During World War II, the basic weapons of the U.S. infantryman were the rifle, light machine gun and fragmentation grenades. Hand and rifle grenades were used for short-range area targets. Hand-thrown grenades have a realistic range of 30 to 50 yards. The maximum range of rifle-launched grenades was approximately 100 yards; both were ill-suited for engaging targets with accurate indirect fire. Light mortars were used for ranges from 300 to 900 yards. The same weapons and limitations were fielded during the Korean Conflict by U.S. infantryman.

The Rifle Grenade Launcher

During the late 1950s, the M7A3 grenade launcher adapter was being issued for use on the M1 rifle. After the M14 rifle replaced the M1, the M76 grenade launcher was adopted. For accuracy, the M15 tilting-bar sight, designed to be attached to the M14 rifle’s stock, was issued for use with the M76 launcher. Special “grenade launching cartridges” were used. Rifle grenades could also be launched from the M16 rifle, but no special adapter was needed; grenades could be slipped over the NATO standard 22mm diameter flash suppressor. Disadvantages of launching grenades from rifle barrels included: short range, inaccuracy and heavy recoil that would sometimes break buttstocks.

Clearly, a new weapon was needed, one that could provide accurate direct and indirect fire to fill the gap between the rifle, hand grenades and the light mortar. During the 1950s the United States Ordnance Department began development of a weapon that could fire high explosive munitions, multiple projectile anti-personnel rounds and smoke and illumination rounds.

40mm Ammunition

During the early 1950s the Ballistic Research Laboratories at the Aberdeen Proving Ground developed a 40mm high-explosive, fragmentation projectile. The goal was a range of 400 meters at the relatively low velocity of 250 feet per second, with a recoil force no more than that of a 12-gauge shotgun. The new projectile used a high-low pressure system, which was developed by the German firm of Rheinmetall-Borsig during World War II for their 8cm 8H63 anti-tank gun. The advantage of the high-low system was that a lightweight barrel could be used, reducing the overall weight of the weapon.

The M79 Grenade Launcher

The concept of a lightweight weapon capable of projecting a grenade further than could be thrown by hand and could exceed the range of rifle-launched grenades was coordinated by the Small Arms Development Branch, headed by Colonel Studler. Jack Bird, a deputy to Colonel Studler, took an interest in the project; he built a crude launcher and brought it to the Pentagon to demonstrate. The device was comprised of a short length of tubing with the same inside diameter as a golf ball. To operate the “launcher,” a golf ball would be placed inside the tube and compressed against a spring. The golf ball was secured in place with a nail. Upon removing the nail, the golf ball would be launched. Bird, an avid golfer, suggested the name “Project Niblick” after the number nine iron, a high lofting golf club.

During 1953, the Project Niblick grenade launcher was under development at the Springfield Armory under the guidance of Cy Moore, with Dave Katz, a design engineer. The Picatinny Arsenal provided 40mm practice grenades for firing in the prototype launchers. There were three types of launchers being developed: a crude shoulder fired test fixture, a pistol and a three-shot semiautomatic launcher. The fixture was primarily a means of testing the ammunition to get an idea of the range and accuracy. The weight of the projectile was approximately 5.3 ounces. When launched with a quadrant elevation of 35 degrees, it had a range of 400 meters. Development commenced at the Springfield Armory. Proposed designs were identified by a letter “S” representing the Springfield Armory. Many of the designs never made it any further than the drawing board.

The Infantry Board at Fort Benning stated that they preferred a three-shot grenade launcher. A barrel length of 14 inches evolved as the length to make it unlikely that the gunner could get his fingers in front of the muzzle while firing. The three-shot launcher achieved semiautomatic operation through the use of a clip made up of three side-by-side chambers, each long enough to house a cartridge about 3.5 inches long. The clips would move to the left after firing by a constant force of a negator spring. As each round was fired, a latch detected the launching of the projectile and allowed the clip to move over until stopped by the next projectile, lining up that cartridge with the barrel. Although the basic concept was simple, the mechanism proved to be complex and unreliable. Continued misalignment between the projectile on the bore created gas leakage and a loss of accuracy. Special purpose rounds, such as CS gas or signal flares with a longer overall length, could not be used. The simplest design, designated as the “S-5,” was a single-shot, break-open type weapon. The S-5 evolved into the XM79 in 1959 after the three-shot S-6, T148E1 project was canceled.

After the idea of a multi-shot, semiautomatic launcher was scrapped, it was replaced by a simple, single-shot weapon, patterned after a break-open type shotgun. One launcher was ordered from Dave Mathewson, who operated a local fabrication shop, often used by the Springfield Armory. To keep the weight at a minimum, the weapon featured a hard-coated aluminum barrel. The odd shape of the stock was designed so that the bottom edge would be aligned with the line of recoil; the top or comb is contoured to keep the grenadier’s head upright owing to the line of sight relief when firing at low angles. To reduce the effects of the recoil on the shooter, a rubber recoil pad was fitted to the butt of the stock. The Infantry Board suggested a folding leaf sight mounted on the barrel with a bead front sight just above the muzzle. The XM79 launcher was sent to the Infantry Board in 1956 and was recommended for type classification in 1957.

To load the weapon, the operator simply moves the barrel-locking latch counter-clockwise to open the breech. Moving the release latch automatically puts the weapon into a safe position; opening the breech cocks the weapon. After closing the barrel, the safety must be pushed forward to fire. The weapon is easily field stripped by removing the front sling swivel screw and removing the forend. The barrel can then be disengaged from the fulcrum pin and separated from the receiver group.

The weight of the loaded launcher is 6.45 pounds; overall length is 28.78 inches. The stock and forearm are made of walnut. The rest of the weapon, except for the aluminum barrel, uses steel parts phosphated for corrosion protection. The original contract price for the M79 was $318.00 each. The M79 was issued with a small arms accessory case, which included a bore brush, plastic oil tube, combination tool and cleaning brush. Early carrying cases for the kit were made of canvas, later changed to vinyl.

During testing by the Infantry Board in June 1960, it was recommended that a new rear sight for the M79 launcher be designed and fabricated. The new sight was completed in October 1960. The early ladder-type sight was replaced with an adjustable, single crosspiece-type sight with a correction for azimuth. All launchers produced up to June 1960 had to be retrofitted. Confirmatory tests in December 1960 revealed requirements for additional windage adjustment on the rear sight. The additional sight modification was incorporated in the first production run. R&D continued in order to improve the reliability and function of the weapon. The launcher was considered acceptable by the Continental Army Command (CONARC) and was subsequently type-classified as the Launcher, Grenade, 40mm, M79 on December 15, 1960. By the first quarter of 1961, the new adjustable rear leaf sight was in full production, and several mandatory changes were implemented on the barrel locking lug, trigger spring and front sight.

The heat and humidity being experienced in Vietnam were causing problems with the warping and swelling of the wooden stocks of the M79. As a result, work began on designing a plastic buttstock and foregrip for the weapon. By 1964, a suitable plastic buttstock was available; General Tire was the primary contractor. There were no plastic foregrips adopted.

Although the M79 grenade launcher was designed and developed at the Springfield Armory, the majority were manufactured by civilian companies. Contracts awarded to private industry included: Action Manufacturing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Contract DA-11-1199-ORD-736 and Exotic Metal Products, Pasadena, California, Contract DA-11-199-ORD-730. Other contracts were subsequently awarded to the Kanarr Corporation of Kingston, Pennsylvania, and Thompson Ramo Wooldridge (TRW) of Lyndhurst, Ohio. The decision to have private companies manufacture the M79, resulted in a lot of resentment with the civilian employees of the Springfield Armory. Series production ran from 1961 to 1971 with an estimated 350,000 M79 launchers produced.

Despite being replaced by modern grenade launchers, like the M320A1 and the M32A1, the M79 is still being fielded by the U.S. military.

The China Lake Grenade Launcher

Developed for the U.S. Navy SEAL teams was a limited production, pump-action 40mm grenade launcher, fed from an under-barrel tubular three-round magazine. The launcher was fitted with M79 front and rear sights and a shotgun-style stock. There was no official designation other than “The China Lake Grenade Launcher.” The weapon was developed at the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, California, during 1967-1968.

The XM148 Grenade Launcher

While the adoption of the M79 grenade launcher solved one problem, it created another; it reduced the number of riflemen in a squad, the man carrying the single-shot M79 was usually armed with only a pistol for self-defense. To address the problem, the concept of the rifle-mounted launcher was studied. The 40mm XM148 launcher, first issued in 1967, was designed for mounting under the barrel of an M16 rifle. The weapon was developed by Colt Firearms to allow each rifleman in an infantry squad the ability to launch 40mm grenades, rather than one man equipped with an M79. During field testing in Vietnam, a number of problems were encountered. The XM148 launcher was not considered reliable or safe enough for type classification, and the launchers were pulled from service; most were destroyed.

The M203 Grenade Launcher

After the XM148 grenade launcher was scrapped, the concept of a rifle-mounted launcher was not. The Army initiated a competitive program for a new 40mm rifle-mounted grenade launcher. Designs were submitted by Aircraft Armaments Inc., Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation and Aerojet Ordnance and Manufacturing Company. During August 1968, the Aircraft Armaments (AAI) design was type-classified as the XM203 grenade launcher. A small lot was manufactured and shipped to Vietnam for field testing. AAI’s XM203 40mm grenade launcher was found to be simple, safe and reliable. After successful testing and evaluation, the Aircraft Armaments design was type-classified as the Launcher, Grenade 40mm, M203 in 1969. Ironically, Aircraft Armaments, who developed the weapon, did not have the capacity to produce the number required by the Army, and a contract to manufacture the M203 was awarded to Colt Firearms. The U.S. M4 Carbine version of the M16 was adopted in 1994. The M203 launcher would not fit on the shorter M4. The M203 GL was modified into the M203A1, which is functionally the same as the M203 but is designed to fit on the M4 and M4A1 carbines. The quick-release M203A2 was designed for M4 carbines with a rail system and with M16A4 rifles that have the M5 adapter rail. Currently, there are at least seven U.S. companies manufacturing the M203 grenade launchers and its variants.

The M320 Grenade Launcher

During 2004, the U.S. Army issued a requirement for a new technically advanced grenade launcher with improved accuracy, ergonomics, safety and function as a stand-alone weapon. Development of the XM320 single-shot launcher, based on the HK AG36, began at the Picatinny Arsenal. The 40mm M320, which can also be attached under the barrel of a host weapon, was adopted in 2016 to replace the M203 under-barrel launcher.

The M32A1 Multi-Shot Grenade Launcher

While fighting in Iraq, the U.S. Marines requested a grenade launcher with a rapid rate of fire. An off-the-shelf, multi-shot revolver type, semiautomatic launcher was submitted by Milkor USA based in Arizona. The weapon was tested in 2006 and was eventually adopted by the U.S. Marine Corps as the M32A1 Multi-shot Grenade Launcher, and by the USSOCOM as the Mk 14 Mod 0.

Philip Pollock Quayle was one such person—a scientist, inventor, marksman, husband and father. The scientific research and techniques he developed in his too-short life directly advanced our understanding of ballistics and were successfully applied to the design and manufacture of ammunition and firearms. In a 1931 American Rifleman obituary, he was described as “first and foremost a most highly educated and talented scientist” whose work “forms a contribution to ballistic science which will remain forever a monument to his memory.”

Born in 1894 in Berea, Ohio, Philip Quayle’s family eventually settled in Oberlin, where he graduated from high school in 1914. Philip was not a child prodigy. He turned 20 before graduating from high school; although this was common for the time. He pursued higher education part-time at Oberlin College and then-named Case School of Applied Science in Cleveland while working, until the U.S. declared war on Germany and entered the First World War in April 1917. Philip joined the enlisted Reserve Corps in early 1918 and was called to active duty later that year.

He immediately earned the Army’s “expert” marksmanship medal, the highest level recognized, and was soon sent to Coast Artillery School at Fort Monroe, Virginia. There, he was trained in tactics and the mathematics of heavy arms ballistics. Philip’s older brother, 1^st Lt. Thomas J. Quayle of the 135^th Machine Gun Battalion, was killed that month in France during the first phase of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive. But the War officially ended on November 11, before Philip could be deployed to Europe. Though he was in line to become a lieutenant, he was honorably discharged 10 days later as a private.

As a boy, muzzle loading arms had been his hobby. Whether artillery school was where Quayle’s passion for ballistic science was born, or simply where it was fueled, we don’t know. But from that point, the course of his academic and professional career was set on a trajectory from which it never drifted. When Philip returned to Case School, his studies in physics became highly focused. Quayle co-authored a presentation given in Washington in 1920 to the American Physical Society on the “Photographic Study of a Bullet in Flight and of the Resulting Air Disturbances.” The study used a rudimentary form of photography to learn the relation between dimensions of the projectile and the wave-length, frequency, pressure and form of waves in air produced by the projectile in flight. As a student, he worked on a project for the Army to study the effects of concussion sound waves from large guns. At the time, the physiological effects of air concussion were believed to be the cause of the malady vaguely referred to as “shell shock.” The results of this work formed the basis for Quayle’s later work perfecting “spark photography.”

Spark Photography

In 1921, Quayle graduated from Case with a bachelor’s degree in physics and married Mary Tillotson, an Oberlin native with whom he had graduated high school seven years earlier. Philip was hired by the National Bureau of Standards, Sound Division, in Washington, D.C., as an assistant physicist. There, he designed test equipment, studied problems affecting industry or consumers and published papers on practical scientific solutions. He immediately poured his passion into perfecting spark photography, applying it to firearms research and writing on spark photography, ballistics and measurement of very small increments of time.

His lab and test equipment were largely built from scratch. The first of Quayle’s important breakthroughs for perfecting spark photography was a trigger that was neither mechanically linked to the firearm nor touched by the bullet, so it did not interfere with the bullet’s flight. The second was a switch that would release a half-kilowatt, 10,000-volt charge at a precise moment in time to create the illuminating spark. Trained in applied science, Philip was a physicist who invented scientific instruments to not just show, but accurately quantify, effects of external ballistics and recoil.

The latest in ballistic technology at the time was the Aberdeen Chronograph. It used lead-foil screens placed 50 feet apart. When a projectile pierced each screen, a spark was triggered and recorded, allowing the time between sparks to be measured. But any system that relied on physical contact with the projectile inherently introduced error and affected its flight.

Spark photography seems crude in the sense that there is no camera box, shutter or lens used to focus light reflected from the subject. Instead, it records an actual size shadow of an object on a photographic plate frozen in time by the light from a spark. Advantageously, it creates useful images of phenomena not otherwise visible, such as pressure waves and turbulence in air, and reduces the frame speed to as little as 1/one-millionth of a second. What appears in the spark photograph to be billows of smoke from the muzzle are invisible streams of compressed air.

Today, high-speed video can record at more than 50,000 frames per second. But in the 1920s, moving pictures were still a rapidly developing novelty. Flashbulbs were not produced commercially until 1929, and the first electronic flash tube wasn’t introduced until 1931. The electronic flash was a direct evolution of spark technology, but slower—at only 1/200th to 1/1000th second. Early flashbulbs took longer to reach full brightness and burned for longer than electronic flashes.

While in Washington, Philip became active in the USMC Reserve, and by 1925 he was a captain. That year, the Bureau published what was to be Quayle’s most notable and recognized work: Spark Photography and Its Application to Some Problems in Ballistics. His articles were not written as an academic in an ivory tower but shared practical uses for discoveries he made and the devices he had built to make test equipment more accurate. His articles were published in both scientific journals and popular magazines. For example, The Coast Artillery Journal published “Spark Photograph of a .30 Caliber Tracer Bullet,” in October 1925 and the American Rifleman published “Some Spark Photographs, Recoil and Pressure Curves of the 0.45 Caliber Colt Automatic Pistol,” in February 1926.

Since the 1897 publication of an article by 1^st Lt. B.W. Dunn in the Journal of the United States Artillery, it had been widely accepted that the speed of a projectile continued to accelerate after leaving the muzzle. The article asserted: “Small arm bullets should be considered as having their maximum velocities at points from 20 to 30 feet in advance of muzzle. They should gain in velocity over this distance, for the bullet is enveloped in gases moving in the same direction and with higher velocity than that of the bullet.” Quayle’s spark photo instrumentation and analysis definitively proved that a bullet does, in fact, accelerate beyond the muzzle—but for only 3 to 4 inches.

Critically important to ballistic study—and many other fields at the time—was the ability to measure very small increments of time accurately. While at the Bureau, he invented an electric tuning fork for precision measurement of small intervals of time and a pendulum device to measure a gun’s recoil.

Peters Cartridge Company

Peters Cartridge Company opened in 1887 on the banks of the Little Miami River in southwest Ohio. Gershom Peters had patented the first fully automatic machine to load metallic cartridges. Peters was an innovating company and aggressive promoter. It ran magazine ads, published informational booklets for shooters and sponsored shooting demonstrations and trapshooting events. In 1927, Peters was celebrating its 40th year in business when it hired Philip Quayle to be its Chief Research Physicist. He had become well-known for his ballistics research at the Bureau of Standards and was undoubtedly the most qualified person in the country for the position.

Philip jumped right in, developing inventions and test equipment to improve Peters’ ammunition. Peters already had a chemistry laboratory and an all-season test tunnel. Philip built a complete spark photography lab, an electric tuning fork for timing and a ballistic pendulum for testing recoil. Peters made full use of Quayle’s work and equipment in its marketing and promotions, though without mentioning Quayle by name. Peters encouraged its employees to engage in shooting activities and provided ranges for them near the factory. Philip shot in local and regional matches and enjoyed taking his young son, Tom, to shoot skeet.

Measuring the longitudinal distribution of shot pellets and length of the shot string in the direction of travel is more difficult than using a simple patterning board. Quayle invented a shot string meter (Patent No. 1,807,601) that allowed just that. But Philip soon was able to photograph an entire shot string, which provided even better information.

In 1926, Col. Richard M. Cutts and his son patented a “climb arrester” for rifles. Muzzle-climb was a particular problem for the M1921 Thompson submachine gun in full-automatic mode. The younger Cutts began working on a “compensator” that would the vent the muzzle blast generated by the propellant gases upwards, helping to counteract the Thompson’s muzzle-climb. Determining the effectiveness of the designs was a challenge, so in 1927, Cutts approached Peters for help.

Quayle used his spark photography and other instruments he had invented to analyze shots and recoil of the Tommy gun. Philip published articles on these tests in both American Rifleman and Leatherneck—Magazine of the Marines in 1927. Col. Cutts’ account was published in the American Rifleman in July 1928. “This allowed us to see the results of the changes we were making in the design of a compensating device,” the junior Cutts later related. He described Quayle as both “a very able physicist” and “a gun crank who believed anything less than the best in firearms was no good at all.” The “Cutts Compensator” patents were licensed and became a standard fixture on the Thompson from 1927 onward, known as the M1921ACs.

Handloaders know the importance of selecting the right primer for the powder charge and case shape. The magnitude and length of the primer explosion affect how the propellant powder burns. The duration of an average rimfire primer, for example, is about 2 to 3 ten-thousandths of a second. Of course, consistency of one primer to the next is just as important. Quayle invented a device (Patent No. 1,824,407) to quantify both the intensity and duration of an explosion, specifically for the testing and design of primers and blasting caps. A photo of the device was shown in Peters’ 1930 pamphlet, “From Trigger to Target.” This allowed Peters to ensure consistency of its products and to rate primers quantitatively relative to other primer types.

The hot gas produced by the primer is conductive; conductivity of the gas is affected by both pressure and temperature. One electrode is attached to the metallic shell of a primer or a primed rimfire case. The other is positioned with a gap in front of or inside the case. When the hot, high-pressure gas is released, the conductance is recorded to indicate both duration and intensity, the latter being only relative and without any standard unit of measurement.

Quayle’s Blank

The earliest motion pictures were silent and often projected in a traditional “stage” theater where the film was accompanied by live music. Later, sound tracks were recorded to be played along with the films, but the degree of synchronization was generally limited to music, with the dialogue still being presented in text frames inserted between images of the actors. Gunshots in silent movies were visualized by using blanks with a powder charge formulated to produce the desired flash and smoke. The sound they produced was immaterial.

The first full-length “talkie” was released in 1927 (“The Jazz Singer”). By 1930, almost all movies included full sound, and westerns and gangster stories immediately became popular genres for talkies. Initially, the challenge in adding voice sounds to motion pictures was synchronization. Timing a music soundtrack or narration to the pictures was simple compared to synchronizing the lip movements with the actors’ voices. To make dialogue sound exactly synchronized to the image, it had to be recorded live as the scene was being acted and filmed. Microphones sensitive enough to record voices at a natural level would be damaged by a loud gunshot. If the powder charge used in the blanks was reduced enough to be microphone-safe, they no longer sounded like a real gunshot. The industry needed a blank cartridge that produced a credible tone but at a lowered amplitude (volume).

In 1930, Philip Quayle and fellow Peters’ employee Charles Holden developed the solution: the “movie blank” (Patent No. 1,804,986). The invention was a blank cartridge that would provide the smoke and flash and “would also produce a sound wave of the characteristic quality of a shot but at such a reduced amplitude that it would not damage the delicate recording apparatus.” The invention created a “cartridge inside a cartridge.” An outer shell or case simulated the shape of a loaded ball cartridge, with an open front end. An inner shell, which included a primer, powder charge and wad, was smaller than the outer case. “The outer case provides an explosion chamber larger than the charge.”

The blank cartridges could be made to work in rifles and handguns of at least five different calibers. These became known as the “Peters 5-in-1 Movie Blank” and were the most widely used blank cartridge for westerns and gangster movies of the 1930s, continuing use in movies until the 1970s.

Gone Too Soon

As a scientist and scholar, Quayle shared his knowledge with the world. His scientific papers were published in prestigious publications, like Physical Review, Nature and the Journal of the Franklin Institute. But he continued to publish articles on the same subjects for his sportsmen and military colleagues at the same time. Between 1925 and 1930, he published at least nine articles in the American Rifleman, as well as others in National Sportsman, The Military Engineer, Army Ordnance and The Coast Artillery Journal.

But Philip Quayle’s career trajectory suddenly collided with an unforeseen obstacle. On Valentine’s Day 1931, he was admitted to the hospital with “paralytic ileus,” an intestinal paralysis causing a blockage. Ileus can be can be a primary ailment or the symptom of other abdominal problems, so 2 days later he had surgery, and his appendix was removed. Even today, one treatment option for ileus is simply to control the pain and wait, but lack of improvement led to second abdominal surgery after 2 more days. Then on February 28, one week after his initial admission, Philip died—10 days short of his 37th birthday—leaving a widow and two young children.

His untimely death was noted in scientific journals in the United States and abroad. An April 1931 American Rifleman magazine obituary read:

As we go to press we learn (but without any particulars) of the recent death of Dr. [sic] Philip P. Quayle, who left the Bureau of Standards two or three years ago and joined the research laboratory staff of the Peters Cartridge Company. Dr. Quayle was perhaps best known to our readers for his interesting and illuminating spark-photography of firearms in action and of bullets and shot charges in flight.

The incorrect, but understandable, assumption that Philip held a doctorate degree was a testament to the brilliance his work conveyed. A full obituary followed in the June 1931 edition. As it said:

Captain Quayle was first and foremost a most highly educated and talented scientist. And fortunately for the shooting fraternity, he devoted his unusual ability almost exclusively to investigations relating to firearms. *** Captain Quayle’s work forms a contribution to ballistic science which will remain forever a monument to his memory.

For his technical achievement, the Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain awarded him the Society’s Medal in 1927, and his spark photographs of a bullet in flight were made a permanent exhibit of the National Academy of Sciences. His photos also became appreciated as an art form. Original Philip Quayle gelatin-silver spark photographs have been sold as works of fine art, including a group of seven images of a bullet being shot from a revolver auctioned in 2009 for over $5,000.

The Peters Cartridge Company continued to distribute free informational pamphlets with Quayle’s spark photography, like “Visible Ballistics” in 1933, “What Happens After the Shot is Fired?” in 1928 and “From Trigger to Target” in 1930. His spark photographs and references to “Sparkography” appeared in Peters’ advertising and promotional materials throughout the 1930s. When Remington/DuPont bought Peters in 1934, it continued to use Quayle’s research, spark photography lab and other unique testing instruments.

His research in external ballistics quantified previously unknown physical phenomena and disproved false assumptions, laying a new foundation for industry-wide improvements in ammunition design and manufacturing. Quayle had begun working on what was to become a revolutionary device in its time: a piezo-electric gauge for measuring chamber pressure. It was finished after his death and remains the industry-standard instrument today. Philip Quayle’s spark of genius had only just begun to flame when it was snuffed out—far too soon. We can only wonder what else could have come from his career had it reached full blaze.

Philip Quayle’s spark of genius had only just begun to flame when it was snuffed out—far too soon. We can only wonder what else could have come from his career had it reached full blaze.

Into the Archives of Germany’s Intermediate-Caliber Assault Rifle

Full title: Sturmgewehr! From Firepower to Striking Power  (Revised Expanded Edition)

Author: Hans Dieter Handrich

Publisher: Collector Grade Publications, Inc.

ISBN: 0-88935-593-2

Copyright: 2017

Hardcover, with dust jacket: 9” x 11¼”, 720 pages, 514 B&W photos, illustrations, drawings

Website: collectorgrade.com

Available from publisher or SAR store (Item B343)

The Sturmgewehr (German for “storm” or “assault” rifle) StG 44 was the culmination of a program to create a new class of weapons that we know as assault rifles. The generally accepted definition is a select-fire, carbine-sized gun, firing a mid-sized “intermediate” round and fed from a detachable box magazine.

In other words, the rifle and ammo have more power than an SMG that fires pistol rounds but less power and recoil than a full-size infantry rifle.

As we have come to expect from Collector Grade Publications, this book covers the topic in great detail. This fine book certainly does that and touches on other aspects of Nazi Germany weapons development as well.

The author, Hans Dieter Handrich, has revised and enlarged his original book by a substantial amount. The new 2017 edition contains 120 more pages and 122 new illustrations than the original 2004 edition. This brings the current edition to 720 pages and 514 B&W photos, illustrations and technical drawings, etc.

As with other Collector Grade books, this title is divided first into parts and then into chapters. Each chapter is then further broken down into numerous headings and subheadings. This makes the Table of Contents a full 17 pages! This can be viewed as either a good thing or a distraction, depending on your personal point of view.

Part I, Chapter One takes the expected look back at equipment and tactics in the decades prior to WWII. This begins with a brief look at warfare of the late 1700s and early 1800s. Following this, is a look back at WWI and the rise of the machine gun, most notably the Maxim. This leads into the topic of self-loading (semiautomatic, in other words) rifles. A photo of five different designs (three from Mauser and one each from Mannlicher and Borchardt) is shown. All appear similar to the typical bolt action of the era. A Mexican-designed, Swiss-built Mondragón rifle with a drum magazine and a Mauser Model 1916 are also pictured. While several self-loading rifles were tested, none where considered mature enough to be adopted on any serious scale. (A very small number of the Mondragón and Mauser 1916 rifles were issued to the Zeppelin balloon crew for anti-aircraft use.) These all fired full-power rounds and were semiauto only.

After the end of WWI, Germany was stripped of most of her military equipment and prohibited from designing and building more, as decreed by the Treaty of Versailles. However, this was not to be. As author Handrich explains in some detail, Germany disregarded the rules almost from the beginning. At first, these violations were executed very low key, but eventually they became quite blatant. Handrich covers a lot of background history in this book, not just the technical aspects of the StG 44.

Chapter Four, Early Intermediate Cartridge and Rifle Developments, takes a look at several mid-sized cartridges and rifles from several private firms in Germany. These experimental cartridges ranged in bore diameters from 7mm to 8mm and had case lengths from 27mm to 49mm long. Although this new direction caught the attention of the Ordnance Department, none of these early attempts went anywhere.

Part II, Chapter Five is where the gun that eventually became the StG 44 gets its start. In 1938, a year prior to the start of WWII, the Ordnance Department commissioned the C.G. Haenel company of Suhl to develop a select-fire “machine carbine.” Haenel’s chief designer was none other than Hugo Schmeisser, who designed the first operational submachine gun, the MP18/I, during WWI.

Handrich covers the long, sometimes frustrating path that the StG 44 took during its development. This gun has the dubious honor of being renamed the most times during its short career. Just a few of the better known names are: MP 42, MKb 42 (H), MP 43, MP 44 and finally the StG 44.

As the year designations suggest, the process took from 1942 to 1944 to get up to anything close to full production. A good deal of this was due to Adolf Hitler not believing in the idea of an intermediate round. He was stuck on the full-power round, so rifles such as the FG 42 and the G43 (later called the K43) proceeded while the StG 44 had much less official support. In fact, Hitler refused to approve it for full production three separate times. Handrich includes translated text of messages between Hitler’s inner staff and the military to confirm this. Handrich’s own opinion on Hitler’s delay in approving the program is: “There can be no doubt that Hitler’s bans had an extremely adverse effect on the schedule of development, testing and troop trials of the MKb …”

The author includes several images of original teletype messages discussing troop trials during the Eastern (Russian) Front. The text of several more messages, translated into English, document the ongoing troop trial evaluations. The frontline troops thought highly of this new weapon. Reports from the General of Infanterie (GendInf) are also shown, as well as details on monthly quantities delivered to the front. These various reports make for an interesting book, as you can see the progress of the program. A couple of messages are signed by Hitler himself.

Something I enjoyed studying is a set of small sketches (they are not dimensioned, so they cannot be called production drawings) that show the steps involved in turning a raw piece of sheet steel into a receiver. These thumbnail sketches show how the stamping, punching, forming (folding or bending) and drilling operations create a receiver. Most interesting!

English translations of original German military manuals are included. Specific manuals are from the MKb 42(H) and MKb 42(W) (Machine Karabiner 1942 prototypes from Haenel and Walther), the MP 43/1 and the final version, the StG 44. There is also a complete, 48-page, post-War East German manual shown, again with all text translated to English.

A chapter on special accessories looks at items such as a flash hider attachment, grenade launchers, the Vampir infrared riflescope and a long section on the unique Krummlauf curved barrel attachment for firing around corners.

A study of the development of the 7.92x33mm Kurz (short) cartridge is covered in similarly thorough detail. Until reading this book, I was unaware that several different firms were each designing its own idea of the perfect intermediate round or that the Polte company had tried several variants prior to settling on the 7.92x33mm version. These prototypes, along with dummy, tracer, blank, grenade launch blank and other special or experimental rounds are examined in detail. This includes 12 section-view engineering drawings from Polte.

The book wraps up with Part VI: A Post-War Retrospective. Chapter 22 looks at Hugo Schmeisser’s contributions to the AK-47. Following WWII, the Soviets gathered up many German specialists to work in the USSR. Schmeisser was taken to Factory 74 in Izhevsk in October 1946. He remained there until June 1952. During his time in Izhevsk, he worked alongside Mikhail Kalashnikov on what would become the AK-47. Handrich believes that Schmeisser helped a lot in the design, in spite of Kalashnikov saying that Schmiesser’s input was minimal. Schmeisser himself did not talk about it much. He passed away in September 1953.

I did find that the book tends to veer off in different directions as it covers various issues only vaguely related to the Sturmgewehr rifle. For instance, in 1924, the Rifle 98 for bicyclists was renamed the Rifle 98 for (mounted horse) riders. This single paragraph gets its own entry in the Table of Contents. At first, I found this a bit distracting. Later, I began to appreciate these little bits of history. This book has a tremendous amount of technical and historical information related to the Sturmgewehr program and resulting rifle. As well, it has a great deal of info on other aspects of the Nazi Germany weapons program. Although it may be among the most expensive books in your library, it certainly is worth considering. If you have an interest in the early development stages of assault rifles, this work is highly recommended.

The Colt and Smith & Wesson Model of 1917 double-action, six-shot revolvers had been manufactured during World War I to supplement a shortage of the semiautomatic 1911 pistols. After the War ended in November 1918, many of the weapons from the War were returned to the United States, to be inspected and rebuilt or repaired as needed. After being refurbished, most were placed into storage. However, many of the revolvers remained in service with the military police during the post-War years.

The Smith & Wesson Model of 1917 design was different than those manufactured by Colt. No parts were interchangeable; although both revolvers used the same three-cartridge, half-moon clips.

Smith & Wesson (S&W) manufactured an estimated 163,635 U.S. Model of 1917 .45 caliber revolvers from 1917 to the early months of 1919. The contracts were terminated at the end of World War I. After the War, there remained a rather large number of new frames and parts. The government wanted S&W to purchase all the left-over inventory, which the company initially refused, but later agreed to in a deal.

After World War I, Smith & Wesson continued manufacturing the Hand Ejector Model 1917 revolver, with checkered grips and bright bluing, for the civilian market until 1948. Most of the post-War commercial revolvers were assembled with new, not surplus parts. Later S&W introduced a new .45 ACP caliber 25-2 modernized revolver followed by the stainless-steel Model 625.

In addition to the U.S. military and commercial sales of the M1917 revolvers, a number were sold to Brazil. During 1936, Brazil began to modernize the weapons being fielded by their Armed Forces. Previously, the standard military sidearm had been the 7.65mm Luger pistol, originally purchased in 1908, a few original S&W .38 caliber revolvers and the 92 Espagnol, a Spanish copy of the S&W Model 10. One of the goals of the modernization program was to adopt a standard caliber; the .45 ACP cartridge was chosen.

Two Brazilian Contracts

There were two separate contracts for the Model 1917/1937 revolvers. The first Brazilian contract was for 25,000 weapons, shipped during 1938. Assigned serial numbers were from 181983 to 207043. Generally, most of the revolvers in the first contract were much like the post-War production, commercial Model 1917. Features of those guns were flat-top frames with a square-shaped, rear sight notch, checkered grips with the S&W silver medallion, commercial blue finish and the S&W trademark on the left side of the frame.

A second Brazilian contract group of 12,000 revolvers was amassed in 1946, with two serial number ranges: from 166000 to 175150 and 207196 to 209878. Note that some of the serial numbers are lower than the revolvers made in the first Brazilian contract; this is because most of them were assembled from surplus U.S. military parts made during World War I.

NOTE: There have been Brazilian contract revolvers reported that do not fall into any of the documented serial number ranges.

With the second Brazilian contract, Smith & Wesson was able to use many of the spare parts left over from their U.S. World War I contracts. Many of the revolvers in the second contract had World War I-style, round-top frames with a U-shape rear sight notch, smooth military-style grips, a blue satin finish and military inspection stamps on many of the parts.

Variances Between Modelo 1937s and M1917s

The Brazilian nomenclature for the revolvers was the “Modelo 1937.” The Brazilian contract revolvers differed slightly from the U.S. military Model 1917 guns. One of the most obvious differences was the addition of the Brazilian Crest and 1937 date on the right side of the frame, along with “MADE IN THE U.S.A.” On the left side, the Smith & Wesson trademark was added. The Made in the USA and S&W trademark were not marked on U.S. military M1917 revolvers. The triggers on U.S. military M1917s were smooth; the triggers on the Brazilian guns were serrated. Two styles of wooden grips were used on Brazilian guns: U.S. surplus smooth grips and checkered grips with the S&W medallion. The left side of the barrel was roll marked: “S&W D.A. .45,” and the top of the barrel was marked: “SMITH & WESSON SPRINGFIELD MASS U.S.A. PATENTED DEC. 17, 1901 FEB. 6, 1906, SEP. 14 1909.” Some of the first Brazilian contract revolvers with post-War commercial barrels were marked: “SMITH & WESSON” on the right side.

The Brazilian seal on the right side of the revolvers is marked: “ESTADOS UNIDOS DO BRAZIL 15 Novembro de 1899.” (Translated from Portuguese: UNITED STATES OF BRAZIL 15 November 1899.) The date, 15 November 1889, is that of a military coup d’état that established the First Brazilian Republic after the overthrow of the constitutional monarchy of the Empire of Brazil, ending the reign of Emperor Pedro II. On that same day, 15 November, a provisional government was established with Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca as president of the Republic and head of the interim government. The 1937 date is when the revolvers were adopted.

The Brazilian firm of IMBEL (Indústria de Material Bélico do Brasil, or Brazilian War Material Industry) located in Itajubá, Minas Gerais, Brazil, made replacement barrels and possibly other repair parts for the Modelo 1937 revolvers. The IMBEL-made barrels were marked: “FABRICA DE ITAJUBA Rv .45 M1917” on the right side. Spare barrels were also manufactured by another Brazilian plant stamped with the letters “I.N.A.” representing “Industria Nacional de Armas, National Arms Factory,” located in Santo André, a city in the State of São Paulo.

Nature of Importing

After manufacture and quality inspection at the Smith & Wesson factory, the Brazilian contract revolvers were delivered to John Block, New York City, NY, the purchasing agent for the Brazilian government. The revolvers were shipped in blue cardboard boxes that had a yellow label on the end with the words, “U.S. ARMY 45 MODEL BLUED 5 ½ INCH. SMITH & WESSON, SPRINGFIELD, MASS.” Inside the lid were instructions printed in English and Portuguese. On the bottom of the box, stamped in ink was: “MADE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.” The serial number of the revolver was handwritten on the box. Packed with the revolver were a cleaning rod and bronze bore brush. The S&W revolvers remained in service with Brazil’s military for over 30 years and were finally withdrawn from use in the 1970s.

During 1989 to 1990, a large number of the Brazilian contract Modelo 1937 S&W revolvers were sold to importers in the United States for the civilian market. The condition of the surplus revolvers varied from poor to good, with a very small number in very good to excellent condition. Most of the revolvers were mechanically sound, but most had worn, scratched, freckled or patinated finishes. Like the 1917 models, the Brazilian M1937 revolvers are Curio and Relic (C&R) eligible.

The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 required all firearms imported into the U.S. that were not considered antiques to have the name and address of the U.S. company that imported them, along with the model, caliber and country of origin. The information had to be conspicuously engraved, cast, stamped or laser-written in text at least .003-inch deep. The serial number had to be in Roman letters and Arabic numerals, the serial number could not contain any Cyrillic- or Greek-style characters. The serial number had a minimum height requirement of no less than 1/16 of an inch. However, if any of that information already appeared on the firearm from the original manufacturer, it did not need to be duplicated; which is why the S&W revolvers imported back into the U.S. only required minimum import stamps.

Examples of the Brazilian contract M1937 revolvers can regularly be found on any of the online gun auction sites. Unfortunately for Brazilian firearm collectors, very few of the S&W Modelo 1937 revolvers remain in their country.

Note: The spelling of Brazil was the correct spelling of that South American country until 1943, when an orthographic revision was made, changing the spelling to “Brasil.”

Importer Markings

U.S. Importer’s markings noted on Brazilian Modelo 1937 revolvers imported during 1989-1990 include:

NA RGDFLD. N.J. Navy Arms Company Ridgefield, NJ

Some were import-marked under the grips; others on the bottom of the barrel.

CAI ST AVT Century Arms International St Albans, VT

Generally marked on the bottom of the barrel.

IA CO SAC CA InterAmerican Import/Export Sacramento, CA

Marked on the barrel, hidden under the ejector rod.

Like all Eastern Bloc countries, Hungary had introduced assault rifles based on the Kalashnikov design. Initially still close to the Russian model, more and more of Hungary’s own ideas were introduced into later models.

It all began in 1957, when the traditional company Fémáru, Fegyver -és Gépgyár (Metalware, Arms and Machine Factory), or FÉG for short, tooled up for production of a copy of the Russian AK-47. Two years later the Hungarian weapon named “AK-55” left the assembly line in the classic design with a wooden handguard and stock. The milled receivers were supplied by the Danuvia Gépgyár machine factory. When FÉG changed over to the advanced model AKM-63, the receivers made of pressed sheet metal were manufactured by FÉG itself. The additional front pistol grip, which was supposed to provide a better hold during fully automatic fire, was already characteristic at that time. Its inclined position is due to the curved magazines. Like all other Hungarian-made assault rifles, the Automatic Fire position was marked with the infinity symbol “∞” and the Semiautomatic position was marked with “I.”

The AKM-63 still had a solid wooden stock and was too bulky and unhandy for many units, such as drivers, motorized infantry or airborne troops. After some development time the new model Automata Módosított Deszant 1965 (automatic modified for paratroopers), abbreviated AMD-65, was created. The front handguard was now made of perforated sheet metal, and the two grips were initially made of wood, later of grey polypropylene. A folding stock that could be swung to the right side replaced the previous fixed wooden stock, and by shortening the barrel to only 12.5 inches, a further saving in total length was achieved. To prevent muzzle climb when firing in fully automatic mode, the weapon was equipped with a very remarkable muzzle brake. It also significantly reduced the muzzle flash but made the weapon noticeably louder. The standard magazine was designed for 30 rounds. A shorter magazine for 20 rounds and a longer one for 40 rounds were not very popular in the army.

At that time, rifle grenades were already part of the Hungarian armament. However, the GP-25 underbarrel grenade launcher for VOG-25 front loading 40mm ammunition, which could be attached under the barrel of the AMD-65, did not satisfy the Hungarians and was only issued in small numbers. In search of a better solution, they started to modify the AMD-65 fundamentally and to optimize it as an additional model variant for the new role.

For this purpose, the weapon was given a modified muzzle section without a muzzle break but with an integral spigot-type launcher. The fin-stabilized grenades with hollow stem were pushed onto the launcher. Small strips of spring sheet metal held the grenade firmly in position. The gas port on top of the barrel could be closed by means of a rotary lever (position NY), so that the entire gas pressure of the propelling cartridge was acting on the rifle grenade. However, the weapon then only worked as a repeater and had to be cocked by hand after each shot. A special magazine with a six- round capacity was issued for the propelling cartridges. A welded metal strip inside the magazine body prevented accidental filling with the longer regular ball rounds. Firing the wrong round would have been disastrous, because Hungarian rifle grenades used with the AMP-69 were not pass-through or bullet-trap designs. The usual grenade packaging contained five grenades, and the same number of propelling cartridges was sealed in a transparent blister pack. A side rail mounts a high-angle optical sight that ensured a good hit rate at up to 450m (1,476 feet).

Launching a rifle grenade caused violent recoil. In order to make this recoil acceptable for the shooter, a shock absorber was integrated into the strut of the folding stock. The front pistol grip was omitted and replaced by a handguard fitted with two recoil-absorbing springs. A pliable rubber was chosen for coating the rear pistol grip, and a circumferential bulge was added to prevent the hand from slipping up and getting injured. During the tests, it had turned out that the recoil often blew the dust cover off. Therefore the end of the recoil spring guide rod, which also holds the cover in place, received an additional locking device.

The development work was carried out by a team consisting of János Egerszegi, István Berecki and István Nagy. It was headed by Károly Zala, the then chief engineer of FÉG. A secret patent with the number 173 689 was granted. The officer János Egerszegi presented the weapon at subsequent demonstrations at the Army and Ministry of the Interior. The Hungarian People’s Army (Magyar Néphadsereg / MN) adopted the weapon on August 2, 1974. The Workers’ Militia (Munkásörség / MÖ) adopted it in 1975, the same year as the Ministry of the Interior (Belügyminisztérium / BM) for use by police and border guard units. The official designation was Automata Módosított Puskagránát 1969 (Automatic Modified for Rifle Grenade), or AMP-69 for short.

With the hollow-charge rifle grenade PGK (Puskagránát Kumulatív) the infantry was able to engage enemy armored vehicles relatively effectively even without heavy weapons. In addition, the high-explosive and fragmentation rifle grenade PGR (Puskagránát Repesz) was used against light armor and soft targets. The rifle grenades were not launched by the propelling cartridge alone but contained an additional internal propellant charge. The four exit holes for the combustion gases are arranged in a ring around the stem of the grenades. For training purposes there were also reusable practice grenades PGK-GY and PGR-GY (Gyakorló / practice), the latter of which could be fitted with a bang/smoke cartridge. The OPG (Puskagránát Oktató) was a tubular, non-functional metal body with the weight of a rifle grenade. It enabled the soldier to become accustomed to the feeling of launching a grenade. The police used a tear gas grenade (Könnygáz).

With the AMD-65 and AMP-69, Hungary achieved some export successes, including to the West Bank, Lebanon, Libya, Georgia, Angola, South Africa, North Korea and Panama, and the weapons can be seen on various photos from these crisis areas. However, due to the lack of rifle grenades, the AMP-69 is mostly used as a regular assault rifle. Today many local police units in Afghanistan are equipped with the AMD-65 due to the fact that for the Hungarian military service it has been largely replaced by the AK-63, a more traditional AKM copy with lower manufacturing costs.

Large-Capacity Magazines

Federal Court Rules California Ban Violates Second Amendment

The so-called “high-capacity magazines” (or “clips” as some politicians and advocates insist on calling them) are low hanging fruit for the anti-gun lobbyists, and have been for quite some time. Remember the federal assault weapons ban that sunset in 2004? A key provision of that statute was the criminalization of transfers and possession of “large-capacity ammunition feeding devices” (LCAFD) after September 13, 1994. What constituted an LCAFD? Any magazine or similar device that could accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition. That law sunset in 2004, but the agenda against high-capacity magazines, or whatever name chosen, has not abated. Indeed, magazine capacity is guaranteed to be a talking point after any act of mass violence involving a firearm.

In 2016, California set its sights on so-called “large-capacity magazines” (LCMs), those magazines with the ability to accept more than 10 rounds, when it included on the November ballot a proposition to criminalize ownership of LCMs. The ballot passed, and on July 1, 2017, the new law, California Penal Code section 32310 (“Section 32310”), was to take effect. However, some concerned and affected citizens filed a lawsuit challenging the new law on constitutional grounds. After 3 years and multiple hearings and appeals, a panel of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges decided that the law indeed violates the Constitution. In a 2–1 decision, the panel confirmed the key findings of the district court made 1 year earlier in a March 2019 decision, including: (1) firearm magazines are protected arms under the Second Amendment; (2) large-capacity magazines are not “unusual arms” that would fall outside the scope of Second Amendment protection; and (3) prohibitions against large-capacity magazines do not enjoy a presumption of lawfulness. Given the historical importance of this decision, we will examine this case in depth and the implications.

The timing is perfect, really. Not only does this follow my recent article on why we have the Second Amendment (Small Arms Review, Vol. 24, No. 8 (August/September 2020)), but it also comes at a time when in the midst of widespread social upheaval and unrest, local governments are exercising some of the most oppressive measures in the name of public safety that we have seen in recent history.

Proposition 63

Section 32310 in its current form stems from a ballot proposition that passed on the November 8, 2016 election. The measure, titled, “Proposition 63,” included several gun control measures besides the ban on LCMs, including a background check requirement for ammunition purchases, a fine for failing to report stolen or lost guns, and requiring the California Department of Justice participate in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The measure had widespread support and easily passed with 63.08% of the votes (a total of 8,663,159 out of 13,733,931). Notably, there was a very large turnout for this vote, with more than 75% of voters showing up.

Before Proposition 63, Section 32310 was not nearly as broad and did not ban possession of LCMs. The section was first enacted in 2000 to prohibit the manufacture, importation (into California) and sale of LCMs (the California Penal Code defines “large-capacity magazine” in Section 16740 as any ammunition-feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, with certain exceptions). In 2013, the state extended the law to prohibit purchase and receipt of LCMs, but it permitted residents to keep LCMs lawfully acquired before the enactment. These measures were reflected in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the statute (see full text of Section 32310 below).

Proposition 63, however, expanded the proscriptions by adding new paragraphs (c) and (d), which criminalized possession of all LCMs, including those lawfully purchased before the statute was enacted. Specifically, the new law made it a misdemeanor, as of July 1, 2017, to possess any LCM, regardless of when the LCM was purchased, punishable by a fine not to exceed $100 per magazine, by imprisonment not to exceed 1 year, or both. The amended law also required owners to remove the magazines from the state, sell them to a firearms dealer, surrender them to law enforcement for destruction, or permanently modify the magazine to only accept 10 or fewer rounds, thus removing the magazine from the definition of LCM.

What follows is the full text of Section 32310, as revised by Proposition 63:

32310.

(a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

(b) For purposes of this section, ‘manufacturing’ includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully functioning large-capacity magazine.

(c) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2017, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(d) Any person who may not lawfully possess a large-capacity magazine commencing July 1, 2017 shall, prior to July 1, 2017:

(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state;

(2) Sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; or

(3) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.

There were limited exceptions to the ban, such as for active or retired law enforcement, armored vehicle security forces, or for holders of special weapons permits. The code also allowed manufacture for government use and use as props in film production. Regardless, for all intents and purposes, the law had a very broad reach. “On July 1, 2017, any previously law-abiding person in California who still possesses a firearm magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds will begin their new life of crime.” Duncan v. Becerra, 265 F.Supp.3d 1106 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (granting a preliminary injunction against the law).

Procedural History

After Proposition 63 passed, but before the new law was to take effect, plaintiffs Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell and the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., filed suit in federal court against the attorney general of California, Xavier Becerra, challenging the law on grounds that it violated the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. Two days before the ban was to go into effect, the district court in Duncan v. Becerra, 265 F.Supp.3d 1106 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (“Duncan I”) issued an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. “If this injunction does not issue, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property. That is a choice they should not have to make.” Duncan I at 1139.

Attorney General Becerra appealed the injunction in Duncan I to the Ninth Circuit and in the meantime, filed a motion with the district court to suspend all proceedings pending the appeal. The court denied the motion, allowing the underlying constitutional challenge to continue. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for summary judgment with the district court, and in 2019, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and held Section 32310 to be unconstitutional in its entirety. Duncan v. Becerra, 366 F.Supp.3d 1131, 1186 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (“Duncan II”). The court’s order prohibited the attorney general, his officers, agents, employees and attorneys, as well as state and federal law enforcement from enforcing Section 32310.

As would be expected, Attorney General Becerra appealed the Duncan II decision to the Ninth Circuit and requested the district court suspend its judgment while that appeal was pending. The district court granted a partial stay pending final resolution of the appeal. See Duncan v. Becerra, 2019 WL 1510340 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2019).

Which brings us to the present decision. The panel of three judges from the Ninth Circuit heard arguments on April 2, 2020, and on August 14, 2020, affirmed the district court’s summary judgment, holding that the Section 32310 ban on LCMs violates the Second Amendment because “it severely burdens the core of the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.” —F.3d—, 2020 WL 4730668 at 4 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Duncan III”).

Firearm Magazines Are Protected Arms Under the Second Amendment

In determining that Section 32310 burdens constitutionally protected conduct, the court found magazines enjoy Second Amendment protection because “[w]ithout a magazine, many weapons would be useless, including ‘quintessential’ self-defense weapons like the handgun. … Put simply, a regulation cannot permissibly ban a protected firearm’s components critical to its operation.” Duncan III at 7 (citing to District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 579, 629 and 630(2008)).

Regarding LCMs in particular, the court held that they are not “unusual” arms and therefore fall within the scope of the Second Amendment. Looking again at the precedent set under Heller, the court acknowledged that some arms may not fall under constitutional protection if they are dangerous and unusual. LCMs, however, are not unusual, enjoying a long history of use and availability in the United States, dating back more than 200 years. “Arms are not unusual if commonly owned and typically used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” The court did not opine on the dangerousness of LCMs, reaffirming the Supreme Court standard that “[a] weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual” (citing Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S.Ct. 1027, 1031 (2016) (Alito, J., concurring). However, it did note that statistics show criminal use of LCMs to be relatively low in comparison to their market saturation. Duncan III at 9, n. 8.

“The Second Amendment Is Not a Second-Class Right”

Finding that Section 32310 burdened constitutionally protected conduct, the court held the statute was subject to strict scrutiny, the highest and most stringent judicial test of a law. The reason was that “32310 strikes at the core right of law-abiding citizens to defend hearth and home, and the burden imposed on the core right is substantial.” Duncan III at 12. The court also rejects those decisions in which other courts have applied the lesser standard of intermediate scrutiny in contradiction to Heller. “[T]he Second Amendment is not a second-class right. … Nor is self-defense a dispensation granted at the state’s mercy.” Duncan III at 15 (citing McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 780-81 (2010)).

The state argued the law does not impose a substantial burden on the Second Amendment because citizens can still defend themselves with guns equipped with non-LCMs. But the court rejects this notion.

The state essentially invites us to engage in a policy decision that weighs the pros and cons of an LCM ban to determine ‘substantial burden.’… But the Supreme Court in Heller took any such policy-balancing notion off the table: ‘The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.’

Duncan III at 16, citing Heller at 634-35. The court went on to make a very shrewd observation.

The state speculates that a complete prohibition is necessary to avoid legally owned LCMs from falling into the wrong hands. But the flaws of that argument are obvious. The state could ban virtually anything if the test is merely whether something causes social ills when someone other than its lawful owner misuses it. Adopting such a radical position would give the government carte blanche to restrict the people’s liberties under the guise of protecting them.

Duncan III at 26 (emphasis added).

It is precisely the government’s ability to restrict our liberties under the pretext of protecting us where we are most vulnerable. History is rich with tragic examples of governments chipping away at the rights of its citizens. Stripping the power of self-defense is a very effective means to a desired end of ensuring the people are dependent on the government.

Attorney General Becerra’s office is currently reviewing the decision, and in a statement said, “Until further court proceedings, the stay on the injunction issued by the district court remains in place. The Attorney General remains committed to using every tool possible to defend California’s gun safety laws and keep our communities safe.”

This brings me to the end of this article, but clearly this is not the end of the story. I will keep you posted on developments as they unfold.

***

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

About the author –

Johanna Reeves is the founding partner of the law firm Reeves & Dola, LLP in Washington, DC (www.reevesdola.com). For more than 17 years she has dedicated her practice to advising and representing U.S. companies on compliance matters arising under the federal firearms laws and U.S. export controls. Since 2011, Johanna has served as Executive Director for the Firearms and Ammunition Import/Export Roundtable (F.A.I.R.) Trade Group (http://fairtradegroup.org). She has also served as a member of the Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG) since 2016. Johanna can be reached at jreeves@reevesdola.com or 202-715-9941.

Eugene Stoner is widely known as the designer of “America’s Rifle,” the AR-15/M16/M4, and its original parent, the AR-10. He also created the U.S. Survival AR-7 .22 rifle, which has passed through many hands and is still in production. This is the takedown rifle that fits in its own stock. Then there was his aluminum receiver, extremely lightweight 12-gauge shotgun which was produced for several years but soon left the marketplace. And since there was an AR-7, AR-10 and AR-15, there must have been AR-1s,-2s, and so on, and SAR has covered these numerous times.

While the AR-15 guns were originally chambered in .223/5.56, the AR-10, the original design, was chambered in .308/7.62 NATO. Now the design is available in a raft of calibers, from .22 Long Rifle to .50. It also serves as the base for bolt-action guns all the way up to .50 BMG.

The direct impingement gas system dates to 1900 France, but it was the combination of the gas system, the intelligent use of plastics and aluminum and, most important, the ergonomics, which revolutionized small arms design. The author recently discovered that Stoner’s talents were not limited to rifles. He is credited as the designer of a 25mm autocannon!

The Project

In 1964, Stoner was a consultant to Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge (TRW), which was working on a 25mm cannon. TRW has a long and storied history. It was started in 1901, after developing a method for making bolts by electrically welding the heads on. TRW moved from that to making parts for cars, then complete aircraft engines, later rocket engines, semi-conductors, satellites and ultimately spacecraft! They evolved into one of the first and largest “aerospace” companies, until they were taken over in 2002. But they also were involved in firearms development and production.

In 1961, TRW received a contract to build 100,000 M14 rifles and another contract the next year for 219,691 rifles. They eventually made 4,874 National Match rifles, which are held to a high standard for accuracy and speak to the quality of the company’s manufacturing abilities.

It was in this time frame—1964 to be exact—that a new project came to TRW, the Vehicle Rapid Fire Weapons System, which became known as the Bushmaster cannon. It was a tight competition, including multiple candidates each from Philco-Ford, General Electric and Oerlikon. The prototypes included a Vulcan type rotary gun, a revolver (single barrel, rotating chambers), traditional single-barrel guns utilizing several different operating systems, even a two-barreled system. The TRW candidate was called the “TRW-6425.”

The competition was somewhat open-ended, as no round was specified, only a result. The intention was to create a vehicle-mounted fully automatic cannon, capable of defeating a lightly armored vehicle at a distance. Guns of 20mm, 25mm and 30mm calibers were contenders. There was already an “interim” gun, and the performance of the new gun had to be better.

Being mounted on a vehicle offers some advantages and some constraints. The gun would have both electrical and hydraulic power available, and weight would be less of a problem than say, in an aircraft. But if you have ever been in an armored vehicle turret, space is very limited, a heavy gun system reduces the ability of the vehicle to carry men and ammo, and the gases from firing must be exhausted from the turret. In the early tanks, crewmen were incapacitated by the fumes from their guns.

The TRW entry prototype only took 22 months from contract to first firing in 1965. Great Britain and France, among other countries, also tested the gun. Various tests and studies went on until 1973, but work at TRW had stopped after Philco-Ford acquired the rights to the design in 1969. Only six of the guns were built. Renamed the PFB-25 (and Oerlikon’s related KB series of cannon), the ammunition was developed by Oerlikon.

The TRW-6425

The maximum rate of fire was 550 rounds per minute, with lower rates available, including semiauto fire. It is fed from a belt of linked rounds. Locking of the bolt to the barrel extension was done via the multi-lug system, cammed by a bolt carrier similar to the familiar type in the AR series guns. But there the similarity ends, as the 25mm was recoil-operated. It uses the short-recoil action, where the barrel recoils less than the length of a loaded cartridge. A hydraulic accelerator moves the bolt carrier assembly at 1.5 times the speed of the barrel, providing the impetus for the bolt carrier to cam the bolt out of engagement with the barrel extension. This allows for a short receiver inside the turret.

In the long-recoil system, the bolt remains locked to the barrel until the entire assembly recoils more than the length of a loaded cartridge, then the bolt is held back and the barrel moves forward, extracting the case by pulling the barrel off of it. This requires a very long receiver.

Testing

In short, the TRW-6425 was a failure. There were many malfunctions and lots of part failures. Of course, the idea of testing is to find any weaknesses and see if they can be remedied. Some issues were in fact resolved during testing, and the Ordnance Corps found the gun had military potential but needed further development. Of course, Stoner worked for TRW, and there is no record of him working for Philco-Ford.

It is possible that Philco-Ford was “hedging its bet” by submitting two different guns using two different operating systems into the competition. Certainly having Stoner‘s name associated with the gun would not have hurt.

Ultimately, the Hughes 25mm M242 chain gun was selected for the Bradley Infantry Fighting vehicle. It weighs 230 pounds and can fire 100 or 200 rounds per minute. The same gun in 30mm was adopted as the M230E1 for use in attack helicopters. Both guns are externally powered electrically and operate using an “endless chain” (allegedly designed from a bicycle chain), hence the name. The use of electric power means a shorter receiver inside the turret and less problems with the gasses produced entering the confined space of the turret. It also means a failure to fire (dud round) does NOT stop operation of the gun. The dud round is ejected along with the empty cases, and the cannon continues to fire.

Had TRW kept the rights to the project, Stoner may have perfected it, but history is full of “could haves,” “would haves,” and “should haves.” Eugene Stoner will always be secure in his place among gun designers for his work on “America’s Rifle,” the AR series. The TRW-6425 gets placed with other designs by Stoner—and every other inventor—as one that just missed the niche. Sources: The Machine Gun, Volume V, by George M. Chinn; U.S. Rifle M14—from John Garand to the M21, by R. Blake Stevens.

ARSENAL JSCo, BULGARIA

MSGL-L

The 40х46mm ARSENAL Multi-Shot Grenade Launcher MSGL-L has revolver-type launchers with 6-round drums; chamber loading; a chromium-plated barrel bore; a telescopic buttstock; and MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rails at the 3, 9 and 6 o’clock positions. The launcher uses 40x46mm low-velocity rounds with lengths not more than 140m.
arsenal-bg.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Multi-Shot
Weight: 6.0kg
Length (overall): 727mm (combat position) / 551mm (traveling position)
Length (barrel): 170mm
Maximum Range: Up to 400m
Effective Range:
–at area targets: Up to 350m
–at point targets: Up to 150m
Rate of Fire: Not less than 12 RPM
Muzzle Velocity: 76mps
MSRP (USD): Provided on request

ARSENAL JSCo, BULGARIA

UBGL-M8

The 40x46mm ARSENAL Underbarrel Grenade Launcher UBGL-M8 has an add-on launcher; flat or curved trajectory fire; chamber loading; and uses low-velocity grenades in 40x46mm caliber with lengths up to 170mm. The UBGL-M8 has MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail availability that provides attachment of a mechanical or collimator sight as well as a three-dot sight system with one luminous dot on the front sight and two dots on the rear sight.
arsenal-bg.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Add-on
Weight: 1.463kg
Length (overall): 376mm
Length (barrel): 250mm
Maximum range: Up to 400m
Effective range:
–at area targets: Up to 350m
–at point targets: Up to 150m
Rate of Fire: Not less than 5 RPM
Muzzle Velocity: 76mps
MSRP (USD): Provided on request

GENERAL DYNAMICS ORDNANCE AND TACTICAL SYSTEMS

MK47 Advanced Grenade Launcher

General Dynamics-OTS is the system integrator of the MK47 Advanced Grenade Launcher with Lightweight Video Sight II (LVS II). Integrating the latest sensing, targeting and computer programming, the MK47 with LVS II weapon system provides the warfighter with the most sophisticated fire control and a decisive technological advantage over adversaries.
gd-ots.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Stand-alone
Weight: 39.6lb
Length (overall): 37in
Length (barrel): 24.02in
Maximum Range: 2,000m
Effective Range: 1,500m (iron sights); 2,000m (fire control)
Minimum Safe Range: 40m
Rate of Fire: 275 RPM
Muzzle Velocity: 790fps
MSRP (USD): N/A

LMT DEFENSE

LMT Shorty 40

The Shorty 40 is an M203 40mm, rail-mounted grenade launcher receiver. The Shorty 40 is designed to be used on any Picatinny rail or as a stand-alone weapon system. It is machined from aerospace aluminum and utilizes a 7-inch 40mm 1:48-inch RH twist barrel. ATF approval is required before purchase.
lmtdefense.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Attachment
Weight: 2.9lb
Length (overall): 12.5in
Length (barrel): 7in
Maximum Range: 437yds / 400m
Effective Range: 382yds / 350m
Minimum Safe Range: 143yds / 130m
Rate of Fire: Single-shot
Muzzle Velocity: 250fps / 76mps
MSRP (USD): $1,999

LMT DEFENSE

LMT Standalone Shorty 40

The Standalone Shorty 40 is an M203 40mm grenade launcher. The launcher is designed as a stand-alone weapon system, featuring a pistol grip and LMT Shorty SOPMOD adjustable stock, mounted to an included LMT frame. It is machined from aerospace aluminum, utilizing a 7-inch 40mm 1:48-inch RH twist barrel. ATF approval is required before purchase.
lmtdefense.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Stand-alone
Weight: 3.6lb
Length (overall): 17.25in
Length (barrel): 7in
Maximum Range: 437yds / 400m
Effective Range: 382yds / 350m
Minimum Safe Range: 143yds / 130m
Rate of Fire: Single-shot
Muzzle Velocity: 250fps / 76mps
MSRP (USD): $2,799

MILKOR USA INC.

M32A1 Multi-Shot Grenade Launcher

The M32A1 is the USMC/SOCOM 40mm Multi-Shot Grenade Launcher of choice. The M321A1 is a hand-held, gas plug operating, semi-automatic, revolving action, 40mm Multi-Shot Grenade Launcher (MSGL). The M32A1 has been tested to the rigorous MIL-SPEC/MIL-STD required by the USMC. The weapon earned a Weapon Explosive Safety Evaluation Review Board (WESERB) certification and is currently the only MSGL in the U.S. DOD with this certification. Through the IDIQ, the M32A1 officially became a “weapon of record” for the USMC and U.S. DOD. Less lethal options are available.
milkorusa.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Stand-alone, 6-shot
Weight: 13.8lb–15.8lb / 6.26kg–7.16kg
Length (overall): 25.5in–29.1in / 648mm–739mm
Length (barrel): 8in / 203mm
Maximum Range: 450 LV / 850 MV
Effective Range: 400 LV / 800 MV
Minimum Safe Range: Ammo-dependent, usually 100m
Rate of Fire: 44 RPM
Muzzle Velocity: 75mps / 124mps
MSRP (USD): $7,200

MILKOR USA INC.

SSGL variants

The SSGL was specifically designed for use with low-velocity, medium-velocity and extended-range rocket-assisted 40mm munitions in mind. The SSGL gives you the same robust strength as its bigger brother the M32A1, in a much smaller and lighter stand-alone package.
milkorusa.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Stand-alone, single-shot
Weight: 5–7lb / 2.2kg–3.2kg
Length (overall): 19in–23in / 482mm–584mm
Length (barrel): 8in / 203mm
Maximum Range: 450 LV / 850 MV
Effective Range: 400 LV / 800 MV
Minimum Safe Range: Ammo-dependent, usually 100m
Rate of Fire: 18 RPM
Muzzle Velocity: 75mps / 124mps
MSRP (USD): TBD

RM Equipment, Inc.

M203PI 40mm Universal Grenade Launcher System

The M203PI 40mm Universal Grenade Launcher System is a single launcher module, functional in three configurations: pistol grip with M203grip QD handle (NSN: 1010-01-579-0712); rifle/carbine-mounted (shown) (NSN: 1010-01-393-0656); and stand-alone with shoulder stock (not shown). The launcher has an integrated sight that attaches/removes without tools. The M203grip attaches/removes without tools.
rm-equipment.com / 40mm.com / M203grip.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: TSA4, only by RM
Weight: 2.5lb
Length (overall): 12in
Length (barrel): 9in
Maximum Range: Variable by ammo design
Minimum Safe Range: Variable by ammo design
Rate of Fire: Variable by operator selection
Muzzle Velocity: 249fps
MSRP (USD): Provided on request–Government sales only

ST ENGINEERING LAND SYSTEMS

STK 40GL Mk1

The 40mm Grenade Launcher Mk1 (40GL Mk1) is a single-shot grenade launcher developed by ST Engineering, designed to fire the standard 40x46mm low-velocity grenades. The 40GL Mk1 is lightweight, compact and ambidextrous, an asset for warfighters in today’s dynamic operating environment. It is available in the stand-alone or underbarrel configuration.
stengg.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Available in both variations
Weight: Approximately 1.25kg (Underbarrel); 2.42kg (Stand-alone); 0.25kg (Ladder sight)
Length (overall): Approximately 400x 60x190mm (Stand-alone); 310x60x90mm (Underbarrel)
Length (barrel): Approximately 216mm (8.5in)
Maximum Range: Up to 150/400m (Point/area)
Effective Range: N/A
Minimum Safe Range: 14m–28m
Rate of Fire: Single-fire
Muzzle Velocity: 76 m/s (Low-velocity grenade)
MSRP (USD): N/A

U.S. ORDNANCE

Mk19 Mod 3 Automatic Grenade Launcher

The U.S. Ordnance Mk19 Mod 3 Automatic Grenade Launcher is an air-cooled, blow-back-operated, automatic fire, belt-fed weapon. It fires from an open bolt and fires the M430A1 High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP) 40mm grenades, at a cyclic rate of 325 to 375 rounds per minute.
usord.com
Model: Mk19 Mod 3
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Stand-alone
Weight: 77.6lb (35kg)
Length (overall): 43.1in (1,095mm)
Length (barrel): 21in (including flash hider)
Maximum Range: 2,212m (2,419yds)
Effective Range: 2,000m (2,187yds)–area targets; 1,500m (1,640yds)–point targets
Minimum Safe Range: 310m in training, 75m in combat
Rate of Fire: 325–375 RPM
Muzzle Velocity: 241mps (790fps)
MSRP (USD): Pricing on request (Military and LE sales only)

The first lever-action rifle designed by Benjamin Tyler Henry in 1860 was an advanced concept for the day. Its toggle action wasn’t a particularly strong design, and the original .44 rimfire cartridge was close to the maximum it would support. Granted, it was a pretty hefty round for a rimfire, with 200-grain lead bullets reaching 1,300 feet per second (fps) … but the plain Springfield rifled musket could toss a whopping 500-grain Minié ball bullet as fast. Serving the role later filled by submachine guns, the Henry lever-action rifle was nonetheless famous for its 14-shot capacity and the streamlined manual of arms compared to other repeaters of the period.

Winchester modified the Henry with side-gate loading and other minor improvements on the action until the 1880s, when toggle lock gave way to a much stronger wedge-locked breech. A massive, vertically sliding wedge articulated by the lever extension locks the bolt solidly into the receiver. With that improvement, 45-70 and stronger cartridges became available to lever-gunners. Since then, various makers have improved the materials and the manufacturing methods, but the design has stayed mostly the same. It took the revived Henry Repeating Arms to integrate all these incremental improvements into one modern lever action, the new Big Boy X .44 Magnum.

All Henry X series rifles—.44 Magnum, .45 Colt and .357 Magnum—weigh about the same at 7.3 pounds. Clad in all-black synthetic furniture, the Big Boy X rifle is very business-like. The receiver shows no pretty brass but has a weather-resistant black metal finish. Instead of the ladder sight optimistically graduated to 500 yards, the Henry Big Boy X uses a fixed fiber optic rear, coupled with an even brighter fiber optic front post. For long-range accuracy, the rifle arrives optic-ready. Sling swivels are integrated into the stock and the sport molded-in, along with the forend Picatinny rail. Two M-LOK slots on the sides provide barrel ventilation and extra mounting spots. In place of the usual brass buttplate, a rubber recoil pad tames the recoil. The barrel is factory-threaded 5/8×24 for a sound suppressor or a flash hider.

I own a very lightweight Bowers Group sound suppressor but am still waiting for the tax stamp. I shot the rifle suppressed with my SOT present: it’s a whole other experience, as the suppressor effectively diminishes both blast and felt recoil. With .44 Special ammunition, the report is hearing safe, and the rifle just barely moves on recoil. Depending on the brand, defensive .44 Special bullets still move at 1,100 to 1,350fps at the muzzle. Slower cowboy loads are the way to go for the ultimate quiet experience. The Bowers Group Vers 458 has enough volume to make the report hearing safe outdoors, where the supersonic shockwave doesn’t get reflected from nearby walls. I expected the large suppressor to make the rifle front-heavy, but it did not, being only 23 ounces. The suppressor obscures the open sights, but fiber-optic inserts make it possible to use the Bindon effect (using both eyes to shoot) and hit a human-sized target out to about 50 yards. Using a 1-3x20mm Weaver V-3 scope in a single-piece Talley mount raised the line of sight above the suppressor circumference. The rifle doesn’t heat up much, but the suppressor does after about 25 shots. Since the action doesn’t open until after the pressure drops, and the main locking lug is well away from the chamber, the internals stay clean. This robust mechanical advantage coupled with rimmed ammunition guarantee reliable extraction even after extensive use. The rifle has gone through nearly 1,000 rounds with not much fouling. 

Henry X Series and Ammo

Unlike the older Henry models, Henry’s X series guns have side-loading gates in addition to the front-loading cutout. With the sound suppressor mounted, the side loading becomes the only viable method, as the can blocks the magazine follower removal. The magazine holds seven shots of either Magnum or Special ammunition; one round fits in the chamber with the hammer safely down. The .44 Magnum has triple the power of the old rimfire, extending the point-blank range significantly. My current configuration includes a Viridian® X5L light/laser combo for low-light engagements, and a Kaw Valley Precision linear compensator on the muzzle to channel the blast away from the user. Much smaller and lighter than the sound suppressor, the linear comp does a good job of managing the sound distribution, along with diminishing the visible muzzle flash.

Like the .357 Magnum, the .44 Magnum’s performance improves with the 17.4-inch barrel compared to revolvers. Steinel Ammunition’s 225-grain deer load designed for handguns went from 1,200fps out of a 6-inch revolver to nearly 1,600fps. Hornady’s® FTX® of the same weight jumped from 1,400fps to 1,870fps! Federal Premium’s® Vital-Shok™ 280-grain JHP rated at 1,170fps and from the pistol flew at 1,450fps. Prvi Partizan 240-grain JSP is a hot load exceeding 1,540fps from a revolver; it reached 1,800fps from the rifle. My own handloads made with slow H110 powder and 240-grain Hornady XTP® and Sierra® JHC revolver bullets clocked 1,750fps. With Henry Big Boy X, the kick was minimal, even by my recoil-averse standard.

‘X’ Marks the Spot

Accuracy is the other reason for going with a rifle over a handgun. Even in my semi-expert hands, all loads shot inside of 2MOA. With 100-yard zero and the scope zoomed in all the way to 3 power, I can consistently hit a 3-inch spinner at 110 yards, the maximum distance available on my home range. With the scope set to 1x, rapid fire from 25 yards alternating between two steel silhouettes overlapped the lead splashes all on one spot. The drop stock lets the rifle point consistently, and the bolt travel is short enough for keeping the cheekweld between shots. In all but the brightest sunlight, the green laser adds an alternate aiming method inside of 100 yards. With the emitter below the barrel, the bullet hits high up to the zero distance (in my case 30 yards) and then drops below the point of aim. The bullet drop isn’t too drastic, so a body hit can be achieved with the laser illuminating the head up to 100 yards.

For leisurely range loading, pulling the magazine follower is convenient. The same is true of unloading the magazine without cycling each cartridge through the action. For combat use, the side gate is obviously quicker and avoids the risk of damaging the magazine tube. For single shots during gel testing, I just popped individual cartridges into the ejection port.

Gel test results were quite diverse. Some loads work equally well in revolvers and rifles, others do not. Federal Premium’s Vital-Shok, a hunting load using a 280-grain Swift™ A-frame® bullet, created a 0.65-inch wide hole that went from one gel block to the next for a total of 26 inches. The projectile stayed completely intact—just what you’d want for deer or boar. Federal’s  .44 Special 200-grain, hollow-point, semi-wadcutter sounded like a sneeze and expanded to 0.57 inch with 16 inches of penetration: not impressive but adequate. Hornady FTX 225-grain with the red ballistic tip, though expressly designed for carbines, fragmented violently. The largest piece of about 60 grains just reached the 16-inch mark: It would work for self-defense but not for meat hunting. Steinel Ammunition’s 225-grain copper hollow point opened up and shed the petals. All six of the 14- to 15-grain petals were found 13 to 15 inches into the block, while the 140-grain cylindrical stem of the bullet punched through 32 inches of gel! My handloads using bullets optimized for handguns both fragmented violently, filling a 15-degree cone of gel with lead fragments out to 24 inches of depth—great for antipersonnel use, less than ideal for producing edible venison.

Henry Big Boy X .44 Magnum proved comfortable for use by experts and beginners alike. We’ve experienced no malfunctions, cycling was smooth, and the crisp 4-pound trigger benefitted good marksmanship. It’s an excellent, fast-handling weapon for field use by hunters, bear country hikers and recreational shooters. Years ago, I asked the gun designer Bernie White why a particular firearm was designed, and he responded: “It’s fun! You do get the concept, right?” This carbine illustrates the concept perfectly: It’s fun to shoot, it’s easy to shoot well, and all the practical utility is just the icing on the Magnum cake.