Just about every military small arms enthusiast is familiar with the U.S. M3 and M3A1 submachine guns, better known by the nickname bestowed upon them by GIs during World War II, the “grease gun.”

The .45 caliber M3 was conceived as a less expensive alternative to the Thompson submachine gun, which at the time the U.S. entered World War II in 1941, the Thompson design was 20 years old. The M3 was patterned after the British Sten and German MP40 sub-machine guns, both constructed from sheet metal stampings—a far cry from the Thompson forged and machined receiver and parts. In addition to being less expensive, weapons stamped from sheet metal can be produced faster, an essential advantage in wartime.

Mk II

The Mk II was the most prolific model of the British Sten. The receiver was fabricated from pre-formed metal tubing. The German MP40 receiver was made from a flat piece of sheet metal that was rolled into a tube. The receiver of the U.S. M3 submachine gun was far more complicated to produce. The M3 receiver and most of its other parts were stamped from cold rolled sheet metal, requiring a factory equipped with a battery of large hydraulic stamping presses. The receiver was made of two separate stamped pieces that were then welded together. When production began, it was discovered that it was difficult to accurately weld the two receiver halves together. In addition, the heat from the gas welding process was warping the thin metal, and it took some time to perfect the process. During production, the time allotted for welding the two receiver halves together was 12.11 minutes. The M3 design had an advantage over other submachine guns of the day, with its ingenious guide rod-bolt system. The bolt of the M3 rode on two guide rods, never touching the inside of the receiver. The unique system made the M3 impervious from malfunctions caused by mud, sand or other debris, making it one of the few weapons to successfully pass all the Ordnance Department’s requirements.

The Guide Lamp Division of General Motors Corporation

The Guide Lamp production plant was located in Anderson, Indiana, and in 1943 it had over half a million square feet of production floor space in 18 separate buildings. The Guide Lamp Division of the General Motors Corporation was a peacetime manufacturer of automobile lamps, headlight buckets, hub-caps and bumper guards. Guide Lamp had a lot of expertise and experience in sheet metal stampings and was an excellent choice for the manufacturing of the M3. By May 1943, the first M3 submachine guns were finally rolling off the assembly lines at Guide. Production had fallen far behind projected figures by the unforeseen welding problems encountered with the receiver. However, by June 1944, 1,000 M3s were being manufactured every 24 hours.

The Guide Lamp contract price for the M3 was $17.92 per unit less the bolt assembly. The initial price was later amended to $18.36 per unit to cover the cost of minor production changes and the packing and shipping of the completed units. The M3 bolt assembly manufacture was subcontracted to the Buffalo Arms Company at a cost of $2.58 per piece.

The following quote is from the second summary of the tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground upon adoption of the M3 Submachine Gun. “Although it would be dangerous to state that further improvements and developments are unlikely, the ultimate has been reached in this type of weapon for the time being and production may begin without fear of immediate change.”

The above statement was premature, because as the M3 was pressed into service, problems began to arise. The M3 was not yet “GI Proof.”
One of the primary problems was with the cocking handle and its internal parts. A second problem was magazines were dropping out of the weapon, by the accidental pressing of the exposed magazine catch. Deterioration of the bolt face and barrel chamber was found to be caused by soldiers using the overly long wire butt stock as a cleaning rod. These problems and a few others would be addressed in an upgrade of the weapon.

M3E1 Submachine Guns

The M3 was thought to be as simple and reliable as possible; however; the Ordnance Department felt that the weapon could be simplified even further. Six pilot models were built, incorporating several recommended changes that were designated as the M3E1 submachine gun. Two of the completed weapons were sent to the Infantry Board at Fort Benning, Georgia, for informal testing, and two were demonstrated at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Since none of the changes incorporated in the M3E1 design had any adverse effect upon the reliability of the weapons’ functioning, no formal testing was undertaken by the Ordnance Department. Sufficient firing of the new weapons was conducted to satisfy concerned personnel as to the desirability of the changes incorporated. Some of the firing demonstrations were witnessed by representatives of the Army Ground Forces and by the director of the Infantry Board who expressed his approval of the M3E1.

The U.S. M3A1 Submachine Gun

The experimental M3E1 was recommended for adoption on November 2, 1944, by OCM 25593. On December 21, 1944, the M3E1 Sub-machine Gun was approved and officially adopted as: Submachine Gun, Caliber .45 M3A1, thus reclassifying the M3 as Limited Standard.

M3A1 Changes

• Ejection port increased in size
• Cocking handle assembly eliminated, fin-ger hole added to bolt for cocking
• Disassembly groove the length of the bolt
• Stronger cover spring
• Larger oil can located inside the grip
• Stop plate and magazine loader added to the stock
• Guard for the magazine catch

9mm M3 and M3A1 Submachine Guns

Among the original specifications desired in the T-20 (M3) submachine gun was a kit to change the caliber to 9mm. The conversion kits were originally planned for allied use in the European Theater; none were ever issued to U.S. troops. The 9mm cartridge was common in Europe during World War II. It was the standard pistol and submachine gun cartridge of both the British and the Germans. Ammunition would be easier to obtain by resistance groups that the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was planning to supply with the M3. The conversion kits could also make the M3 readily adaptable for use by the British especially when using a Sten magazine. The conversion kits consisted of a Bolt assembly C153425, Barrel Assembly C153435 and magazine Adapter C153430. In December 1943, the Ordnance Committee recommended that 500 of the 9mm conversion kits for the M3 be obtained as a limited procurement item. In February 1944, procurement was authorized. The parts were manufactured by the Rock Island Arsenal and Saginaw Steering Gear. The 32-round Sten magazines would be obtained from the British government.

In addition to M3 and M3A1 conversion kits, there were a small number of grease guns produced that were marked 9mm, in place of .45 caliber, on their magazine housings. Those observed were the same configuration as the .45 caliber model but fitted with Sten magazine adapters, 9mm bolts and barrels.

Curved Barrels

Due to its compact size, the M3 submachine gun was ideal for issue as a defensive weapon for armored vehicle crews. The weapons could be easily stored in the cramped space inside a tank. Tanks in the field were usually accompanied by infantry troops for protection from the enemy. Without infantry protection, the enemy could climb onto the tanks and drop grenades or spray machine gun fire into the inside of the hull, killing the trapped crews. To avert such situations, the Ordnance Department engineers came up with several curved barrel designs for the M3. The idea was the crew could extend the curved barrel out of the tank and spray enemy soldiers on their vehicle with fire, without exposing themselves. The issue of the curved barrels was limited. The Germans had also experimented with curved barrels for a number of their small arms.

The .30 Caliber T29 Submachine Gun

The German Sturmgewehr mid-range assault rifle was an entirely new concept in World War II. The weapon had the full-au-tomatic capability of the submachine gun but fired a more potent cartridge, giving the enemy far more range. After U.S. troops began to encounter the Sturmgewehr in the field, requests were made for a similar weapon. The most expedient method to get such a weapon to the troops was to modify an existing model. The M3A1 was chosen as the best candidate. The concept was given considerable study by the design section of the Guide Lamp Division of the General Motors Corporation, which was manufacturing the M3A1 submachine gun. There were three M3A1 submachine guns made, designated as the T29, chambered for the .30 caliber carbine round. The weapon was basically an M3A1 with a larger magazine well to accept carbine magazines, a modified bolt, a spring-loaded case ejector and a 14-inch long barrel. Initial testing revealed more development would be required. Development efforts of the T29 ceased with the adoption of the select-fire caliber .30 M2 carbine.

The Suppressed M3

The U.S. Ordnance department developed a special interest in suppressed or silenced weapons after learning of the British Special Operations Executive (also known as the SOE) commandos’ successful use of their silenced Sten Mark II S model. The weapon proved to be an invaluable asset for special operations where surprise and concealment were paramount to a successful mission. The SOE was the British counterpart of the United States’ OSS organization.

It was held that the U.S. M3 submachine gun would be ideally suited for adaptation of a suppressor because of its inherently subsonic .45 ACP cartridge.

The M3 suppressor research was conducted at the Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Georgia. There was an interest in supplying Army Rang-ers and other troops with a silenced weapon for special assignments. The earliest silencers were based on the Hiram Maxim baffle system. These proved to be heavy and cumbersome. None of the Fort Benning designs went past the prototype stage, and the project was canceled.

The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was established in June 1942. The OSS organization was engaged in various types of covert and unconventional activities during World War II. The OSS had requested from the Army Ord-nance Department suppressed submachine guns for their special mission and operational needs. By late 1943, the OSS was directly supporting resistance groups in Europe and the South Pacific. The U.S. Ordnance Department contracted Bell Laboratories to develop a new suppressor for the M3 submachine gun. Guide Lamp was subcontracted to manufacture drilled barrels and special barrel nuts for the project. The High Standard Company was engaged to produce the components and assemble the unit. The contract called for 1,000 suppressor units to be built. The barrels made by Guide were identical to the standard production barrels except the face of the barrel nut was machined to form a seat for the expansion chamber. The barrel was also a standard item modified by drilling 48 one-quarter-inch diameter holes, arranged in a straight-line pattern of 12 on each quarter section of the length of the barrel. The muzzle end of the barrel was threaded for a length of one-half of an inch to enable the front end of the suppressor can to screw onto it.

The suppressor itself consisted of two sleeves. The rear sleeve is the expansion chamber. It is 7.5 inches long and 1.5 inches in diameter. The front sleeve is the silencer housing and is 7 inches long and 1.125 inches in diameter. The expansion chamber is connected to the silencer housing by a metal connector. External threads on the front portion of the unit were screwed into the connector. The connector was screwed on the muzzle of the barrel and holds the rear part of the suppressor in place by seating on the modified barrel nut. The rear expansion chamber contained a coil of stainless steel mesh. The front section of the suppressor housings contained approximately 230 steel mesh discs. An end cap secured the discs in place. As the bullet travels down the barrel some of the propellant gases escape through the 48 holes drilled into the sides of the barrel.

The total of submachine guns manufactured from 1943 to 1945 by Guide Lamp was 606,694 M3 models and 82,281 M3A1 models, for a combined total of 688,975 weapons. The entire World War II production of the M3 and the M3A1 would total only a little more than one-third of the Thompsons produced during the war.

During the Korean War, the Ithaca Gun Company was contracted through the Roch-ester, New York Ordnance District to fabricate 70,000 new M3A1 submachine guns. The manufacturing was authorized under contract number DA 19-058-ORD-7894. Preparation for the manufacturing would be assisted by the data package documented by Guide Lamp during its manufacture of the weapon.
Delays in getting production started resulted in the Ithaca M3A1s being manufactured in 1955–1956 after the war in Korea had ended. The contract was canceled after 33,227 guns were manufactured; primarily due to the Korean conflict ending and the anticipated adoption of the M14 rifle.

The Colonel Hamilton M3 Submachine Gun

Sometime in the post-World War II era, an experimental weapon was constructed by a Lt Colonel Hamilton while he was stationed in Panama. An obvious attempt was to modernize a M3 submachine gun. The front part of an M3 was welded to a steel frame with a removable side plate, secured with machine screws to remove the bolt assembly. Other upgrades include: a wooden buttstock, fore-grip and pistol grip, side cocking handle, adjustable flip-up rear sight and a perforated barrel jacket. The overall length is 30 inches, barrel length is 8-inches, and the weight is 11 pounds. The weapon was procured by the Rock Island Arsenal Museum in 1948 and is currently on display there.

Rare M3A1 Magazines

During World War II, M3 magazines were made by Sparks-Withington (SPW) and Kesler Brass (KL). The magazines made by those companies are still common even today. During subsequent conflicts, in Korea and Vietnam, there were small production runs of magazines for the M3 and M3A1 submachine guns.

In addition to M3A1 submachine guns, Ithaca also made a small number of magazines for the M3A1, marked with a new drawing number C565427 and “ITG.”

Magazines were also produced during the Vietnam conflict by Jahn Manufacturing. These were marked with a letter “J” and drawing number C-565427. OKAY Industries purchased Jahn Manufacturing around 1970.

The Adoption of the U.S. M14 Rifle

Substitute Standard after the adoption of the M14 rifle, which (in theory) was replacing the M1 rifle, the carbine and the submachine gun. M3A1 submachine guns continued to be issued to Army Reserve armored units as late as 1999. Modern mid-range assault rifles like the M16 and M4 have rendered the military use of the submachine gun obsolete.

At the English Easter Maneuvers of 1891, the 26th Middlesex Cyclist Regiment demonstrated what is believed to be the first use of a machine gun fired by a cycle carriage. Military planners were impressed by the display, but there proved to be a rather significant issue with this concept: two bicycles mounted side-by-side with a platform for the Maxim gun in between. It simply weighed too much. At 96 pounds the bicycles of the era, with solid rubber tires and lacking the gears of today’s carbon fiber mountain bikes, were simply unable to pull the weight of the gun up even a slight incline. Two riders, even on level ground, would struggle to manage more than a few miles an hour. British designers tried to improve upon the design, and one concept included additional bikes that could aid by towing the twin-bike platform.

The Origin of Military Bicycles

Anyone who has visited parts of Europe, notably France, Italy and the Netherlands, can attest that these people love their bicycles. Bicycle racing is one of the most popular sports in Europe, following only football (soccer) in overall popularity. For many Europeans cycling is part of daily life as people commute to work, get to the store and when possible, get away from it all.

It is therefore not surprising that the bi-cycle also has a long and colorful history that includes service in various armies in Europe, and for that matter the world.

However, just as no one person, or persons, can lay claim to actually inventing the automobile, the same holds true for the bicycle. The first person generally credited with building a two-wheel device that would be the forerunner of the modern bicycle was German Baron Karl Von Drais, who in 1817 devised an in-line contraption that was propelled by the rider’s feet. This horse substitute, which was aimed at the well-to-do, didn’t catch on, however.

Other inventors and tinkerers attempted to create a human-driven machine, but it actually wasn’t until the 1860s that Frenchmen Pierre Michaux and Pierre Lallement introduced a pedal-driven system that would propel bicycle technology and subsequently the riders forward. While these early bicycles were actually awkward to ride, military planners saw a potential, and bicycles were employed by French scouts and dispatch riders during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871.

Just as technological advances were being made in the development of automatic weapons in the 1880s so too did the bicycle see significant innovation. English inventor John Kemp Starley built on this development and produced the world’s first successful “safety bicycle,” which was dubbed the “Rover.”

Released in 1885, its design would be recognizable even today. It featured equally sized front and back wheels, with the front being steerable and a chain drive to the rear wheel. Throughout Europe military planners saw a potential for scouts, but also for a new type of mobile infantry.

Across the Atlantic, a handful of American National Guard regiments experimented with bicycles. The First Signal Corps of the Connecticut National Guard formed the first military bicycle unit in 1891, when the bicycle was used by messengers and relay riders. Various challenges ensued including one that had a Connecticut National Guard cyclist prove he alone could deliver a message faster than an entire flag signaler team, while a relay team carried a single dispatch from Chicago to New York City in just four days and 13 hours, with much of it in rainy weather. A follow-up challenge brought a message from Washington, D.C. to Denver in just over six days!

The Bicycle and the Machine Gun Come Together

Military planners proved that the bicycle could be used to deliver messages, but the bicycle also found use for portable topographers and even telegraphers. In one case, a rider used his bike to study the grade of hills and other terrain to help commanders in the field determine if the land was traversable with cannons and wagons.

In the 1890s, multiple nations conducted field tests that included adding a sidecar mounted with early machine guns as well as side-mounted rifles that could be fired from the handlebars. During the Second Anglo-Boer War in South Africa, which began in 1899, the bicycle first had its baptism of fire when it was used by messengers, was adapted into portable stretch-ers and even used as a part of a specially devised two-man cycle to patrol the railroads. In the latter case about 20 were built for patrol work, however, none is believed to survive today.

One of the most notable concepts was produced just after the war ended, when the English company of Vickers & Sons & Maxim created a large, two-man tricycle that featured a platform for a pair of machine guns. More correctly a “tri-cycle” than “bicycle,” it featured three wheels and was designed to carry 1,000 cartridges along with two Vickers machine guns.

This system allowed the two rear-facing guns to set up and fire simultaneously within mere minutes. However, the total weight was more than 375 pounds not including the riders! As with the earlier British design this meant it was almost impossible to pedal up a slope and instead had to be pushed. By removing one of the guns, tripod and ammunition, the tricycle’s weight was reduced to a far more manageable 126 pounds. The tests proved that the bicycle, at least in concept, could be used as a weapon’s platform.

The relative “success” of the bicycle caught the eye of American Albert Pope, who offered his own design which featured a Colt M1895 “potato digger” machine gun affixed to the front of the frame. It was of course impossible to fire while riding, and the weight of the gun seriously impacted the balance.

End of the Line

While designers continued to tinker with the designs, what truly resulted in the end of the line for the bicycle and machine gun were the trenches of the First World War. By that time the bicycle was employed by armies on both sides to help troops to get to the front line, but as the war bogged down into the hellish nightmare of trench warfare the two-wheel machines were relegated to rear echelon duty. Cycles were used to some degree by sharpshooters in less static areas as well as by scouts and, of course, dispatch riders.

A generation after the trench warfare of the First World War, the outbreak of war in Europe and Asia put the cycle back in the field. The German Army, even during its rapidly moving blitzkrieg, still relied on horse-drawn carriages to transport men and equipment, and bicycles also played a part.

Wartime shortages throughout World War II also resulted in many nations utilizing the bicycle to save on fuel. During the invasion of Malaysia, there were thousands of Japanese soldiers rolling towards Singapore on bicycles. As rubber was in short supply, it is reported that Japanese soldiers learned to ride on the rims when the tires went flat and couldn’t be repaired.

Ironically, the nation that is most associated with military bikes is one that stayed neutral throughout both world wars, Switzerland. That nation’s Bicycle Infantry was introduced in 1905 and only phased out in 2001; for nearly 100 years the bikes that the mountain nation used were known for their high quality and equally high durability. While Switzerland experimented with mounting machine guns on bikes over the years, like most other nations it found that the bicycle was best used as a tool for infantry.

In the end it was the introduction of motorized vehicles that signaled the end of the line for the bicycle and the machine gun.

Railway guns hardly qualify as “small arms,” I agree, but it is hoped that guns of all sizes are of interest to Small Arms While searching through the Osprey Publish-ing online catalog for suitable books to review, I came across these three titles. Being interested in guns of all sizes and shapes, I was intrigued.

These three titles come from Osprey’s New Vanguard series. This series covers all manners of large weapons systems, from 16th century warships to modern-day tanks and helicopter gunships. The series consists of approximately 270 (titles are continuously being added) small booklets, each measuring 7 ¼in x 9 ¾in and 48 pages in length. Many different authors and illustrators have contributed to this series, so the writing style varies slightly, but the layout is basically the same.

Numerous photographs of the weapon in service, along with new, full-color artwork are featured. Similar to the Weapon series of booklets from Osprey, the New Vanguard booklets are meant to be a solid introduction to a topic, not the final word.

Railway Guns of World War I (NVG 249), by authors Marc Romanych and Greg Heuer, opens with the comment “World War I was the Golden Age of railway artillery, with more types and numbers of these guns employed than in any other conflict.” I was quite surprised to learn that by the end of WW I, over 600 individual guns had seen action, and perhaps 200 more were either on order or under construction.

The first attempt at a railway gun was during the U.S. Civil War, when the Confederate forces mounted a 32-pound naval gun to a railway flat-car. This was followed by two Union guns of similar design. Similar early versions are noted during the Anglo-Egyptian War (1882) and the Second Boer War (1899-1902). Across Europe, the idea of transporting artillery pieces to the battle front was catching on. However, these were generally just regular field guns on flatcars or old naval guns cobbled together. France was the first nation to design and build a railway gun from the ground up, in 1888. This is briefly mentioned in the “Introduction” and the “Before the War” sections.

The chapter titled, “Design and Development” is the heart of the book. It is subdivided into individual years, so the overall progression is laid out in chronological order. The subsection “1914 and 1915: The First Railway Guns” covers the transition from field guns bolted to flatcars, to the beginnings of large guns on specially designed heavy mounts. France took the early lead here. Interestingly, Germany did not build any true railway guns during this time. Instead, she focused on building large guns that fired from concrete and steel firing platforms, rather than a stretch of rail.

“Subsection 1916: Greater Range and Fire-power” discusses exactly that, and an accompanying chart lists one French gun with a bore of 400mm (approximately 16 inches) and another with a range of 33km (roughly 22 miles).

French and British designs, as well as Italian, Russian and American types. Also, in early 1917, Germany introduced the 24cm “Theodore Karl” E. gun. Designed by the German Navy in 1916, it used a 24cm (240mm, or roughly 9 ½ inches) naval cannon to fire shells to a range of almost 27km (roughly 17 miles).

As the subsection “1918: Super-Heavy Railway Guns” explains, Britain and France had ramped up production of tanks by 1918, so fewer railway guns were produced in the final year. However, several huge guns were built, even if in limited numbers. The largest bore railway gun of any nation was the French 520mm (approx. 20.5 inches) Obusier Mle 1916 Howitzer. Two were built—one blew up during testing, and the other didn’t finish testing before the war ended.

Railway Guns of World War II (NVG 231) is written by author Steven J. Zaloga. Rather a year-by-year study, Zaloga lays his book out by country. Countries profiled are France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, USSR, Finland, Japan, Britain and USA. The booklet notes that Mr. Zaloga has a Masters degree in history, so perhaps it is not surprising that his writing focuses on the battles and usage, more than the technical aspects, as compared to the WWI book by Romanych and Heuer.

Superguns 1854-1991: Extreme Artillery from the Paris Gun and the V-3 to Iraq’s Project Babylon (NVG 265) is also written by Steven J. Zaloga. This covers four specific guns that don’t qualify as railway guns but are definitely super-sized. These are the Paris Gun, the V-3 London Gun, the M65 Atomic Cannon and the Iraqi Project Babylon gun.
The Paris Gun was so named as it was designed to shell Paris from behind the German lines, 120km (74.5 miles) away. This is an extraordinary range by today’s standards and was unheard of in WWI. While this astonishing gun was delivered to its firing site by rail, it was set up on a permanent concrete firing pad, so it cannot be classed as a true railway gun. Ger-many built three of these massive guns, none of which survive today. All three were destroyed by Germany at the end of the war to prevent the allies from capturing them.

The V-3 London Gun was a WWII project that was supposed to shell London, as the name suggests. The most notable feature of the London Gun was the use of multiple chambers to boost the velocity. Each of these chambers contained an additional propellant charge. As the shell traveled down the barrel, it ignited these charges as it passed by. Several smaller prototypes were fired on testing ranges, but it was never fired in actual combat. A full-size underground gun emplacement was under construction in northern France, roughly 100 miles from London; however, it was badly damaged in a bombing raid before it was completed. This site is now a museum.

The M65 “Atomic Annie” was a U.S. Army cannon that could fire an atomic shell. The 280mm-diameter (roughly 11 inches) canon contained a 15 kiloton warhead. This is equivalent to the Hiroshima “Little Boy” bomb.

Project Babylon refers to an Iraqi gun that was built into the side of a mountain, somewhat similar to the WWII German V-3 London Gun. The Babylon guns included a 300mm prototype, to be followed by a 1000mm (39-inch diameter) monster meant to shell Israel at a range of about 450 miles! Although the Babylon guns did not use the multiple chamber system of the V-3, they were built into the side of a hill to support the huge barrel. As the book explains, the project came to a sudden end when the designer was killed. The strong suspicion is that Israeli Mossad agents assassinated him to end the project.

Each of these three booklets does a nice job of describing the equipment. They contain many period photographs, as well as several full-color painting illustrations. These artworks are very well done, often portraying the guns in action. Other illustrations depict a side view of significant guns.

Each title is available as a paperback or as an ePub or PDF ebook (ospreypublishing. com). The paperback editions sell for USD $18.00 each.

The final prototype series of the SA80 family actually overlapped with the service L85A1 and L86A1 variants and consisted of 10 variants; although the E1 is the only pre-production build standard. All others were created afterward (1987-1990) to address ongoing reliability issues (see below):

• XL85E1, E2, E3, E4 & E5 Individual Weapon (IW)
• XL86E1, E2, E3, E4 & E5 Light Support Weapon (LSW)

Throughout development “IW” and “LSW” were used interchangeably with “Rifle” and “MG.” This is not a case of confusion so much as a hierarchical nomenclature. One set of terms reflects a weapon’s role (specifically, its NATO standardized role), the other its class. In theory, weapons other than a machine gun may fill the light support weapon (LSW) role—an automatic grenade launcher, for example. Similarly, an individual weapon might not necessarily be a rifle—unrifled weapons firing fléchette projectiles were considered by several countries, for example.

Despite the loss of a dedicated left-handed variant, at this point left-handed users of the IW were still to be catered with an armor-er-level conversion kit. Details on this are lacking, but presumably this would have taken the form of a “bare-bones” barrelled upper into which the donor weapon’s working and gas parts were transferred (the bolt would have to be replaced, however).

The new wedge-shaped receiver introduced on the XL70 series was carried over to the XL80 series, but the whole unit was redesigned in detail, re-toleranced, and the method of welding was changed. The rear sling loop was once again deleted. Two important external changes were also made. The extended magazine well added to the XL70 series was very much an afterthought, and neither the best nor the cheapest way to achieve the intended functional design. With the XL80 series, a new magazine housing insert was designed. Tabs were added to the redesigned TMH in order to support it and provide a surface to spot weld it in place (in lieu of the previous seam weld). The stop-lips remained an integral part of the TMH, however. The re-engineering of the XL70 into the XL80 added still further to the weight of the rifle (another 30g). The weapon was not going to meet the 3.2kg target originally set, and with optical sight it weighed only 83g less than the 7.62 x 51mm SLR (FN Herstal FAL) that it replaced (without an optical sight). Although a lot of this excess weight was thanks to the value engineering done on the design and the arguably over-engineered SUSAT sight, a fair amount lay in the barrel profile (carried over from the XL70). This appears thin from the outside, but tapers up drastically under the handguards, becoming very thick and heavy near the chamber. Fortunately, this is near the point of balance, and so for handling purposes the weapon does not feel its weight.

The other major change in this series was the “outrigger” support added to the LSW forend. This was added in order to mitigate a long-running issue with the type; that of split groups on target. The first shot would impact in one place and the remainder of the group several inches away. This seems to have been caused initially by the tapered barrel profile; the second and subsequent shots of a burst being subject to the flex induced by the previous shot. It was likely made worse by positioning of the bipod in earlier designs: clamped around the barrel forward of the handguard, limiting movement of the thicker rear portion and exaggerating the “whip” of the muzzle. The out-rigger solution effectively clamped the end of the barrel in place, producing a stiffer barrel without increasing its weight (although the outrigger itself added weight to the weapon). This was a quick and dirty fix compared to a fuller redesign that would allow for a fully free-floated barrel. For the same reason, the weapon also received a new vertical grip towards the rear of the weapon and was fitted with a folding wire butt-strap (the angle of the latter being altered due to trials feedback). Nonetheless, whereas the IW was accepted for service in January 1984, the LSW was deferred until later that year. As an aside, despite the split group issue, the LSW eventually went on to acquire a reputation for accuracy in semi-automatic mode and has even been used in an expedient designed marksman’s rifle (DMR) role. The LSW handguard was now fully developed, matching the IW design in most aspects but retaining the truncated hand-stop shape prototyped on the XL73E2. Both the rifle and MG also received new flash suppressors of a cylindrical, slotted bird-cage design, although these were not interchangeable.

At this point in the history of the SA80, politics and recrimination began to overtake actual firearms history. Much has been made of the drive to sell off the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield for profit, a narrative in particular of Steve Raw’s The Last Enfield. This is an oversimplification. What actually happened was that the publicly owned factory was combined into a new private sector company along with the Royal Ordnance Factories (ROF), a number of which still existed despite post-Second World War closures. This was incorporated as Royal Ordnance plc (public limited company) and was founded with the intention of floating it on the stock market. The UK government of the day was committed to a policy of privatising public organizations. This may therefore be seen as primarily an ideologically and politically motivated move, rather than simply selling off the proverbial family silver. The goal was to preserve the UK’s organic small arms and ordnance manufacturing capability by forging it into a viable private company; Mrs. Thatcher’s government took the view that such bodies could not survive without substantial government subsidies, as we have seen at play in other countries with legacy national arsenals. Unfortunately, despite an injection of public money and the sale of ROF Leeds, the company could not be made into an attractive investment, and flotation plans were abandoned. Royal Ordnance was put up for sale after all, giving rise to the somewhat plausible, but nonetheless unlikely, conspiracy theory that this had been the secret plan all along. Thus, in 1987, British Aerospace (now BAE Systems) purchased the company for £188.5 million and, only a year later, had begun to sell off assets that were deemed unprofitable. Enfield was one of these.

Regardless of the details, morale at the factory was low. Enfield workers felt their livelihoods threatened as UK industry in general suffered job losses. The government’s privatization agenda suggested to many that even if jobs did persist in the firearms manufacturing sector, these would not be at Enfield. Many were not in a position to move to follow new jobs, and there would not be enough positions to go around even if they could. Like their rivals Sterling, RSAF Enfield were by this time a one-trick pony. Even if SA80 were a success, the UK’s limited civilian market, few products to market for export and shrinking armed forces mean that difficult times were all but certain.

The closure of Enfield spelled the end of an era for British firearms manufacturing. Worse was to come for both the industry and for the SA80. Although the intent of this series is not to apportion blame for the SA80’s early troubles, and the subject is a complex and opaque piece of firearms history, the critical factors boil down to Enfield (and the UK government more broadly) biting off more than it could chew. The days of expert firearms design and unlimited resources were long gone, whereas manufacturing technology had moved on and left the old factory behind. It lacked modern manufacturing expertise, and the famous quality control of the past had clearly lapsed. It even lacked firearms design experience. The original designer, Sydney Hance, was apparently the only member of the original Enfield team with previous experience of designing firearms, and he retired in 1976. The finalized XL64E5 depicted in Hance’s U.S. design patent #251,979 of May 29, 1979, shows that he was involved right up until this major redesign. According to Raw, he believed that his design was sound at that stage and had gone awry after his retirement from the factory. This is by no means certain given the fundamental issues that all of the SA80 build standards suffered, but the oversight of an experienced firearms designer and less enthusiastic cost-cutting measures might just have seen the Hance EWS through to a more successful outcome than the SA80A1. Matters were made much worse by a set in-service date and an insistence upon cost saving, as well as formal acceptance of the weapon system before it was ready for actual use.

In fact, issues with the SA80 did not stop with its formal acceptance and type classification as L85A1 IW and L86A1 LSW. Mechanical issues, and modifications to address these, were ongoing. The first steps were taken with the E2-E5 series mentioned above, a continuation of the XL80 series produced for environmental trials. None of these translated directly into improved service variants as the XL/E1 series had. Instead they acted as test beds for a raft of experimental tweaks to the working parts, gas parts and other areas. For example, the alloy used to manufacture the bolt was changed, different-sized gas port and gas plug apertures were tried, and a double-nested return spring was trialled.

In the case of the XL86E3, the only external changes visible are the experimental white nylon safety catch and “Ejection Opening Cover” (dust cover). On some guns, a large paddle-shaped cocking handle/case deflector was also fitted. Most of these changes were not embodied in the production weapons. The serial number shows that this XL86E3 was manufactured in 1987, two years after the L86A1 had already been introduced into service. However, it has not been fitted with the first pattern magazine catch shroud, introduced during that same year to prevent accidental pressing of the catch and loss of the magazine (a common issue in service). This gun has also been fitted with the second pattern of trigger, fitted to production guns from 1985. This was made heavier to prevent inadvertent firing when dropped on the muzzle. Conversely, the XL85E1 shown has the first pattern, pressed sheet metal trigger. This change had not been trialled on E2-E5 guns, but feedback from those trials resulted in the third pattern snow clearance trigger still in use today. Note also the “ENFIELD®” commercial maker’s mark on the TMH, not found on service weapons (in contrast to the first two “Enfield” rifles, the Pattern 1853 muzzle-loader and the Lee-Enfield magazine rifle).

The many subsequent trials and “mods” incorporated into the SA80A1, while not reflected in distinct experimental variants, are detailed in Steve Raw’s book. However, it is worth noting here that not all of the A1 series issues were inherent to the guns. When they were introduced, the proprietary Radway Green magazines (identifiable by their plastic baseplates marked “RG”) contributed a new weak point in the system. The XL70 and XL80 series were tested and trialed with USGI Colt magazines, but the new British-designed magazine exacerbated the weapon’s problems.

SPECIFICATIONS – XL85E1 IW

• Caliber: 5.56x45mm
• Overall length: 780mm
• Barrel length: 541mm (with flash suppressor)
• Weight (unloaded): 4.42kg (9.74lbs)
• Feed device: 30-round detachable magazine

The next instalment in our series on the SA80 will examine the L85A1 and L85A2 and cover the Heckler & Koch A2 upgrade program.

Special thanks to the National Firearms Centre at the Royal Armouries, who graciously allowed us access to their world-class collection.
This is Part 4 in a series of articles examining the developmental history of the United Kingdom’s SA80 family of firearms. Part 3 appeared in Small Arms Review, Vol. 23, No. 5.
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)

On August 4, 2010, my life and shooting changed forever with the loss of my arm and leg in Afghanistan. During my recovery, shooting has always been a huge benefit physically and personally. Even as my pistol work improved and I learned to shoot a rifle from a bench, standing and shooting a long gun remained elusive. In early 2013, an associate from the VA introduced me to a fellow veteran who had a “great idea” for guys just like me.

SIG SAUER Brace

Alex was the creator of the Brace; when I first picked it up my life changed. What is now the “SIG Brace” was attached to a 5.56 AR pistol. As I strapped it on and dry fired for the first time, it was like taking my first steps again! When the first few rounds left the barrel I knew this was the start of something great.

Since it was new and I was the first one-armed guy to use it, I had to find the best way to approach the grip, stance, sighting (positions and systems) and balance. Work at this I did, and before I realized it, I was building the skills I could later use to shoot a long gun standing again.

With my stance slightly bladed, the pistol slightly canted, adding a sling made it an accurate tool with one hand out to 100 yards repeatedly. Surprisingly the best sighting systems were either simple iron sights or a low-profile optic like the SIG SAUER Romeo 4. After experimenting with offsets and other options, it seemed they never had the consistency and accuracy of those basics. As with all sight-ing options it has to be natural; by holding the pistol at a 20-30 degree cant, the consistency was achieved.

As the Brace popularity grew from the first AR pistols, other manufacturers began outfitting a variety of platforms. The offerings of different calibers and size systems improved my skills at every turn. Products like the SIG SAU-ER MPX, Kris Vector, IWI micro UZI CZ Scorpion and Quarter Circle 10 9mm platforms are options for those with less upper body strength.

As with any instructional tool, having options is a huge benefit. These products provided variety in size, weight, balance and sight plane to give injured shooters the best tools possible. As the shooters’ skills improve, they can advance to the next level and calibers including 5.56, .300BO and even 7.62×39. But back then, there was still a resource missing—a .22LR.

Filling the Gap

With another great teammate we found just the platform at Mossberg. They produce a .22 pistol and a .22 rifle which both resemble an AR. As a joint effort, we fashioned a buffer tube from the rifle to accept the brace. This one of a kind pistol has become a fantastic tool for helping to develop the strength and skills in partial Quadriplegic and Paraplegic veteran students to use pistols and rifles independently.

The magic begins once we are able to put our students in a comfortable stance and manipulate their arms up into a shooting position without a firearm. Once they can demonstrate the strength and dexterity, we place the pistol in their hand to have them raise the pistol to the shooting position without employing the brace. This provides them the ability to find the sights independently and feel the brace on their forearm.

Learning to Shoot Again

For the one-armed shooter without a sling, the strong arm is extended straight out so the brace falls naturally on the forearm, and the sights fall into the line of sight. If the shooter has a functioning support arm, that hand or prosthetic is placed on the magazine well. The support arm is extended straight out, and the pistol is pushed into it for the start of a consistent stable platform.

Next, we employ a two-point sling to push against and create more points of contact for stability. This also naturally brings the brace in place on the shooter’s forearm. The sling is attached to the top of the brace at the rear and forward of the magazine well on the pistol. The sling is routed over the shooter’s strong shoulder, across the back and under the support arm. The support arm position remains the same and sets the stopping point for the sling. For those without a support arm, the sling is adjusted to a length according to whether the shooter has a support arm. This puts a flex in the strong elbow for more strength; the sling gives him the stability he would be missing otherwise. The strong elbow is flexed down for comfort and endurance. After repeated dry fire repetitions, adjust the brace to the shooter’s forearm.

The brace is adjusted to be snug at the strap but not tight when the shooter is in position. With the brace and sling adjust-ed, we now have five points of contact for the shooter with two arms and four for the shooter with one hand. These points of contact are the forward and rear sling points, the pistol grip, the brace and the shoulders. Now we are ready for the first shots. As with every other platform, we progress with distance, drills and caliber. I have and will always enjoy the freedom and accuracy the brace gives me out to 100 yards.

New Designs

Over the years, the brace has evolved in several different designs, including an adjustable version. The most recent design from SIG SAU-ER offers every advancement I have sought over the years. This version offers a lower profile attachment from the traditional buffer tube, a slim yet very stable brace, a swivel mount and the ability to fold it along side of the pistol. This brace is designed for the SIG MPX, MCX and Rattler Pistols at this time.

The flexibility of these platforms suits a great many students regardless of their physical challenges. The addition of the variety of braces, sighting options, slings and the addition of a Quick Clip create many options for our students. The Quick Clip provides shooters (especially the one-armed shooter) with a stable point to improve loading, movement and malfunction clearing. The options for mounting are either the front rail or pistol grip, without impairing the shooter or the operation of the pistol. The attachment affixes to a pin mounted on either the belt or a vest to secure it to the shooter and is released with the press of a button.

These drills and options have now established a foundation/stance, strength, grip, trigger control, sighting skills and balance for our shooters. Once the shooters have mastered the pistol caliber braced guns, they are ready for a traditional pistol. Using these same fundamentals, the shooters can apply them with the same approach to learning new pistol skills. Later we return to the rifle calibers to prepare our students for a traditional rifle. We employ the sling in the very same fashion and establish a “Cheek Weld” position which is directly in line with the braced approach.

Training Success

The training evolution the brace brings for me and our students brings continuity to braced guns, traditional pistols, rifles and shotguns throughout training. The SIG Brace continues to bring me and our students this success.

We all enjoy a day at the range honing skills or partaking in a training course. After all, shooting skills are perishable if not maintained. The best way to do this is productive practice and/or training. Loading aids with promises of sparing your hands/thumbs have surely tempted many, especially as higher capacity magazines have become the norm and round-count expenditures grow. This author admits trying multiple brands with limited success either due to marketing hype not being met, cost, size prohibiting easy transport, set-up issues at the range, or a particular tool not being accommodating to different magazine styles within a certain model (i.e., metal/polymer construction or manufacturing quirks).

The latest and most promising loading aid the author uses currently is from MagPump (magpump.com). MagPump started off with an AR-15 loader and quickly expanded to the AK-47 and then the bane of all shooters—high capacity 9mm magazines. Initial reports from range days at the last couple SHOT Shows, notorious for frenzied high-round expenditure, generated high expectations. The success of MagPump loaders rely on certain key design aspects shared between all MagPump loaders. Once you have experienced one MagPump loader, seamless transition to the other models can be expected.

Loading Is Easy

First off is the top hopper loading method that does not require users to orientate or line up cartridges in a specific direction. The MagPump AR loader hopper can accommodate 90 rounds and the AK loader 65 rounds, each layered in to maximize space. For the 9mm loader simply dump in a box of desired ammunition or scoop a handful from a bucket or ammunition can. The capacity of the 9mm hopper is 50 rounds. MagPump’s better “mousetrap” approach takes care of getting ammunition in proper orientation for placement in your magazine after it funnels down from the hopper. How? This author cannot really answer that, but after thousands of rounds loaded into AR, AK and 9mm magazines, none have been backwards.

Another advantage is the portability and simplicity of getting the MagPump loaders in action. The top hopper can be removed for ease of transport. All of the loaders arrive in a sturdy box with foam lining cut out for secure placement. The hoppers are connected to the bases via stainless retaining pins. There is no need to fasten the MagPump loader base down—simply hold in place with the hand not operating the loading lever found on the side of the loader. A mounting plate is available if the user desires this option. Magazine retainers hold inserted magazines in place. Once a magazine is inserted properly, an audible and tactile click is created. At this point, lifting and lowering the handle loads a round into the magazine. It is that simple.

The standard MagPump loader is made from polymer and priced at MSRP $149.99. Elite models feature an Aluminum billet base and metal loading handle. MSRP for this model is $399.99. No matter which MagPump model, loading time is decreased 50% with hand fatigue reduced drastically, especially if loading magazines in a high-round count course or shooting session. 30 rounds in 30 seconds is the standard set forth by MagPump. The author’s own experience supports this with all three models.

Testing

The new 9mm MagPump was tested with GLOCK magazines. After all, we live in a GLOCK world. With that said, both GLOCK and Magpul brand 9mm magazines fit and load fine. The different retainers with the 9mm MagPump eliminate concern of certain magazines not being compatible. The 9mm loader arrives with GLOCK, SIG, Smith & Wesson, Springfield Armory, Ruger and CZ double-column magazine retainers. More retainers enabling different handgun type use are available separately including Beretta, Walther, HK and Hudson. A single-stack GLOCK 43 retainer is also available.

A good habit is to arrive at the range with a couple dozen GLOCK magazines loaded and ready to go, especially if attending a training class. This is to maximize time. Having a head down loading magazines is not productive with many insightful anecdotes possibly missed from classmates or instructor staff. This time the author decided to show up with only three or four magazines total with bulk ammunition ready to be loaded to better evaluate the MagPump 9mm loader.

The 9mm MagPump had no trouble keeping up with magazine loading demands while balanced on the back of a utility vehicle or designated loading table area. Once a rhythm was established, the 50-round hopper quickly disappeared into magazines. After a few tries, one gets a feel for making sure rounds are slipping down the chute from the hopper to be loaded. A little shake or manipulation of lever is all that is required to keep rounds shuttling along once the user gets orientated. An integral built-in safety prevents rounds from loading when magazines reach the full mark.

The AR and AK MagPumps were just as easy to use. The MagPump AR loader is 50 rounds will fit into the MagPump 9mm hopper.
compatible with MIL-SPEC AR-15 magazines and can load .223 Remington/5.56mm and .300 Blackout rounds. I dug up four different AR-15 style magazines—polymer and metal—for verification purposes; all snapped into place and loaded without issue. Rounds are laid in the hopper tray parallel to the magazine snapped into place below in the MagPump base unit.

The AK-47 loader is just as compatible with different magazine types. Here again metal and polymer magazines were tested. With the MagPump AK-47 loader, the magazines are rocked into place similar to how they are inserted into an AK-47 rifle. One discovered nuance with the AK-47 loader is that a 30-round magazine hung below the MagPump base. This needs to be taken into account when setting up the user’s loading area.

The three MagPump loaders produce the promised results in loading magazines efficiently. No one wants to practice loading magazines. Shooters want to be on the firing line. Shooting luminaries such as Kyle Lamb and Doug Koenig vouch for the MagPump products for these very reasons … more time shooting and less time loading magazines. Shooters contemplating serious trigger time should consider trying the MagPump loaders. The time saved from loading magazines with the MagPump loaders will get put to good use on the firing line.

I discovered the Burma Campaign when I was 10 with a comic strip which told the Chindit’s story …

History of Myanmar/Burma

Myanmar (Burma) was, in the past, a group of many kingdoms with a way of life guided by Buddhist culture, up to the 9th century. Later, populations coming from the North appeared, and during several centuries, the country was the theatre of many foreign or domestic wars.
The arrival of French and Portuguese colonists enhanced the trade and influence of Burma. Europeans supported various communities, according to their interests. A new dynasty arrived in the middle of 18th century. Burmese interests often conflicted with those of Britain in India, and several conflicts opposed both countries between 1824 and 1886.

Finally, Burma became a British district of India, the capital city being Rangoon (Yangon today). Educated young people opposed the colonial organization, and under the mounting pressure a local elected body was established in 1923. Burma and India were set apart in 1937, and the election of a local assembly was prepared. But WWII broke out, and Burmese nationalists saw it as an opportunity to drive the British out of the country. One of their leaders was Aung San, who created the Burmese communist party in 1939. He was searched by Her Majesty’s police and escaped to China were he sought help from the Chinese communists. Captured by the Japanese, he moved to Japan where he received military training and became the chief of the Burmese Independent Army organised in Siam (Thailand), with the rank of colonel. Later, he became a general.

the Northern part of the country to link it with India and China, where the Chinese Kuomintang Army fought against the Japanese. Ever since that moment, the Japanese tried to destroy this artery.

Coming from Thailand, the Japanese Army entered into Burma on February 23, 1942, capturing and controlling the bridge on the Sittaung River. They occupied the south and later the central part of the country including Rangoon. The Burmese Independent Army with its commander Aung San, allied with the Japanese, fought against the British.

The Burmese Campaign

On April 29, 1942, the Japanese Army attacked the British troops which were driven back to the North of the country. Two brigades and the 17th Indian Division were destroyed. Despite the help of a Chinese expeditionary force and of British/Burmese troops, the Allied forces could not prevent the Japanese from capturing the strategic road on May 15, 1942. At the same time, the Burmese Independent Army was present in the whole country, a permanent menace.

The Allied headquarters finally decided to abandon Burma. Retreat-ing units, or what was left of them, and many refugees arrived in India where nothing had been prepared for their arrival. Between May 10 and 27, 1942, four Thai divisions (allied with Japan) invaded the eastern part of Burma. Several attacks organised by the Allied forces in 1943 and 1944 failed to alter the situation.

The Chindits

Lord Louis Mountbatten was the supreme allied commander of the Allied troops in Southeast Asia. He conducted the campaign against Ja-pan that led to the recapture of Burma. The troops were trained in India within various units, their commander being an American general: Josef Stilwell (nicknamed “Vinegar Joe,” which explains his personality), who was Mountbatten’s deputy. He was also the military advisor to Chinese General Chiang Kai-shek.

A special 3,000-men elite unit called the “Chindits” was created under the command of British General Orde Wingate and was organised as commandos to fight Japanese forces. The Chindits included British, Australian, New Zealand, Indian, Gurkha, West African and Chinese soldiers.

They were dropped by parachute behind enemy lines, and after a long march toward their objective (disorganized Japanese units), they de-stroyed roads and supply centers. At the same time, the Japanese troops occupied the whole of Burma, behaving like savages and mistreating the civilian population.

Burma declared its independence on August 1, 1943, though its government was devoted to Japan. On March 19, 1944, the Japanese troops launched an attack against India with 40,000 men. 30,000 British and Indian troops repelled them. General Wingate was killed in an aircraft accident on March 24.

The combined actions of the Chindits, the 5307th Composite Unit (known as Merrill’s Marauders) an American similar organisation, Chinese troops with the airborne support of General Chennault’s “Flying Tigers,” allowed the conquest of Burma.

On January 21, 1945, the British and the Chinese troops were able to establish a junction, and the Burma Road was reopened. Defeat-ed on every frontline, the Japanese troops resisted but were forced out of occupied territories despite illness, malnutrition and adverse climatic conditions. Considering that Japan, through its occupation, tried to set up a new form of colonisation, the Burmese Independent Army joined the Allies and triggered a general mutiny against the Jap-anese. The Burmese government, in favor of Japan, disappeared in the general unrest.

On May 1, 1945, an Allied offensive was launched against Rangoon. Gurkha paratroopers were dropped in the back of the enemy, and the 26th Indian division, ferried on boats, landed on the river banks. Both troops made their junction on May 6, 1945, and Rangoon was taken back by the Allies.

War Cemetery

It is located in the small city of Taukkyan, near Rangoon, where 6,000 allied soldiers are buried. A memorial bears the names of 27,000 people who died during the war against Japan between 1942 and 1945.

After the War

General Aung San discussed with the British the independence terms of the country, which was obtained in 1947 and implemented one year later.

He set up a provisional government which was not agreed by all (particularly the Trotskyists and ultra-Nationalists). On July 19, 1947, he was killed with six ministers of his government by the former prime minister U Saw, who was arrested and hanged by the British. July 19 became the national holiday of Burma.

A civilian democratic government led the country from 1948 to 1958, but the situation deteriorated, and it was replaced by a general. Two years later, he overthrew the legal government and established a military dictatorship. Despite local opposition and the disapproval of most countries of the Free World, the military junta stayed in power until 2015 with the help of Russia, China and (more discreetly) of Thailand. Political opponents were released from prison where some of them were kept since 1960.

Although the military keeps 25% of the seats in the parliament, democracy is back in Burma. People are allowed to move freely and can communicate (by Internet and cell phone).

The junta changed the name of the country to Myanmar; Rangoon is now called Yangon. A new capital city was built in the jungle, 200 miles from anywhere, called Naypyidaw.

Aung San Suu Kyi became the government’s leader by proxy. She is the daughter of general Aung San and was harassed during 25 years (assigned in a house or imprisoned). She received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.

The Myanmar Military Today

he Myanmar/Burmese Army is the fourth largest armed force in Southeast Asia. It relies on volunteers (in principle).

Ground Forces (Tatmadaw Kyee)

Since 1950, Burma has had its own armament industry located in 13 factories, where the following weapons are manufactured:

• BA 94 smg, a copy of the UZI with a plastic stock
• MA-3 rifle, local version of the Galil
• MA-15 machine gun (MG3) Tanks are old Russian or Chinese models.

Air Force (Tatmadaw Kyee)

The Air Force uses Russian, Chinese or American aircraft and French or American helicopters.

Navy (Tatmadaw Yay)

125 boats and about 19,000 sailors.

Military Police (Myanmar Yae Tat Phwe)

Trained by Australian and Israeli advisers.

Border Patrol (Na Sa Kha)

It is a composite organization with members of the Army, Military Police, Customs and immigration officers.

The Military Museum in Rangoon

Located in a three-story building, Schweda-gon Pagoda Road in Yangon (formerly, Ran-goon), the museum has 52 rooms with many objects pertaining to the old history of Burma.

Defense Services Museum

Built in Naypyidaw, the new capital, it covers 72 square miles, and several days are necessary to visit it! Unfortunately, it is far from all the roads travelled by tourists.

Japanese red lacquer wood sake cup with gold rim and kanji with central image of an early Hotchkiss Model 1900 machine gun on tripod. This cup commemorates going to war with Russia (a reference to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905) with the Imperial Guards Division, 3rd Machine Gun Unit.

World War I-era shoulder patches for the U.S. 101st Machine Gun Battalion of the 26th Infantry Division (also known as the Yankee Division as most of the units were recruited from the New England area). The Division saw extensive combat service in World War I. The patches denote the headquarters and machine gun companies of the 101st machine gun battalion. Made of green felt material on a paper board backing, the information is stitched in white thread. These were made by a company specializing in military and veteran ribbons intended to be a souvenir patch for families and sweethearts, but many were sent overseas and worn in theater (unofficially) by the soldiers.

Imperial Russian World War I-era 84 silver cufflinks with image of a Model 1905 Maxim machine gun on a wheeled Sokolov mount with stability legs. The cufflink is attached to a chain that is linked to a rendering of a 7.62x54R cartridge that serves as the opposite holding side of the shirt cuff.

Polish commemorative badge for the World War II 5CKM Kresowy Machine Gun battalion. The badge was numbered on the rear “705” and was worn by Michal Jablonski. Two-piece construction. Three machine gun bullets on belt in center of wreath with “CKM” to center with number “5” at the bottom of the wreath, which is superimposed on a Monte Casino Cross. Full-size about 42mmx42mm. Screw back. The 5th Machine Gun Battalion was a unit of the 5th Kresowy Infantry Division. (Kresowy means coming from the “Kresy” or the “Frontier” meaning specifically the eastern frontier of Poland.) The unit commemorative badge was authorized by the 2nd Polish Corps Commander order No. 108, paragraph 628 of October 7, 1946. The unit existed from 1943 to 1947 and saw action first in the Middle East and then with the 2nd Polish Corps in Italy. Maker marked to the rear, “F.M. Lorioli, Milano-Roma.”

Swedish military army submachine gun shooting award silver level. Colored medal obverse has raised relief image of Swedish soldier kneeling firing an M40 submachine gun. Reverse has laurel wreath with no inscription to center. Medal is hanging on a blue and red vertical striped ribbon with pin back.

Swiss trench art picture frame consisting of Swiss 7.5mm machine gun cartridges with rims dated 1917-1922. Swiss machine gun regiment shako hat badge affixed to bottom and Swiss cross affixed to top. Cabinet photograph of Swiss officer inside frame.

Everybody likes compact, quiet, accurate rifles, but at least two of these requirements run into NFA regulations. Paul Reavis of Gear Head Works, the maker of Tailhook pistol braces, came upon a partial solution to this while pondering stripped Remington Model 7 receivers back in 2014. Building an M700 action (receiver+bolt+trigger) into a pistol got around the 16-inch barrel and 26-inch overall length requirements for non-NFA rifles. Of course, most rifle cartridges aren’t particularly efficient from short barrels, but .300 AAC Blackout (7.62x35mm) developed specifically for shorter weapons and sound suppression is a notable exception, especially with heavy subsonic bullets. Thus, the concept of the One pistol was born.

Test Shooting

Set up with a 9-inch 1:7 twist barrel, this pistol achieved most of the possible velocity while improving accuracy. Short, stubby barrels are quite rigid. Using a manual action maximized the effect of sound suppressors, since no high pressure gas escaped from any-where except the well-baffled bore. The test pistols proved accurate, thanks in part to the excellent trigger. To stabilize the gun, Paul made versions using his side-folding reversible Tailhook and collapsible Tailhook Two braces. The folding variant fit into a small Vertx® backpack, while the mostly plastic collapsible version reduced overall weight by about 0.4 pounds. The guns were as quiet as the various suppressors could make them, ear-safe with subsonic ammunition. Having tested the concept extensively, Paul produced a larger batch using more commonly available Remington 700SA receivers. Priced at $1650 for the standard models, these pistols all came with threaded muzzles, a choice of Cerakote finish and a 10-round AI magazine. A single-feed magazine was selected to ensure consistent cartridge position every time. Upgrades to fluted barrels and the custom finish were available with the online configuration manager. The entire run sold out immediately.

Testing one of these pistols with a Silencer-Co suppressor explained their popularity at once. A fraction over 6 pounds with the silencer attached, these pistols are short enough to be handy but long enough to give good control with two hands. Between gas braking of the silencer and the good heft for a pistol, felt recoil is minimal. The ergonomics work out well, and the only remaining question is: Is the accuracy worth the effort?

Launching a much thinner 220-grain projectile at a slightly greater velocity, .300 Blackout starts with energy similar to 45ACP but retains a useful portion of it further downrange. It’s also much less susceptible to wind drift than the pistol bullet and can be quieter due to smaller exit aperture. And, most importantly, the Gear Head One pistol achieved sub-MOA results with some subsonic ammunition. As is common with .300 Blackout guns, One shoots better with some loads than with others. The absolute winner is Sellier & Bellot 220gr at just over 0.5MOA unsuppressed. With the particular suppressor used for the test, it opened up to 1.75MOA.

Suppressed, Gorilla Ammo sub-sonics won at 0.75MOA. Plain 150gr American Eagle FMJ grouped 1.5MOA. Some other loads produced groups in the 3 to 5MOA range—an issue I’ve found with many guns in this caliber: accuracy depends considerably on the combination of barrel and muzzle device. Test various loads in your pistol and find what works the best and stick to it! It’s also worth trying the pistol with more than one sound suppressor, both for accuracy and to gauge the amount of sound reduction relative to the added weight. If only subsonic ammunition is used, lighter suppressors intended for 9mm would work at the cost of a slight reduction in attenuation due to the slightly wider opening around the .308-inch projectile. The great variety of ammunition available in .300 Blackout, from 110 to 220 grains, makes certain that several kinds would work well. For example, all-copper expanding projectiles tend to be long for the weight, stabilizing well with the fast 1:7 twist.

The Chassis

The chassis, not available separately, is the key to the performance. It’s made of machined aluminum, with the barrel free-floated. The standard 700 safety is at the top right of the receiver but can still be reached with the index finger. The bolt travel is short enough to retain the cheek weld on the brace tube. With the brace folded and suppressor removed, the 19.25-inch pistol fits into most laptop bags. For comparison, a completely disassembled Henry AR-7 is 16.5 inches long. The gun can be handled like a conventional high power pistol for short range using the open brace wrapping around the forearm and either a red dot sight or a green laser for aiming.

Great to Shoot

One pistol is a child of regulatory compliance and opens up a number of uses normally reserved for traditional handguns. For example, the One is legal for some handgun hunting—check the local regulations about the bore size and sound suppression just in case. It is a legal pistol for carry though that would fly in the face of both practicality and tradition. Its primary niche is field use where bulk and weight are limited by air, motorcycle or backpacking considerations. Thanks to its short length, One balances better than most hand-held long guns and provides accurate use off-hand or with field-expedient support, making it also desirable for everyday use. And there’s one other use for this pistol: shooting for fun! It’s one of the most pleasant firearms in handling, with an excellent 4-pound trigger, mild recoil, minimal report and great balance.

This is the story of a gifted miniature arms maker whose masterful work of small pistols, rifles and machine guns were threatened to be destroyed by draconian gun laws in an Australian state after his death. The collection was spirited away under dark of night to another state and hidden by friends of the family. A lengthy process lasting decades to amend the laws to exempt the collection from destruction ensued and ultimately succeeded. In due course, the family then sold all the guns to a miniature arms dealer in the United States who then broke up the collection selling pieces to various miniature arms collectors. After nearly three decades since the collection was dispersed in the 1990s, the miniatures of his rapid-fire weapons have been reunited by a single collector. This is that story.

Frank Adlam

Frank Roland Adlam was a professional soldier for 32 years in the Australian Army. He specialized in artillery and tested guns and proofed ammunition for the Army and Navy.

The job took him to England on exchange with the British Army, and on his return in 1957, he worked at Port Wakefield (South Australia) where his expertise took him to the rank of Chief Warrant Officer Class 2 and Master Gunner, one of only two in the Australian Army at that time.

His interest in firearms was also his all-consum-ing hobby. While in England, he obtained original production tooling drawings for a variety of weapons used by the British Army during the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as textbooks, plans, specifications and other technical information.

Making Miniatures

After returning to Australia in a small radar hut at the Port Wakefield range, for the next 13 years Frank started to make miniature replica guns out of wood and then gradually incorporated metal into the guns so that they were completely authentic.

His creations include cannons in common use in the Napoleonic Wars (2), swords (4), pistols (6), rifles (7), Maxim machine guns (6), a Vickers machine gun, a 10-barrel Gatling gun and a five-barrel Gardner gun—some 30 miniatures in all. Most of his work was in 1/4 scale with a few items in 1/8 scale. The components of the guns were so small that he needed a range of machinery more like that used by a jeweler or fine craftsman. Much of the equipment he developed and made himself as he went along, because the pieces he was making were so small. Frank’s son, Ian, said. “All of the different skills he needed to produce the guns were self-taught. He became as good a draftsman, wheelwright, forger, fitter and turner and molder as you could find.” Like a watchmaker of old, everything was handmade. Even the more simple miniatures took about 200 hours to make, but the larger and more complex models, like the 1/4 scale Vickers machine gun took about 4,000 hours to make.

He displayed his work at many an event for nearly 15 years, drawing wide praise and attention. In 1970, he helped co-found the Antique and Historical Arms Association in South Australia. At one event a story emerged that Frank was having a discussion with another club member about how to correctly strip down a Vickers machine gun. Apparently, to the other’s astonishment, Frank produced the quar-ter-size miniature and went through all of the procedures on the spot.

The Law

The very authenticity of the pistols, rifles and machine guns that Frank made created a large problem. Under the then existing state of South Australian laws, the guns were regarded as dangerous, illegal weapons and liable to be confiscated and de-activated by having the breeches and muzzles welded. This brought action by the South Australian police. Even though miniature, and no ammunition existed for them, if someone could make ammunition, the miniature could fire—even if only one shot. Warnings and citations were issued, confiscation loomed and legal action threatened. Unfortunately, Frank Adlam suffered a severe heart attack in 1972 that stopped his miniature making hobby entirely and curtailed nearly all his physical activity. (He died in 1982.)

Frank bequeathed his gun collection to his wife before he died, but the South Australian police and the law were presenting a very large problem for the family and then for the widow.

The president of the Antique and Historical Arms Association felt that the police action would amount to an act of desecration on what the Association regarded as unique and priceless works of art. Something had to be done until this could all be straightened out.

Weapons in Hiding

Suddenly, quietly and without notice, the col-lection was spirited away into hiding in another state. By whom, and to what state, nobody was talking. “Collection? What collection? I don’t know anything about the collection!” was what was told to the police. The word to the South Australian police was the collection just vanished. In the meantime, the Antique and Historical Arms Association took up the cause to try and have the law changed or amended so that the guns could be conserved and returned to the widow to sell, considering that would be a large financial benefit for her and her family struggling on a meager NCO pension. The guns were safe and in hiding in another state, but the years turned into decades. Nevertheless, the Association continued to lobby for an exemption in the law, and they had many supporters within the state and the legislature.

No Longer on the Lam

Finally, the Firearms Regulations Act of 1993 for South Australia was published, and in “Part B, Miscellaneous, Section 51” is the exemption of the Frank Adlam Collection. Found on page 28, the section simply reads: “Exemption of Frank Adlam Collection. 51. The miniature firearms that comprised the Frank Adlam Collection at the commencement of these regulations are exempted from the provisions of the Act.”

It took over 15 years, but the collection could come home to the family to finally do as they wish without legal entanglement or consequence. The family could now sell the collection for their financial benefit. The collection was sold to a dealer in the United States in 1994 /1995, and the collection was broken up as collectors picked up miniatures in their area of interest.

Rapid-Fire Weapons

As mentioned previously, Frank Adlam’s rap-id-fire miniatures included machine guns and a manually operated Gatling gun and Gardner gun. More specifically:

● Vickers .303 with tripod, water can, steam condensing hose and transit chest with cleaning rod. 1/4 scale.
● Maxim World Standard .303 with tripod. 1/8 scale.
● Maxim World Standard .303 with tripod, water can and transit chest. 1/4 scale.
● Maxim MG 08 on sled mount. 1/8 scale.
● Maxim MG 08 on sled mount. 1/4 scale.
● Maxim MG 08 /15 with bipod. 1/8 scale.
● Maxim MG 08 /15 with bipod. 1/4 scale.
● Ten-barrel Gatling gun in wheeled carriage. 1/8 scale.
● Five-barrel Gardner gun on naval mounting on decking, pattern 1897. 1/8 scale.

The 1/4 scale Vickers, brass water jacket early Maxim, MG 08 and MG 08 /15 were sold to a collector on the East Coast. The 1/8 scale brass water jacket early Maxim, MG 08 and MG 08 /15 were sold to a collector in the Mid-West. The Gatling gun and Gardner gun went to a collector in the South.
The collector in the Mid-West valiantly sought to bring the collection of rapid fire weapons together once again. It took 20 years, but he was able to first acquire the Gatling and Gardner guns and then, finally, the 1/4 scale machine guns from the collector on the East Coast. At last the miniature rapid-fire weapons that Frank Adlam so painstakingly hand-made some 50 years ago, were together again.

The Guns

The scale and depth of accuracy of all the guns are quite simply phenomenal. Remember that these were literally hand-made in the 1960s with simple tools and machines; no computer-aided design (CAD) machines or high-tech milling machines. These are not toys nor were they ever meant to be. These are indeed works of art that require a high level of skill as well as a deep knowledge of the subject.

Bare in mind that as the scale gets to the tiny 1/8 size, some things may have to be changed. The 1/4-scale machine guns have fully functioning locks whereas the 1/8-scale guns, due to their diminutive size, do not have functioning locks.

.303 Vickers Mk. I
1/4 Scale

The .303 Vickers Mk. I has the fluted water jacket with non-armored muzzle booster. The rubber steam condensing hose is affixed to the steam port and ends in a period-style gasoline can that was typically repurposed as a water can for machine guns. The gun is mounted on the Mk. IV tripod with operating elevation and traversing mechanisms. All internal components are present and work as they would in a full-sized gun, and the rear sight is fully operational. The Vickers comes with a transit chest with the proper scaled rope handles on each end and the correct style of closure latches. Affixed to the inside of the top lid is a cleaning rod. The gun measures approximately 10 3/4 inches long and stands 8 inches high on its mount.

“World Standard” Maxim
1/4 and 1/8 Scale

Frank Adlam made the brass-jacketed “World Standard” Maxim machine guns in two sizes. This pattern of Maxim gun is recognized by its brass water jacket, large belt roller assembly on the feed block, the ear-ly-style, flat-faced crank handle and the brass hand grips. The fusee cover is also brass and is marked, “NO 2104, WT 58 LBS, MAXIM NOR-DENFELT PATD 1885.” The 1/4-scale gun is fully functional and mounted on a Mk. IV-style tripod cradle and a simplified commercial tripod. Included are a period-style water can and wood transit chest. The 1/4 scale gun measures approximately 11 inches long.

The 1/8 scale “World Standard” Maxim is identical to its larger 1/4 scale brother except it does not have an operating lock, though the crank handle does move and is under spring pressure from the fusee spring. The gun is mounted on a traditional later model Mk. IV tripod. No water can or transit box was made for this scale gun. The 1/8 scale gun measures approximately 5 1/2 inches long.

German Maxim MG 08
1/4 and 1/8 Scale

It is apparent that once Frank Adlam had all his measurements figured out, the challenge was to make the same gun in two different sizes while maintaining the appropriateness of the scales. Obviously, while the larger size provides the means for great detail, the smaller it gets and the harder it is to maintain that detail.

The 1/4 scale German Maxim MG 08 is mounted on the World War I era sled mount. The gun has the appropriate muzzle booster, flash hider and blast hider as well as the armored plate to protect the front of the water jacket. The rear grips are wood and have the oil brushes in the handles. All internal parts operate as the original. The top cover of the gun is marked “45189, MG. 08, D.W.M. Berlin 1918.” Additionally, the feed block is marked “5189,” and the top cover latch is marked “89 D.W.M.” Internally, the lock is marked “5189.” The sled mount is also fully functional in that the front legs move and lock to adjust height. The elevation mechanism works by turning the rear handle to elevate or depress the weapon. Traverse is controlled by the traverse bar and its lock and traverse stops. Details on the sled mount include spare barrel holder, spare parts box, oil and solvent containers, mountings for the angled chamber cleaning jag and the cartridge tongs and two spare lock containers. The gun measures approximately 12 inches long and sits 8 3/4 inches high on the sled mount.

The smaller 1/8 scale MG 08 Maxim has the exact same exterior appearance and attention to detail as its big brother but does not have an operating lock, though the crank handle moves and is under spring pressure from the fusee spring. There are no markings on this miniature. Due to the size, some of the details found on the 1/4 scale sled mount are not found on the 1/8 scale sled mount. While it does have movable front legs and the rear elevation mechanism is fully functional, there is no traverse bar. Additionally, while there are two spare lock boxes, no other mount accessories are present. The gun measures approximately 6 inches long.

German Maxim MG 08/15
1/4 and 1/8 Scale

The 1/4 scale German Maxim MG 08 /15 is accurately portrayed with the proper muzzle booster and flash hider, top-mounted water/steam hose connecter and removable bipod. Markings include “2106” on the top cover and “MG 08 /15 1917 Spandau” on the fusee cover. The internal mechanism works as in the original. The gun measures approximately 14 1/4 inches long.

The 1/8 scale German Maxim MG 08 /15 is also scaled to perfection though there is no internal lock, but the crank handle does operate under spring tension from the fusee spring. Markings on the top cover read, “6547 MG 08 /15 GWF Erfurt 1917.” The gun measures approximately 7 1/8 inches long.

Gatling Gun
1/8 Scale

Broadwell drum magazine is mounted on a wheeled artillery carriage with wood magazine storage boxes to each hold two Broadwell drums. Elevation and traversing wheels work, and the crank handle rotates the 10 barrels. The gun measures approximately 7 inches in overall length. The barrels measure 4 inches, and the wheel diameter is 5 inches.

Gardner Gun
1/8 Scale

The five-barrel Gardner gun is mounted on a naval cone mount attached to a section of planked decking. The elevation and traversing mechanisms work as does the crank handle that operates all five barrels. The gun has an overall length of approximately 6 7/8 inches with 4-inch barrels. The base measures 3 3/4 x 4 inches.