possibly sisters.

British World War I skill-at-arms sleeve badge for the Hotchkiss Gunner. Two pieces with wreath and “HG” with backing plate and original uniform fabric.

World War I British Motor Machine Gun Service officers bronze cap and collar insignia and cloth shoulder titles. Worn 1914–1915 only. The Motor Machine Guns Service used Clyno motorcycles with a sidecar mounted Vickers machine gun.

World War I helmet belonging to Private Abian A. “Wally” Wallgren (1891-1948) of the U.S. Marine Corps, 2nd Division, 5th Marine Machine Gun Company. Insignia of that unit is a purple square denoting the 5th Marine Machine Gun Company with the 2nd Division Indian head in white star hand-painted to the front of the helmet with an applied period USMC EGA (Eagle, Globe, Anchor) collar device affixed above. Also hand-painted all around the helmet is a belt of machine gun bullets and the name of the artist and owner: “Wally.” Behind the helmet is a booklet of hundreds of humorous cartoon drawings featuring events during World War I by famous U.S. Marine Corps private Abian A. Wallgren, known as Wally. He was the staff cartoonist for Stars and Stripes, the official newspaper of the A.E.F. (American Expeditionary Forces). This collection of his favorites was published after the war by Stars and Stripes in 1919 and sold for 5 francs. The profits from the original sale of this book went to aid the Stars and Stripes French War Orphans Fund. Enlisting in the Marines in 1917, Wallgren was among the first to see service in France as a buck private and regimental sign painter, a post which army logic assigned him on his “professional” record. For nine months he painted “Latrine” and “Officers Only” signs up and down France. His great opportunity came when the Stars and Stripes was started as the official newspaper of the A.E.F. in 1918 and Wally was placed on the staff as cartoonist; he drew cartoons for this doughboy newspaper throughout the war until the final issue in June 1919.

Russian late 1920s or early 1930s marksmanship competition trophy banner between Soviet regiments. All hand-stitched and embroidered, it is made with cotton applications on a velvet background. The center exhibits a large Russian M1910 Maxim on a wheeled Sokolov field mount. This banner itself is the “trophy” awarded to the winning regiment at the Second Regimental Machine Gun Competition—to be hung with pride at their regimental headquarters for all to see. The verbiage in Cyrillic below roughly translates to “Top Prize.” With fringe it measures approximately 37 inches high by 30 inches wide.

U.S. World War I era sterling silver, machine-gun-themed finger ring. Blue enamel “liberty” to the top and red, white and blue enameled federal shield to the bottom. The center has a Colt Model of 1914 Automatic Gun (Potato Digger) machine gun on tripod in high relief. One side of shank has eagle, U.S.A. sword and Latin motto banner. The other side of shank has image of a soldier at attention with rifle and bayonet at “present arms.” Inside marked “Sterling” and “Reg. U.S. Pat. Off.”

The Unappreciated SLR

The origins of the FN49 rifle go back to 1936, prior to WWII. The chief engineer at FN, Mr. Dieudonné Saive, designed a gas-operated semi-auto that used a tilting bolt method to lock the breech during firing. However, with the FN factory in Belgium captured by Nazi Germany early in WWII, the design that would become the FN49 would have to wait.

This book chronicles the development of this under-appreciated rifle in great detail, from the earliest attempts at self-loading rifles, to the end of production. Surprisingly, there was interest in self-loading battle rifles as far back as the early 1900s. In fact, in 1907, FN approached a German-born arms designer, Karl Brauning (no relation to John M. Browning). At the time, Mr. Brauning was working for the Dutch arsenal at Zandaam, Netherlands. He had recently patented a self-loading rifle that functioned by barrel recoil and locked the bolt by a pair of pivoting lugs that fit into recesses in the receiver. This rifle, as well as several other designs, took part in various arms trials in the following years. However, the start of WWI in 1914 interrupted this.

Following the end of WWI, work resumed in several countries regarding the adoption of a self-loading rifle. The U.S. chose the M1 Garand early enough to equip her army prior to entering WWII. Most other nations did not and had to go to war with bolt action guns.
The book takes a detailed look at the early military trials that featured the Brauning design, including a brief mention of the 1929 U.S. Trials at Aberdeen Proving Ground. An interesting photo from that time shows several inventors, including John Pedersen and John Garand with their respective designs.

Chapter 2 covers Saive’s time in England, during which he continued to work on his design. (He had escaped to England during the hostilities.)

Although Great Britain was in no position to completely rearm and retrain her entire military during the heat of battle, the experimenting and research continued. When Saive got to Britain, he offered his design and talent to the British war effort. Soon, he was working on a 7.92mm version named the Self-Loading Experimental Model, or SLEM. Apparently, 50 of these were hand-built, so-called tool room rifles. A good percentage of these first 50 SLEMs have survived, and several are shown. While they differ somewhat from the production versions of the FN49, the lineage is clear to see.

At the end of WWII, Saive returned to the FN factory and resumed work on his design. Eventually, Venezuela became the first country to make a major purchase of the FN49.

After a very detailed study of the path to completion, the book then covers the different versions of the FN49 adopted by various countries. As noted above, Venezuela was the first to place a major order. (Several countries bought one or two rifles to test before the Venezuelan contract.) Each purchasing country is given a separate chapter (chapters 6 through 15). The minor differences between each version are detailed by text and photographs.

Following the country by country review, chapter 17 then covers various official manuals and pamphlets produced over the years. Selected pages are reproduced that show disassembly steps, etc.

Chapter 18 examines Instructional Cutaway rifles. These are training aids that were modified to allow the troops to see into the trigger and sear area and the chamber and gas port areas.

Chapter 19 looks at a wide range of accessories available, such as bayonets, cleaning kits, scopes, slings and even grenade launchers that attach to the muzzle.

As with other books from Collector Grade, this title is high quality, with many clear, crisp photographs and drawings.

The FN49–The Rifle That Ran out of Time
Author: R. Blake Stevens
Publisher: Collector Grade Publications Inc., Canada
Copyright 2011
ISBN: 0-88935-526-6
Hardcover: 8.5” x 11,” 256 pages, 361 illustrations, 141 in color

The FN49–The Rifle That Ran out of Time

From Bicycles to Ribeyrolles’ Automatic Weapons

As early as September 1914, the French government moved to Bordeaux and set up an ambitious strategic plan to exert all the potential of the French industry so as to produce small arms, ammunition, provide furniture, energy and workers for a wartime economy.

Later, production was dispatched to all factories according to their production capacities. At first, production of 75mm shells was the main production throughout WWI.

Concerning small arms, many factories were designed to produce various parts such as: cars, bicycles, plumbing, hardware or locksmith accessories, sewing machines, photographic material, electric components, etc., from far or near pertaining to mechanical works. Few factories produced complete guns: Darne produced the Lewis light machine guns for aircraft and so did “Gladiator.”

These factories were ordered to produce the M1915 light machine gun, developed by Jacques Louis Chauchat and Charles Sutter. The Gladiator factory was founded by Alexandre Darracq and Jean Auroc in Le-Pré-Saint-Gervais, a small city in the East of Paris. It produced bicycles and cars.

We don’t know why Gladiator was chosen to produce the Chauchat, but the factory had all the required equipment to produce crude small arms, using a few milled parts, except for the bolt and barrel extension. The bolt housing was made out of a tube, the frame was manufactured with shaper tooling and riveted, and barrels came from discarded Lebel rifles. Between 1915 and 1918, Gladiator manufactured 250,000 M1915 Chauchat LMGs. Production was organized by Paul Ribeyrolles, technical manager of the factory.

Paul Ribeyrolles’ Invention

In 1917, the French Army adopted a semi-automatic rifle presented as an improved Lebel, but it used only a few parts of the old rifle. This model was designed by Chauchat, Sutter and Ribeyrolles. Paul Ribeyrolles worked on other projects, which did not pass the prototype status: an automatic weapon intended for the protection of tanks, firing through a port and a machine carbine shooting an intermediate caliber cartridge.

.

These guns are not well known:

• One file exists in the Archive Armament Center in Chatellerault (former MAC factory);
• One model is now owned by the Musée de l’Armée in Paris (access not possible for individual researchers).
• In the MAS factory collection— One negative picture on glass was found in a garbage can many years ago at the Bourges Proving Ground;
• At least two reports about a test of these weapons made for French, American and British observers in July 1918 and 1919; a copy of these were sent to me by the late Herbert Woodend, former curator of the MOD Pattern Room.

Ribeyrolles Submachine Guns

Jacques-Louis Chauchat died in 1917, and in 1918, Paul Ribeyrolles, perhaps with the help of Charles Sutter, developed a gun he called a “machine pistol.” It was designed to be used by a tank crew for short range defense. They developed the gun that Americans would design 60 years later as a Firing Port Weapon. It was made with the frame and locking system of an M1917 semi-automatic rifle. The stock was replaced by a pistol grip. A shortened barrel was fitted with a muzzle brake made with the recoil booster of a Vickers aircraft machine gun. The rear sight came from a Springfield M1903 rifle. The gas cylinder was also shortened and shifted to the right. A safety lever was on the left side, but there is no selector.

The first trials took place in 1918 with a gun loaded with a special eight-shot Mannlicher Berthier loading clip, but the piston broke during the test in October 1918. Other trials took place a few months later with a new model that had an aluminum frame fitted with pistol grips. The barrel and gas cylinder were slightly longer. The gun had no sights and could be fitted with a scope. The use of mixed ball and tracer bullets was recommended. It received a 20-shot Chauchat magazine. Tests went on until July 1919 with good results, but the gun was too powerful for the intended purpose.

Ribeyrolles Automatic Rifle

The Ribeyrolles Automatic Rifle is the first French assault rifle. It shoots an intermediate “wildcat” cartridge obtained from a .351 Winchester (used by the French Air Force in WWI), necked down to 8mm (.32 inches) and fitted with an armor-piercing Lebel bullet.

The weapon was first presented at the Versailles Proving ground in Satory Camp on July 6, 1918. Later in 1921, it was tested again at the Commissions d’Expériences des Armes, Engins et Munitions du camp de Chalons (Small Arms and ammunition proving center in Chalons-sur-Marne, East of Paris, in the Champagne area). It was delivered with three magazines and 3,000 cartridges. The idea of an intermediate caliber cartridge was interesting, but 20 years were necessary to come back to the idea!

The Ribeyrolles automatic rifle looks like a carbine; the stock features a pistol grip. The cylindrical frame is made out of a tube, with a rear plug. Cocking lever and ejection port are on the right. Bolts are made of two cylindrical parts with linear hammer and a small diameter recoil spring inserted in a tube. The barrel is covered by a handguard and fixed by a swivel band and a forward band. Action is blowback. A bipod (from the Chauchat M1915 LMG) is fixed under the forend, and the M07/15 Berthier rifle (or Lebel) bayonet can be used.

A selector located on the right side, allows single shot, safety and burst. Shooting and ballistics did not provide good results:

• Single shot firing of 75 cartridges led to 53 malfunctions;
• When shooting eight bursts, only one could be stopped at will by the shooter;
• Accuracy beyond 400 meters (438 yards) was insufficient.

The tests were stopped, the gun was too heavy for an individual weapon, and its efficiency was too poor for a light machine gun. Moreover, there was no program for this type of small arm or doctrine for its tactical use. Although the gun was not approved, it exerted some influence which was later picked up by arms designers such as the STA 1924 submachine gun. The STA 1924 includes the same design, including the bipod. Later, its design was copied by the M2 Cristobal carbine developed in the Dominican Republic.

The ammunition was to be very similar to the future 7.92mm Kurz and 7.62mm Kalashnikov, or the .300 Whisper and .300 AAA Blackout.

Ribeyrolles was probably ahead of his time—yet way too early!

The 8mm Ribeyrolles Cartridge

The 8mm Ribeyrolles cartridge is made from a necked down .351 Winchester S.L. case, fitted with an 8mm armor-piercing bullet with a steel core and a blackened gilding metal jacket. Weight was 9.56g (150 grains). The load was 0.9g (14 grains) of ballistite, an old smokeless powder.

The first cartridges were made at the Gladiator factory, but later for the July 6, 1918 trials, 3,000 cartridges were loaded by the Vincennes ammunition plant. For the Camp de Chalons test, more than 3,000 cartridges were loaded by Vincennes in 1921.

The development of the cartridge was completed, and the gun was built with an old 8mm Lebel or Berthier barrel with a twist for 8mm Lebel cartridge. The lighter bullet available in this caliber was the armor-piercing bullet, but a particular lighter and shorter bullet was made.

The choice of powder was not the best, ballistite could be favorably replaced by a more speedy powder. Neither the bullet velocity nor the trajectory was known, but we can compare with other similar loads.

Paul Ribeyrolles

Paul Ribeyrolles was born in Paris on December 12, 1874. He entered the Arts et Métiers high engineer school in Chalons-sur-Marne in 1891. He was technical manager for the Gladiator factory located at 76 Grande Rue at Le-Pré-Saint-Gervais, near Paris.

The Gladiator company manufactured bicycles and cars for the French market. In 1896, the company was bought by British investors, and the automobile division manufactured cars sold in Great Britain.

During WWI, the French War Ministry ordered the production of the Chauchat LMG, through a contract signed on October 20, 1915. Gladiator made 227,190 M1915s for the French Army (8mm Lebel) and later, 20,754 others for the U.S. Army (.30-06). Ribeyrolles died in Paris on July 11, 1947.

Some are quick to dismiss the Kel-Tec brand as “utility guns” (as if that is a bad thing). And, admittedly, the Florida-based manufacturer isn’t necessarily focused on perfecting the gleaming, pimped-up look that some shooting enthusiasts fawn over. But it’s a mistake to dismiss the practicality and innovation that founder George Kellgren has worked hard to foster through the years.

For instance, Kel-Tec led the charge of the “mouse gun” back in the early 2000s with the tiny and innovative P-3AT, which was copied ad nauseum by legions of other manufacturers. The company got even more creative with the advent of the KSG, a truly one-of-a-kind shotgun featuring dual magazine tubes that hold 13 3-inch shotgun shells. Then there’s the funky-looking but wildly popular PMR-30. Indeed, if Kel-Tec is guilty of any sin, it’s not being able to keep up with the popularity of Kellgren’s innovative designs (a problem most manufacturers would love to have).

Brother Arms

The company tackled the outdoorsman/survivalist/“prepper” market with the introduction of the SU-16 back in the early 2000s. If you are looking for a durable, dependable and lightweight gun that can be toted through all terrains and conditions, the SU-16 continues to be worth a second look. The gun is chambered for .223 and 5.56 NATO rounds, and if you want a practice version that won’t drain your ammo budget, the SU-22 replicates the design of the 16 while feeding the more affordable .22 LR round. The .22 version is also ideal for beginners or young people who aren’t quite ready for grown-up recoil.

Shooting at 50 yards on an indoor range, the gun is undeniably loud—Kel-Tecs aren’t known for being delicate or quiet; they are rough-and-tumble and in-your-face—but very effective. Maybe a tad more recoil than some AR-style rifles but still perfectly comfortable to use, even for a gal who typically prefers handguns.

Although the gun features a Picatinny rail for a scope or red dot, the aluminum sights were great. We shot two different 16s, one brand new out-of-the-box and the other well-used. One had a peep sight with a standard M16 post and the other featured a peep sight and fiber-optic blade. Both were highly visible, even for a couple of “old folks” with less than 20/20 vision. The sights are fully adjustable: The M16 post can be adjusted by pressing the detent with the tip of a .223 or 5.56 round; while the fiber optic version requires a Phillips screwdriver.

Inspect the Bore

The only real problem I encountered with the SU-16 is a cautionary tale, not for Kel-Tec users but for anyone pulling a new gun out of the package for the first time. On my initial visit to the range, I had three folks lined up to shoot the gun, which had been pulled brand new from its shipping box. Each time we loaded the magazine and grabbed the charging handle, we’d get a misfeed. Each of us, in turn, attempted to load the weapon. We examined the mags, peered into the chamber, made sure the ammo was compatible and even tried an AR mag (the SU-16 is designed to accept standard AR mags, yet another bonus). When that failed, we set the gun aside and shot its little brother, the SU-22.

But I was plagued by the failure. I knew these to be good, durable guns and I hated to go back to Kel-Tec and ask for “one that works.” Several days later, after borrowing a functional model from a friend, I sat down with both guns, hoping to figure out why one worked and the other didn’t. As I peered around the new gun with a small flashlight, the light caught something orange nestled in the bore about an inch from the breech. I looked twice, trying to figure out what I was seeing … yep, it appeared to be orange plastic. Opening the cardboard storage box, I discovered the safety flag with its stem missing! Somehow it had broken off, probably during shipping. I hadn’t noticed the busted flag as I put the gun together, and the stem had been shoved just deep enough into the bore that you had to really work to see that flash of orange. Thankfully, it was close enough to the breech that it prevented us from chambering a round. Had we been able to do so, and then attempted to fire the gun, it might have been a very bad day on the range. To remedy the obstruction, I ran a cleaning rod from the muzzle toward the chamber and the two-inch stem popped out, rendering the gun completely functional.

This is a good reminder to always inspect your bore before putting ammo through it, especially with a brand new gun. I should have known better. I spent more than enough time behind a gun counter listening to newbies whine “it’s broken,” only to discover they had failed to complete some essential step in new gun break-in. Guess this was my comeuppance for all the times I rolled my eyes and pointed out the obvious.

The Firing Line

With both my SU-16s in fine form, and a spare SU-22 for some plinking fun, I spent time on the firing line with retired Sheriff’s Deputy and former academy instructor John Falldorf, a fan of the Kel-Tec brand.

“These guns are durable and designed for a variety of conditions and situations,” he explained. “It’s tough to damage this gun, but, if you do, one of my favorite things about Kel-Tec is their service and repair. Some manufacturers make you wait 6–8 months before they fix your problem. Kel-Tec’s turnaround is extremely good, and they are always eager to make things right.”

He praised the form and function of the SU-16, pointing out that, weighing in at just 5 pounds, the gun is ideal if you are hoofing through the woods. “With a folding stock, that reduces the length to a little over 26 inches; the gun’s designed to shove into a backpack or sling over your shoulder with minimal added weight,” he explained.

Both guns we shot were A models with 18-inch barrels, but the SU is available in several variations, most notably the CA model, with a 16-inch threaded barrel; the C model, also with the threaded barrel and a skeletal folding stock that allows you to shoot from the folded position; and the E model, which has a more standard AR look, including a telescoping stock and a polymer handguard with accessory rail. Previously produced with chrome barrels, Kel-Tec began using salt bath nitride (SBN) on the SUs in 2012, which offers a higher level of corrosion resistance.

Between the two SU-16s, we encountered only one misfeed (in the new model) as we sent rounds downrange into a hostage scenario target. I am happy to say the hostage lived … with nice, neat patterns about an inch across going into the perp’s torso and head. But, like most guns, the SU-16 does, typically, have a break-in period. Fellow shooters have reported periodic misfeeds up to about 150 rounds, when everything smooths out and the gun becomes, as one enthusiast described it, “one of the most reliable rifles I’ve ever owned.”

Functional Features

Deputy Falldorf pointed out the innovative forend, which converts into a bipod, offering the chance to do some prone distance shooting.

The bipod took a couple of tries to master, but once you get the hang of it, it’s ingenious. The two locking tabs are attached to a ring that encircles the barrel. Gently pull down with two fingers and the bipod spreads its wings. To return it to its folded position, simple push forward slightly on the bipod wings as you return them to the barrel, and the locking tabs will snap into place.

From a recoil standpoint, I was pleasantly surprised. The 16 gives you a firm nudge but nothing that left me looking for a shoulder bruise and nothing that impacted my ability to recover for a follow-up shot. With small hands, I felt like I was stretching a bit to get the pad of my finger squarely on the trigger, but I was nonetheless able to depress the 5–7-pound trigger and keep my finger on it as it reset. The mag release button is easy to use, although the polymer/plastic mags don’t always pop out of the mag well without some coaxing; same is true when retrieving them from their storage channel in the stock; a minor inconvenience, at worst. The charging handle on the right also does a nifty job of deflecting flying casings and is attached to the bolt, which moves it back and forth during firing. By accident, we discovered that you can lock the bolt open by depressing a button located at the rear of the mag well.

It was a very simple gun to use and understand, even for someone who is primarily a handgunner.

“The great thing is that it’s consistent with every other AR-15 platform I’ve ever shot,” Falldorf noted. “That’s especially good because, at around $600, it’s much cheaper than many of your ‘high-end’ ARs and just as functional, even more so with the benefit of the folding stock and attached bipod. It’s also cool that you can carry two fully loaded 10-round mags in the stock.”

The SU-16 is also piston-operated, something you usually see in more expensive AR platforms. Unlike the gas impingement versions, piston-operated guns tend to run cooler and cleaner in the chamber. Chalk up another point for the Kel-Tec engineers.

Add an SU-22

Once we finished putting the 16s through their paces, we ran some rounds through the economical SU-22. The feel was very similar and, of course, there was virtually no recoil, courtesy of the soft-shooting .22 LR rounds.

While I tend to think of the .22 AR styles as being more for beginners or kids, Deputy Falldorf sees the value in having one on hand, no matter one’s skill level.

“If you already own an SU-16, then having an SU-22 just makes sense. Ergonomically, it’s pretty much the same, so you can refine your skill with function drills, trigger press and sight alignment practice for a fraction of the ammo price,” he said.

There is no bipod on the SU-22, however.

All in all, my time spent shooting the SU-16 and its little brother confirmed everything I had read and heard about this durable weapon—and everything I already knew about Kel-Tec’s innovative approach to firearms. Best of all, I now have something to add to next year’s Christmas list.

Sometimes being at the right place at the right time leads us to discovering/exploring something we have not had opportunity to consider before. My experience to date with “Big Green” Remington Outdoor Company has been quite limited. This is speaking in terms of either Remington Defense or Remington Commercial. So, when the opportunity to attend a Remington Defense demonstration event in Utah presented itself, it was seized upon quickly.

Remington Strategy

Remington Outdoor has been in the news recently since emerging from a short-lived bankruptcy with new CEO Anthony Acitelli who was appointed to charter a new course. The new leadership team under Acitelli has been forthright in addressing previous shortcomings. The previous political environment had created a situation where marketing focused on AR/MSR rifles and 9mm handguns. Frankly, Remington lost its way in not listening to customers and supposed they could dictate desire. This view proved obviously skewed and resulted in difficulties leading to bankruptcy.

There is a new way of doing business at Remington Outdoor which focuses on a dealer-centric approach combined with pooling the strengths of both the Defense and Commercial Divisions to reinforce each other. This allows for a more flexible approach and overall healthier company. Brands such as AAC, DPMS, Bushmaster and Barnes will be maximized for a more horizontal approach to the firearms/outdoor market with ammunition, sporting rifles/shotguns, MSRs, handguns, precision sniping rifles, tactical shotguns, AR-15/-10 fighting carbines, suppressors, et al.

Barnes Bullets Manufacturing

The evidence of this was front and center on the first day of the Utah trip with a visit to Barnes Bullets manufacturing facility in Mona. Barnes has been an industry leader in monolithic copper bullets from the beginning. Barnes was acquired by Remington in 2009. Remington’s new approach seeks to expand Barnes’ role across the board with their bullets incorporated into Remington-branded ammunition as well as expanding its OEM presence with other ammunition companies. Barnes is also expanding both its bullet components and loaded ammunition offerings. This should be no surprise considering Remington CEO Acitelli’s 2002-13 tenure at ATK involving Federal Premium and other ATK ammunition brands. Remington Defense VP of Professional Sales Matt Ohlson, who was with us during the Utah trip, also shares a professional lineage back to ATK.

Barnes factory reflects a new era of American manufacturing combining older style production machinery with cutting edge technology. Yes, computer-controlled machines allow for great flexibility in adapting to different types of products as need arrives; however, they’re still no substitute for hands-on quality control which was apparent everywhere at Barnes. This was typified by packaging, ballistic laboratory, water tank, underground ranges out to 100 yards, gelatin block testing, ammunition proofing and accuracy standard verification and so on.

Testing the Original

Introduced in 1939, the Barnes Original was the bullet that started it all. Produced by pressure-forming pure copper tubing around a pure lead core, this was the first custom bullet available to American handloaders. Barnes’ Original bullets typically expand to more than 200 percent of their original diameter and retain 70 to 90 percent of their original weight. Barnes Originals are still present in the Barnes catalogue and are due for expansion in caliber in the near future. This same innovation with copper was followed by the Barnes Banded Solid Copper in 1979 which then quickly evolved into various forms of an expanding solid copper bullet continuing up to the present version.

Ballistic gel testing was conducted for our benefit which also included firing through laminated glass. Remington .308 Win Core-Lokt Ultra Bonded 150 grain and Barnes .300 BLK VOR-TX 110 grain TAC-TX were demonstrated. The Barnes load is based on the Barnes TSX bullet. The TSX uses a 100-percent copper body with multiple rings cut into the shank. The nose cavity is engineered to provide fast expansion with virtually 100-percent retention for penetration. Four razor-sharp cutting petals serve to double the bullet diameter, creating more internal damage. All of this was proved true during the demonstrations inside the 100-yard indoor tunnel.

Remington Range Day

The second day of the Utah event was ranged-based featuring Remington firearms from across most of their product lines. Remington and Barnes ammunition were there in abundance. A plethora of targets were placed from 15 yards out to 1900 yards! Remington Defense M24, MSR, CSR and XM2010 precision rifles were present in calibers from .308 Win to .338 Lapua. Several shotguns including the pump action 870 and new V3 TAC-13 semi-automatic are also available. Remington carbines such as the ACR, R4, R10 and R5 GPG were also present including select-fire versions. Something most are not aware of is the number R4 ARs Remington produces. This numbers in the tens of thousands with many delivered via Department of Defense foreign assistance programs. 1911 R1s including threaded Enhanced versions with AAC suppressors proved another favorite.

The second day went quickly with participants working their way up and down the firing line repeatedly. Remington, including Defense training cadre, and Barnes personnel certainly outnumbered participants ensuring questions were answered quickly and the firing line access was unhindered. Not often do you have an opportunity to fire suppressed 1911s and SBS shotguns at 50 yards and in a few steps later be lying prone behind a .300 Win Mag M2010 sniper rifle hitting steel silhouettes of milk jugs at 1050 yards and steel coyotes at 1400 yards. A quick switch out by a Remington Defense expert has a .338 Lapua PSR in front of you with a 3’x3’ plate at 1900 yards being struck. Further down the line you have the opportunity to handle the latest Remington select-fire carbines chambered in 5.56mm and 7.62 NATO. In a microcosm, Remington Defense was representing exactly what it had to offer with a breadth of products few can rival.

Focused

While enjoyable and serving as a crash orientation course, several thousand rounds sent downrange was not Remington Outdoor Company’s mission priority. Its commitment to a new approach was the message. Remington is refocused on gaining back its loyal and large customer base that may have wandered off in the last several years. For my money, Big Green is back.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Remington Outdoor Company
remingtonoutdoorcompany.com

By Jonathan Ferguson, Photography by N.R. Jenzen-Jones

The XL60 series of experimental firearms was the first generation of what was initially known as the “485 Weapon System,” designed and produced at the Royal Small Arms Factory (RSAF) Enfield, located in North London, United Kingdom, by a team led by Sydney Hance. The term “485 Weapon System,” so-named for the weapon’s 4.85mm calibre, was later dropped in favour of “Enfield Weapon System” or EWS, which persisted until at least 1982 but was ultimately also side-lined. Instead, the name “Small Arms of the 1980s” or “SA80” was adopted and remains in use to this day. This term is used alongside the land service or “L” designations (e.g., L85A2). Interestingly, this name was in use from the very beginning by the British Ministry of Defence (MoD), sometimes with the prefix “Section” as in “infantry section” or squad. As per the preliminary study and MoD specification, the EWS/SA80 system comprised rifle and light machine gun variants, known by their period NATO euphemisms of “Individual Weapon” (IW) (today simply “Rifle, 5.56mm”) and “Light Support Weapon” (LSW) (a term still in use today, sometimes considered interchangeable or overlapping with “squad automatic weapon,” or SAW; automatic rifle; and light machine gun, or LMG). Several variants emerged during development which all received their own designations. This can get confusing, so these official designations are detailed here:

• XL64E5—the Individual Weapon (IW) standard rifle in a right-handed configuration;
• XL68E2—the rifle in its left-handed configuration;
• XL65E4—a “Light Support Weapon” aka “Machine Gun” variant (LSW/MG), right-handed;
• XL69E1—“Machine Gun” variant, left-handed.

The “00 series”

However, this is jumping the proverbial gun somewhat, as there are two earlier iterations of these prototypes that should be first discussed. In 1972, British Ministry of Defence followed on from the preliminary study covered in the previous article. By this time, it had been decided that the new weapon family would be a modern bullpup in a small calibre high velocity (SCHV) calibre. As covered previously, the gas system and working parts of the new weapon were very closely based upon an existing and straightforward design—the Armalite AR-18. This should have shortened and eased the development process, but this was not to be. The author’s strong impression from having read a great deal of material in the Pattern Room archive and extensively handled and stripped the weapon is that every effort was made to design an original, British weapon that would take the best features of contemporary weapons, just as Kalashnikov’s team had done in the Soviet Union (albeit with a great deal more success). These features include:

1. Ammunition of 4.85mm calibre. This was based upon the U.S. 5.56x45mm cartridge, with an elongated case containing a longer, slimmer bullet (of identical 55 grain weight) thought to exhibit better performance (it certainly demonstrated better penetration than the M193 at range) and reduced recoil.
2. Lightweight, “unorthodox” or “buttless” (i.e., bullpup) configuration, capable of conversion at the unit armourer level for left-handed users.
3. An optical sight equivalent or better to the existing Sight Unit, Infantry, Trilux as fitted on a designated marksman basis to the L1A1 SLR (FN Herstal FAL).
4. Provision for a night sight.
5. Area target capability (achieved through rifle grenades or underbarrel launchers).

Despite the pre-existence of the Steyr AUG and FAMAS bullpup self-loading rifles with their convertible left-/right-handed design (and claims in the gun press to the contrary), the SA80 family was never made “ambidextrous” and relied upon different variants to meet this user requirement. None of these could be converted without replacing the entire barrelled upper, nor could they be fired from the opposite shoulder without risk of injury, specifically the cocking handle striking the user in the face (to say nothing of hot brass cases). In the event the requirement was dropped and all soldiers taught to fire from the right shoulder; nonetheless, from the outset both rifle and machine gun were intended to be made available in left- and right-handed versions.

This first batch of developmental weapons were not “type classified,” but in terms of design lineage we will treat them as part of the XL60 series, which in turn is a phase of the EWS/SA80 project. The first 12 prototypes made were known as the “00 series,” despite the fact that 12 were made (001–0012). Eight of these were IW (rifles) and four were LSW (light support weapons). The first prototype ever made is marked “R No. 001” on the upper receiver (“body”) and “No. 001” on the lower (“trigger mechanism housing” or TMH), one of three examples in the Royal Armouries ex-Pattern Room collection. The “R” stands for “Rifle,” while the LSW bears an “L” prefix for “Light Support Weapon,” despite being interchangeably referred to at the time as a “Machine Gun.” One of the IWs was produced in 5.56x45mm in an early acknowledgement that 5.56 already existed as a rival, and the new design might require conversion at a later date (as the EM-2 had to 7.62x51mm). Contrary to a claim in Raw’s book, this was built in 5.56mm and was not later converted as part of the XL70 family.

The Sterling Conspiracy Revisited

We have previously debunked the claim that Enfield built their AR-18 bullpup conversion from parts stolen from the rival Sterling factory. Indeed, while Enfield might be argued to have borrowed rather heavily from the AR-18, they did not do so from Sterling, who had yet to begin production of the AR-18 when Enfield first designed the weapon. However, there is another related myth pertaining not to the converted AR-18 but to the actual Enfield prototypes in the “00” series. This appeared in The Observer newspaper at the height of the controversy over the in-service SA80 in 1992: “In 1976 Edmiston and his designer, Frank Waters, saw the prototype SA80 at the British Army Equipment Exhibition in Aldershot. It was a bullpup design, a squat rifle with a minimal butt, and its operation looked curiously familiar.”

“Frank was allowed to take it apart,” Edmiston told The Observer. “He found our bolt carrier, our magazine and parts out of our gun. These weren’t even copies. They had bought some of our guns and were using the parts to make the SA80 prototype.”

A former weapons designer with Royal Ordnance confirmed that claim. He added that the original prototypes, basically an amalgam of the Armalite AR-18 and the bullpup design of the old RO EM2, were good, promising guns, “but the design was fiddled with by committees in the MoD and Royal Ordnance.” The gun, he says, “has never been the same since.”

This is impossible. The prototype shown at the exhibition was the “00 series” gun; mechanically based on the AR-18 to be sure but containing no interchangeable parts. In fact, this may be a misquote on the part of the Observer journalist. In his own autobiographical book The Sterling Years, also published in 1992, Edmiston states that the Enfield director toured the factory in 1979, but only “some three or four years later” did Frank Waters inspect prototype SA80s. In this account Waters does not suggest that the parts were actually Sterling-made, simply that they were close in design, which is quite true. The similarity of the AR-18 and EWS/SA80 working parts and gas parts is interesting to be sure, but hardly unique in the history of small arms design (as noted in a previous article). Indeed, neither these parts nor any other feature of the Enfield were in breach of Sterling’s, nor Armalite’s, nor IP.

Armalite was granted a detailed patent for the design of the AR-18 in a number of countries including the UK (GB1056056 (A)) and the U.S. (U.S.3318192 (A)), though only the 1967 UK patent is relevant here. In the UK, patent duration is 20 years; meaning that this one was still in force when the EWS/SA80s were being produced. Yet it is the specific nature of Armalite’s patent claims that make them irrelevant here. Because each claim describes their design in detail, a given weapon would have to be a near-identical copy to risk infringement. Enfield clearly knew this, since they made no attempt to hide their inspiration. Hance even patented the EWS design with direct reference to one of Sullivan’s patents; although for some reason he cited the 1964 patent for the AR-18’s folding stock design and not the actual 1967 patent covering the receiver architecture of the AR-18. This is very odd given that the Enfield (as a bullpup) had no buttstock. It is also noteworthy that Armalite did not attempt to patent the AR-18’s gas system, only a reciprocating bolt carrier with a rotating bolt, and only where this was installed in a receiver matching their precise architecture (to which, if anything, the Sterling LAR and SAR-80 are much closer).

Design Features

Controversies aside, the basic design of the 00 series guns goes a long way toward meeting the original requirements, being neat, compact and lightweight (especially without the hefty SU.S.AT). It balances well in the firing hand and is easily manipulated. Aside from the inevitable ergonomic issues presented by the bullpup configuration, it is an obviously early effort. The cross-bolt safety is located conveniently enough but is small and yet at the same time easily pressed inadvertently. The magazine catch is located on the wrong side of the weapon and rocks in the wrong direction for easy manipulation with the left (support) hand. The cross-bolt selector is easy to operate, but inconveniently located at the rear of the receiver.

Also, because “R” for “Repetition” (see Editor’s Note at end) is in the centre position, it is possible to accidentally place the selector on either the “A” (to the left, for Automatic) or “3” (to the right, for three-round burst) position. The small bolt handle lacks the AR-18’s upswept profile, making it harder to cock with the support hand than it might otherwise be (most likely to prevent the firer’s arm being struck during hip fire). The adjustable gas plug is marked “E,” “R” and “0.” E is for “Excessive” and “Zero” for launching rifle grenades. “R” is a mystery, as the provisional manual produced for this series does not clarify this detail. As this setting on later patterns is “N” for “Normal,” perhaps here “R” stands for “Regular.” The weapon is easily disassembled for cleaning with the removal of one captive pin and a sprung retaining band on the handguard. However, the hammer must be manually depressed with a tool in order to reinstall the bolt and carrier.

Overall, this early SA80 prototype typifies period small arms design and manufacturing principles, being of spot-welded, pressed (stamped) steel construction with synthetic furniture and featuring the optical sight and SCHV requirements already noted. The finish is black paint over phosphate, with bluing for the optical sight and mount. The magazine catch, handguard retainer and butt-plate are simply painted black. The grey polymer handguard and pistol grip are roughly machined from solid polymer (glass-reinforced Nylon 12 polyamide), the former having four widely spaced finger grooves and the latter being similar in shape and grip angle to the AR-18 original. The butt-plate is now a custom piece and is deeply grooved. There is no cheekpiece, and no dust cover is yet provided. As has been noted, the working parts are very close to those found in the AR-18 but despite claims to the contrary, have not been directly copied and differ in every detail. Unfortunately, this includes a very weak bolt head; a feature actually borrowed from the Stoner 63 bolt. The trigger mechanism too is substantially different to that found in the AR-18. As well as the long trigger bar required by the bullpup arrangement, every component of this assembly is of a different shape and arrangement. For example, in the AR-18 the disconnector is located at the rear of the mechanism and protrudes through the middle of a (slotted) pressed steel hammer in order to hold the latter back during cycling. In the EWS, the same component (the “sear interceptor” or interceptor sear) operates on a bent in the bottom of the cocked hammer, which is a differently shaped solid casting and is therefore positioned beneath it. Because it is adapted from the AR-15’s trigger mechanism but uses a different, shorter bolt carrier, the AR-18 uses a long, two-part auto sear assembly that is anchored to the selector axis pin. The EWS uses a simpler, more purpose-designed, single-piece lever (“safety sear”) pivoted on the trigger axis pin.

The barrel is of similar “pencil” profile to the AR-18 (and indeed contemporary AR-15/M16 rifles), but that weapon’s pronged flash suppressor was abandoned in favour of a pseudo-cone-shaped design reminiscent of the PKM device but featured three large ports in front of a second annular ring. The weapon is fitted with a prototype SU.S.AT sight (retrospectively designated XL9E1) serial number 001. Like the SUIT, the pointer inside drops down from above rather than sticking up from below. This is often thought to be a uniquely British design, but in fact it was somewhat common at the time. The standard Colt telescopic sight for the AR-15 has a similar inverted pointer, the theory being that a military user brings his weapon up from a low ready position and so would not wish to have his man-sized (300m distant) target obscured by his own sighting system. There is no provision for iron or backup iron sights.

Finally, a steel 20-round magazine is fitted, necessarily proprietary in design due to the greater overall length of the 4.85x49mm cartridge. The magazine is numbered (“5”) by hand and is painted with a white stripe down the right side, presumably both for recognition purposes during the design process. Again, it would have likely been easier to adopt the AR-18 or AR-15 magazine.

As one might expect, the Light Support Weapon is virtually identical but features a longer, heavier barrel with a bipod and a bulkier handguard design with ventral channels to accept the folded bipod legs. Interestingly, the only mechanical change was to add a reciprocating mass (a tungsten pellet) to the bolt carrier in order to reduce rate of fire and, especially, carrier bounce, which had caused significant problems. This feature later became standard on both the IW and LSW.

The “00 series” feasibility study resulted in a further set of rather vague parameters that might apply to any new small arm. The new weapon should be:

1. Lightweight;
2. Compact and easily handled; and
3. Simple to operate, aim, fire and teach.
4. It confirmed that the new weapon system should comprise:
5. An Individual Weapon (IW) (a small calibre rifle) to replace the rifle, L1A1 (SLR) and SMG, L2A3 (“Sterling”); and
6. A Light Support Weapon (LSW) (specifically a machine gun in the same calibre) to replace the L4A4 (Bren) and ground role L7A2 GPMG.
7. Both should be selective fire.

The “0 Series”

This gave the green light to another pre-production series known as the “0 series,” again based upon its serial numbering. These weapons were produced from 1975 to 1976 and represent the second evolutionary step toward the final SA80. The major improvements comprised:

1. Revised reinforced receiver architecture.
2. Rock in’ magazines with an L-shaped catch relocated to the left side, intended to be operated by the support hand thumb.
3. Three-round burst feature deleted.
4. Selector switch replaced with a rotary design marked “R” and “A,” similar to the SA80 design.
5. Trigger weight reduced from a ridiculous 24 pounds to 8-10 pounds.
6. Flash suppressor machined as an integral part of the barrel (to reduce costs) and fitted with an annular ring and spring for grenade launching.
7. Rear sling loop on top of the receiver.
8. Properly moulded and textured polymer furniture including a cheekpiece glued onto the upper receiver. A bipod mounting point is incorporated into the spring-clip handguard retainer.
9. A lengthened sight bracket was fitted to allow for proper eye relief.
10. Provision for emergency iron sights; a folding front and a removable rear (the former being kept folded when not in use and the latter stored in a new compartment in the grip).
11. A bolt hold-open device activated either automatically by the follower of the empty magazine or manually by a small catch (part of the hold-open bar itself) protruding from the bottom of the lower receiver. This is not a bolt release, however, so the cocking handle must be operated to close the bolt.

The bolt has been reinforced; it is now cut away to only 2/3 of its maximum diameter in order to accommodate the (still quite large) extractor.

The bolt carrier group was standardized for both IW and LSW with a new flat-sided design, including the anti-bounce feature. It also incorporates a guide lug on the rear lower left side. Along with the cam pin, this runs in a special channel welded onto the inside of the upper receiver. Amusingly, the rear of the carrier is now marked “R,” presumably for “rear” to avoid incorrect user insertion!

Some examples of the 0 series were further modified. Their bolt carriers were relieved on both sides with large lightening cuts, and these were marked “FOR TRIALS ONLY.” They also bear a revised design drawing number to reflect this change—all of the experimental weapons in these series have components marked with drawing numbers to keep track of the different build standards and modifications. The “trials” in question must have been those carried out on the 0 series to inform the next iteration of the design (rather than the NATO trials). Finally, it appears that a hinged dust cover was also designed at this time but was not widely fitted (by means of spot welding) until the final iteration of the XL60 pattern (see below).

In addition to all of these changes, the 0 series LSW/MG also received a new cylindrical pattern of pinned-on flash suppressor (which Raw calls a “muzzle brake”) and optional 30-round magazines. A single example of an LSW with detachable barrel was produced, as well as an experimental under-barrel grenade launcher.

The Enfield Weapon System Unveiled

It was at this point, on June 14, 1976, that the new family of weapons was officially revealed to the public and dubbed “Enfield Weapon System” along with a series of official “XL” (for “eXperimental, Land service”) designations. Despite the use of 0 series weapons in promotional photographs, technically speaking, the XL numbers listed at the beginning of this article should apply only to the third and final iteration of the original design that emerged after this date. This series incorporated feedback from the 0 series and efforts at “value engineering” to make the design viable for mass production. These weapons were serial numbered with “B” prefixes for the IW and “J” for the LSW (although with proper XL designations, there is no longer a need to refer to them by their serial ranges). They featured:

1. A FAL or AK-style paddle magazine catch replaced the AR-18 style rocker switch/button, with matching changes to the magazine design.
2. A new lever-type safety catch on the left side (regardless of left- or right-handed variants).
3. Redesigned bolt carrier patterns specific to IW and LSW variants (see below).
4. Further revised polymer furniture with more texturing. The new handguard dispensed with the bipod attachment point, replacing it with a simple D-ring sling swivel and, for the first time, featured a proper sheet metal heat-shield.
5. A revised butt-plate with optional extended butt-plates to vary length of pull (this made the longer sight bracket redundant). The sling loop reverted to the bottom only.
6. 30-round magazines were now standard (but notably, not yet STANAG standard).

As before, the LSW variant differed primarily in its heavy barrel and bipod and was claimed to possess 80% parts commonality with the IW. However, the handguard, gas plug, safety sear (auto sear), change lever and, importantly, the bolt carrier were all of different patterns. Both BCGs featured a flat outer side, but the rifle pattern had a deep lightening scallop in the outer face, and the LSW version instead had a groove machined into its inner side (above the cam pin and guide lug, aside from a single exception where a rifle pattern BCG was originally fitted to an LSW but later installed in a rifle and re-serialized). This groove appears to simply give greater clearance for the bolt carrier and prevent it from rubbing against the internal cam pin rail, presumably to improve open bolt functioning. A new bipod was designed, this time with sliding adjustable legs, and the pinned LSW-specific flash suppressor was reverted to the previous pattern (as on the IW barrel).

The new XL64E5 and XL65E4 offered improved ergonomics thanks to the new pattern safety and magazine catches. The non-ambidextrous safety lever is actually easier to operate for left-handed shooters, who are able to use the index finger of the firing hand to sweep it up and down. Right-handed shooters need long thumbs or are obliged to break their strong-hand grip. As ARES writer Ian McCollum notes, however, the safety is rather large and easy to operate inadvertently, especially with left-handed guns/users. The change lever (selector switch) carried over from the 0 series design is adequate but, like many XL64/5 components, is a complex shape that would later be simplified.

Reliability Issues

It was this build standard that was used in the problematic NATO ammunition trials. These both revealed reliability issues with the weapon design in its prototype form and buried the idea of a British 4.85mm cartridge. The biggest issues were with the trigger mechanism, namely:

• Weapon firing auto when set to single shot; and
• Trigger not returning to the fully forward position when released.

These issues were blamed on ingress of dirt and other foreign material (although two other “runaway gun” issues were identified with 0 series guns that were unrelated to this cause). Examining a trigger mechanism housing today, it is easy to see why the very tight fit of parts might result in problems of this nature. The weapons also suffered feed problems, notably a failure to eject. There were also problems with poor welding and weak and out-of-spec components. The biggest early issue was with barrel wear; the 4.85mm EWS barrel provided a service life of only 3,000 rounds, compared to 20,000 for the AR-15. This seems to have been solved by (or at least by the time of) the shift to 5.56x45mm. None of this—with the possible exception of the excessive barrel wear—is surprising for a new design and could no doubt have been solved given sufficient available expertise, resources and time.

The final iteration of the XL60 family was in many respects a promising, compact and lightweight design that reflected the cutting edge thinking of the day. Enfield made a good choice in borrowing from ArmaLite’s AR-18, and they broke no laws and infringed no patents by doing so, just as many other manufacturers continue to make liberal use of the successful features of earlier rifles in their modern designs. These features were a sound basis for a modern combat rifle, and Enfield’s design could have been a successful bullpup derivative of that weapon. However, as we shall see, the path to the truly capable SA80A2 series was to be a long and difficult one.

[Editor’s Note: In the Second World War period it appears that “R” officially stood for “Rounds.” This potentially confusing term was replaced by the more specific “Repetition” from the EWS pamphlet onwards.]

••••••••••••••••••••••••

Special thanks to the National Firearms Centre at the Royal Armouries, who graciously allowed us access to their world-class collection, and to the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom at Shrivenham, for allowing us to handle and fire an EWS rifle. Thanks are also due to Neil Grant.

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)