Watching the primaries… and watching and watching, waiting to hear the magic words. I still haven’t heard them. “I swear to the American people that I will not violate their God given, Constitutionally guaranteed Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” Guess I better not hold my breath waiting to hear that. Alan Keyes is the only candidate who talks like that, and he’s not even showing on the radar at the moment.

In New Hampshire, traditionally if you ran for office, you had to publicly state that you would not support any new taxes. That worked for many years, and sure enough, as soon as they stopped having to say those words, the politicians have instituted some new taxes. It should be our job to have a litmus test.

What if we started really holding the politicians to that kind of litmus test on firearms issues? I mean, no slack, no wiggle room, flat out – hand on a bible, on camera- swearing that they wouldn’t do it? Would it work? Am I being unrealistic and not “Cognizant” of “Media problems”?

It seems to me that every time we let the liberals frame the issue, and mark out the boundaries of the debates, we lose. You might ask me to name one person who drew the line in the sand and stood his ground – and won.

Ronald Wilson Reagan. Did we NFA people lose something under his stewardship? Yes. But, did he back down all the time, and snivel and apologize for what he believed in? Resounding NO! Reagan said unpopular things fairly frequently, and was trivialized by those oh-so sophisticated media pundits. They waited in the sidelines to ridicule his every word.

But Americans in general didn’t buy that smear campaign; they liked what the man said. He stuck to his guns. He was re-elected in a landslide, with the popular vote overwhelmingly in his favor.

It is hard to make “Machine gun ownership” a warm and fuzzy issue. Almost every day we read about “guns” being used to kill someone- used in bizarre crimes- truly scary stuff. Probably not as scary as poisonings, or knifings, or being beaten to death, but let’s not get picky here.

I’d be preaching to the choir again if I waxed into a rant about how availability of firearms is simply not the issue here, it is criminal behavior. Instead, I would like to urge our readership onward with the duty that we have, to keep the politicians honest so they don’t continue selling out the Constitution that we were given. Stand tall, speak quietly and honestly, and let them know we are there, and we are a majority. Albeit not the media’s majority, but on Election Day, if the prospective representatives of the people of this country perceive that they are honest, trustworthy and righteous, they will probably get elected to office.

In this age of William Jefferson Clinton- how can I say that with a straight face? Simply because most of us don’t have anyone to believe in when we go to the polls, and we are thirsting for that- someone to talk about “that shining city on the hill”. The clowns and thieves have been elected because so many people sit out the elections in disgust at the options.

Let’s see if we can do something to change that this coming November.

– Dan

By The Small Arms Review Editorial Staff

Dear SAR and Fellow NRA Members:

Gun owners are being legislated and litigated to death. Our hunting and shooting rights are vanishing before our eyes. Most gun owners are not NRA members. Most are with us in spirit, they’ve just never gotten around to actually joining or they’ve let their membership drop. If all of us in the shooting community were NRA members at the same time, the anti-hunting, anti-gun crowd would be rendered powerless. Our sheer numbers would overwhelm them.

After I realized that we either increase the membership fast or continue to lose our rights one piece at a time, I decided to see how many NRS members I could sign up on one year. I originally hoped I might sign 100. That seemed like a lot to me. Well, my year is now up and I’ve signed over 4,000 members! I was amazed how easy it was. All I did was get permission to ask the customers at two local gun stores if they were current with the NRA memberships. People signed up like crazy. They signed their wives, their children and their In-laws and friends. I actually signed 85 people in one day. Every one of them is a nail in the anti-gunners coffin. What a glorious feeling that day was. No more was I helpless. I was fighting back and winning. One person can’t make a difference? BULL!

If you would like to know how satisfying this can feel, please consider becoming a volunteer NRA recruiter. It’s easy. If you are good with people, know how to sell, can keep your temper, have a good appearance, and a little or a lot of time and want to make a difference, you can do it. Men, women, young and old can all be successful recruiters. I’ve already helped 38 people get started. It perfect for retired folks, college students, or a husband and wife looking for the perfect part-time job. A friend of mine recruits on a Saturday. He has 4 kids and a full-time job. He makes on average $200 every Saturday. Yes folks, the NRA pays you to do this. Talk about the perfect job. It works part-time or full time.

To get started call NRA recruiting at 703-267-3759. They will do the rest. We either united and fight or lose more and more of our gun rights. It’s that simple. If you and I don’t do the work, who will!

Richard H. Clise, NRA Recruiter

Here, here! While we sometimes get caught up in fighting amongst ourselves, those of us who are gun owners need to be members of the organizations that fight the good fight. While we may disagree on some issues, the fact is that the anti-gunners are anti- ALL guns- anti- Second Amendment. Now is the time, wherever you are is the place. If the NRA can do it, then go with them. I would also suggest Gun Owners of America, the 1934 Group, among others to support. If you disagree with someone’s policies, then lobby them hard to bring them into line. We need to be powerful, this year of all years. This is the year we could throw off the yoke of Clinton-Gore, and get the stench of the abuses they and their cronies committed washed away.

By Robert M. Hausman

Attendance, Sales Up At Year 2000 SHOT Show, H&K Being Sold

Record-setting attendance and extremely strong sales highlighted the 22nd annual Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show, which turned out to be the largest and one of the most successful ever.

Happy to be back in Las Vegas, exhibitors and retailers were upbeat throughout the four-day event at the Sands Expo & Convention Center January 17-20. With nearly 11,000 buyers filling the show the first day-a record number-sales were strong right from the opening bell.

Total attendance was 29,410, a number that pleased organizers who had been forced to move the show at a late date to Las Vegas. The move occurred after scheduled host New Orleans filed a lawsuit against firearms manufacturers. Of the total attendance, there were 16,700 dealers-nearly 3,000 more than the previous year-and 10,727 exhibitors. The remainder consisted of media representatives and guests. There was a total of 2,894 international buyers and exhibitors.

The show also set a record for the number of pre-registered attendees, which was 19,145, more than double the amount of last year’s show in Atlanta. A stiff on-site registration fee of $100 had been imposed this year to dissuade attendees from registering on-site. Concerns over fire safety regulations which stipulated that the Sands Convention Center’s lobby could only hold 500 persons at any one time prompted the hike in the on-site registration fee.

“This show continues to build on the history of all previous successes,” said Steve Hornady of Hornady Manufacturing. “It was a real bin-buster.” During the show, Hornady was named the industry’s “Man of the Year” by SHOT Business magazine.

Yet another attendance record was set in the press room, where 1,329 members of the outdoor and general media were registered to cover the event. The media included national television news crews from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, as well as journalists from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and the Detroit Free Press.

“This successful SHOT Show proves to any that would doubt it, that our industry is in very good shape and is thriving despite considerable challenges,” said Bob Delfay, president and CEO of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which owns the SHOT Show.

The event once again served as a rallying point for the industry, whose leaders recapped the status of legal proceedings in the municipal lawsuits against the industry. Plans were also drawn for an aggressive response to meet future needs, including establishing a political action committee. Exhibitors and retailers were briefed on these matters during a “State of the Industry” report on the show’s opening day.

State of the Industry

During the meeting, industry leaders provided an overview of the progress being made in the municipal lawsuits, new programs to promote the shooting sports, and the creation of an industry political action committee to accept and administer political contributions. These responses to challenges facing the industry were met with loud applause. The evening’s guest speaker, former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, put the industry’s mission bluntly, “Take part or get taken apart.”

During opening comments to the meeting, Delfay noted that although guns and gun control have been in the news for years, a new dynamic is the extent to which the firearms industry itself, has become news and “the alarming degree to which the media seems willing to further efforts to demonize our industry by giving newspaper space and air time to our adversaries while often dismissing our messages and factual response.”

Delfay then contrasted the challenges facing the industry by noting its assets. These consist of:

—A participant base of 26-30 million customers to whom shooting is more than hobbies-they are a way of life passed on to children much like valued family heirlooms.

—Interest in firearms and other outdoor products that has fueled an excellent, if not an all-time record year for many industry firms.

—Legions of dedicated and resolute supporters in the halls of congress and state and local government who refuse to enact restrictions on responsible and law-abiding firearms users.

“As an umbrella over all of this, is the launch of our Hunting and Shooting Sports Heritage Fund and the industry unity it has fostered,” Delfay added. The Fund is fueled by a voluntary one-half of one percent to a full one percent contribution on sales made by industry firms. Nearly the entire gun industry has signed on since the Fund was first announced at the 1999 SHOT Show held in Atlanta.

Delfay next turned his attention to the 29 municipal lawsuits filed against the industry. “Most of you know we agreed to participate in discussions with representatives of those same mayors who have sued us,” Delfay said. “We begin each and every meeting with the statement that we will discuss any idea that might help further reduce firearms accidents or help our friends in law enforcement prevent and prosecute criminal firearms use.

“We will not entertain illogical and ineffective ideas that might further some political agenda while having no impact on crime or accidents. The White House has inserted itself by threatening a massive suit coordinated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) if our discussions with mayors don’t go the way they like-as fast as they like. Even The Washington Post, not known as one of our industry’s best allies, has criticized this blatant political maneuver.”

While industry officials did agree to a preliminary meeting with White House personnel during the SHOT Show, it was later cancelled. However, it may be held at another time.

“We will not allow this openly anti-gun administration to pressure us into an agreement that will impact our customers’ rights to own and use firearms-or the industry’s right to conduct responsible businesses, while having no impact on the criminal use of firearms,” Delfay continued.

“Never before in our history has the firearms issue risen so high in the national political agenda. Gun issues will play a central role in presidential, senate and congressional elections,” he said.

PAC Formation

While the firearms industry has not been very politically active in the past, a political action committee has been formed to accept and administer political contributions. A database of shooting sports consumers is presently being gathered based largely on names obtained from industry product warranty cards. The database currently numbers about 500,000 names and the list of names is expected to grow into the millions within the next few months.

“This upcoming election will impact our industry and we must have an impact on this election,” Delfay emphasized.

Exhibitor Comments

Despite the inconveniences caused by moving the show venue and fears that the Sands Convention Center was too small to adequately house the largest shooting and outdoor trade show in the world, industry representatives had nothing but praise for the event.

“This was the best show ever for Bianchi,” said Elaine Costello, Bianchi’s trade show coordinator. And custom gunmaker Les Bear said, “I’ve written more orders here than the last four years put together.”

Foreign manufacturers were equally upbeat, “As a direct result of our appearance at the show, production will increase over 54%,” said Stephen Sales of Kent-Gamebor, the English ammunition maker. “The American market has far surpassed the European, after this show.”

One of the record number of dealers was Larry R. Smith of Trader’s Gun Shop in South Carolina, who said, “I spent two days buying and I am worn out.” After a stroll through the show’s New Products Center, which highlights products released in the last 12 months, Rege Kostrub of Vinay’s Gun Shop in Homestead, PA, commented, “This year’s new products are incredible.”

Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode, now 18 years old and part of the staff at the Perazzi booth, said, “Notice the aisles are clear and the booths are filled. I think that makes for a great show.” Another observer, world champion IPSC shooter Todd Jarrett, asked, “Uplifting, can you believe the show traffic?”

Strong sales covered the entire spectrum of the show, from firearms to accessories to apparel. “We sold hard from opening day until the middle of the third day,” disclosed David Robinson of Columbia Sportswear. “We never had a moment to rest. It’s been a killer show.”

Watch for further coverage of the new products and happenings occurring at the SHOT Show in this column and elsewhere in forthcoming issues of SAR.

H&K For Sale

An investment group formed by Zilkha & Co. of New York City has signed a latter of intent to purchase the German small arms manufacturer Heckler & Koch (H&K). Zilkha and its investment associates also own a controlling interest in new Colt Holding Corp., but this latest pending acquisition does not involve Colt’s, as was erroneously reported in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere.

According to a story carried by the Reuters news service, Heckler & Koch, GmbH would be acquired for slightly more than $100 million, or 98.7 million euros. H&K is owned by a unit of British Aerospace PLC, now operating as BAE Systems.

The combined company would be in a formidable position to compete for military rifle and grenade launcher contracts, John Rigas, a partner in the Zilkha investment firm, told reporters. BAE Systems is reportedly Europe’s largest defense contractor.

H&K’s executive office in the US released an announcement in January on the pending acquisition. It reads, “Over the years, H&K has been pursued by several companies attracted to the high quality, technologically advanced product we manufacture. Currently, Colt (sic) Manufacturing Co. is one of these companies.

“While a letter of intent has been signed by Colt’s Manufacturing Co. and BAE Systems, these companies are still in the early stages of negotiation regarding the possible sale of H&K. We can confirm, as of January 10, 2000, that these negotiations are ongoing.

“It is ‘business as usual’ at H&K. We continue to design, manufacture and ship high-quality, technologically advanced product and look forward to a healthy and profitable 2000,” the statement explained.

When contacted by this reporter, both Colt’s CEO, retired General William Keys, and Colt’s chairman, Donald Zilkha, denied Colt’s is involved in the proposed transaction involving H&K. An investment group formed by Zilkha & Co., not involving Colt’s, is seeking to acquire H&K, both insisted.

“Colt’s cannot involve itself in an acquisition of this size (reportedly $100 million),” said Keys. “We are concentrating on getting our financial house in order.”

Other News

In other items of interest, although the federal government has awarded a $8.5 million contract to Alliant Techsystems Inc. of Hopkins, Minnesota, to develop a prototype high-tech combat rifle, the US Army and Marines are already seeking a lighter version. Known as the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW), it will be one of five major sub-systems in the Army’s futuristic Land Warrior system. Alliant said the Army is trying to decrease the gun’s weight, make it more rugged and include a device that can tract moving targets. The services have a target goal of less than the currently planned weight of 14 pounds.

The OICW is expected to be available for field use in 2006, and the Army and Marines have budgeted $43 million to purchase about 20,000 units. The OICW concept combines a rifle, video camera, electronic fire control with laser rangefinder, and dual ammo capability allowing the firing of either 5.56mm rifle rounds or 20mm high-explosive air-burst munitions.

Hailed as a possible replacement for the M-16 rifle, the $10,000 per copy OICW will allow soldiers to virtually shoot around obstacles. Using its laser rangefinder to determine an obstacle’s distance, the arm can fire an air-bursting round, hurtling shrapnel behind the obstacle.

The team of companies working with Alliant Techsystems to develop the OICW includes H&K.

A similar bursting munition is being evaluated by the US Army as well. During recent Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) exercises involving the testing of technologies for use in fighting in urban environments, the Israeli-built Rifle Launched Entry Munition was found to offer great benefits. It can be fired from an M-16 rifle and is designed to knock down doors or blow holes in walls. Used by Israeli Special Forces for several years, it was ordered by the US Army through emergency channels for possible use in Kosovo.

By Nick Steadman

SADW is a monthly electronic publication from Nick Steadman Features. Nick, intrepid world traveling reporter for much of the arms industry, files this 40,000 to 50,000 word report once a month to his loyal subscribers. Those lucky ones pay a mere $50 (US) £32.50 (UK) per year for the privilege of getting the hot tips and insights from one of the industry’s insiders. Nick’s unique perspective is globally based, as is his wit. Each issue is full of insight and information for those with an interest in Small Arms, as well as his observations on world travel.

WEAPONS, EQUIPMENT, FUTURE SYSTEMS, TRAINING & RELATED NEWS

SA80 ‘TOTAL RECALL’ ANNOUNCED: the Times & others reported towards the end of Feb 2000 that, subject to ministerial agreement, the UK MOD was to ‘recall’ all 300,000 5.56mm SA80 weapons with the British forces for a rolling programme of modifications to rectify the already well-documented functional shortcomings of this system, particularly in adverse operating conditions. SA80 is currently also struck off the NATO list of approved weapons, since it will only operate reliably using British ammunition. Ironically of course, this system was finalised (in 5.56mm) using foreign ammunition loaded with ball powder, since no British SS109 production existed at the time, and changes later had to be made to adjust its rate of fire with the UK-type extruded propellant which delivers different gas port pressures.

The programme will reportedly focus on having 12,000 SA80s upgraded by 2001, though two years or more will apparently be required to modify the complete inventory, at a cost to the taxpayer yet to be established, though reports said it would be substantial, due to the need for retooling, running into ‘tens of millions’. Components to be rectified are said to include the gas & bolt mechanisms plus the magazines. Renewed MOD interest in finally sorting out SA80 appears to stem from recent criticism by the House of Commons Defence Committee of the time it has taken to ponder the upgrade. Tests of updated weapons have reportedly been carried out already in Kuwait & Alaska, delivering respective reliability percentages of 97.7 and 83.6 for the SA80 rifle and LSW.

The ministry is said to be denying this is a ‘recall’ as such, though that would appear to be a matter of official semantics. PA quoted an MOD spokesman as saying a final decision will most likely be taken in Spring 2000. The MOD is meanwhile claiming SA 80 is still ‘an effective weapon’, the Guardian added. A Times follow-up said that troops had been forbidden to discuss SA80 with the press following the MOD announcement, but the paper nevertheless found two lance corporals in Kosovo who did not feel constrained from airing their dissatisfaction with the weapon.

One was quoted as saying “To be honest, it is useless, it falls apart on you”, and other reportedly added “There are terrible malfunctions. Everyone knows it is a weapon that you couldn’t rely on in a real war.” Perhaps it’s just as well we don’t do too much of that stuff nowadays. Troops were apparently bemused about the restrictions on discussing SA80, and were reported as saying: “It’s weird, because in the past they always told us to say to the press what you think is true. This is the first time in Kosovo they have told us not to talk to the press.”

As readers will know from previous issues, a rolling upgrade is only one choice available to the MOD and – it has to be said – hardly the best choice by a long chalk. We still believe the most satisfactory solution is to purchase new 5.56mm weapons for front-line troops….the M16A2, which is already in limited British service, being the obvious choice. Based on around $450 per weapon, a price representative of US DoD contracts for the M16A2, we calculate that for £1m the MOD could buy 3,778 new rifles, so just £10m would deliver a whopping 37,780 weapons. If the SA80 upgrade bill is truly going to be several times £10m, then the economics simply don’t compute, and government auditors should scrutinise the figures.

Putting the cash data another way, with the apparent emphasis on getting an initial 12,000 SA80s modified at an early date, presumably for the rapid reaction forces, the same number of brand-new M16A2s could be bought for just £3.2m. That would solve the immediate problem of meeting the UK’s military & treaty obligations. Also, let’s not forget the new UK requirement for 15,000 new Personal Defence Weapons (PDWs) (see SADW Feb 2000), but what happens about the rest of the SA80 inventory – much of which is assigned to support elements and other formations rarely using rifles – should be a separate matter for more mature consideration.

A total of 382,000 SA80 family weapons were reportedly bought by the MOD, but there have been substantial force reductions since the end of the Cold War, so a lot of the original buy must now be languishing in storehouses…..perhaps we should sell some off to potential enemies? We understand the cultural reasons why the UK felt it appropriate to develop its own 5.56mm system, as opposed to buying off the shelf, but by any international comparisons SA80 has proved itself an absolute dog, with something over 80 modifications already reported. Now someone in the MOD needs the courage to call a halt to all this Band Aid stuff and make some bold decisions, as the Spaniards have already done with their own equally unsatisfactory 5.56mm CETME-L (of much the same vintage as SA80), which is to be replaced.

Footnote: an item in the UK’s Forces Weekly News said that the UK MOD had ‘accused critical national press reports (about SA80) as having an ‘adverse effect’ on Armed Forces personnel’, and that troops might lose confidence in the weapon. Ermm, it may be just a bit late to worry about that…

That said, other systems are evidently not goofproof either – reports from US military sources recently suggested that the SOCOM M4 carbine may not yet be as reliable as users would like, with some issues dating back to Vietnam-era iterations of the M16 design, and that the R&D organisation is not being as responsive as it ought to user feedback on what might be done to redress shortcomings.

AR-7 SPOTTED WITH INDONESIAN CHRISTIANS?: a photo accompanying a Sunday Business report in Jan 2000 showed what looked like a .22 AR-7 survival rifle, plus ‘home-made’ rifles, with Christian youngsters, bolstered by Indonesian marines, allegedly ready to fight off Muslims in Ambon (Indonesia), the recent scene of more sectarian murders. We use the term ‘Christian’ advisedly, of course, since there is nothing remotely spiritual about what’s going on over there; they just hate each other’s guts. However, the continuing prevalence of home-made weapons in Indonesia proves one thing only too well – UN efforts to restrict the availability of small arms only to ‘approved’ combatants (which essentially means government forces) are futile. Anyway, judging by their actions, some governments are not necessarily worth saving. Indonesia’s could just be one of them.

RUSSIAN TRAINING POSTERS AVAILABLE: LEI in London is offering a range of Russian weapon training posters, covering the AKMS, RPG-7, 9mm PB suppressed pistol, Groza 9mm/40mm modular weapon, 7.62mm NRS-2 silenced knife pistol and the 7.62mm SVU sniper rifle (bullpupped Dragunov variant). Posters are full colour, measuring 42 x 60cm, and are surface laminated. Price is £8.99 each (Mastercard, Visa, Switch accepted). Tel (020) 8903-8305, Fax (020) 8903-8302, http://www.gun-s.com/

“On 26th April 1944, during a battle for Hill 172.4 (in Moldavia), the enemy counter-attacked 12 times in an attempt to cut our units off from the sides. Comrade Zhezherya, in spite of hostile fire of the enemy, moved ahead and repulsed all counter-attacks with his machinegun. By the evening, however, the handful of brave (Soviet) soldiers was surrounded, even though their courage remained undiminished. In the ensuing battle Zhezherya alone killed 70 Germans with machinegun fire…the encirclement was broken and his gun-crew rejoined the regiment.”

The above was taken from the award given to Guards Sergeant Aleksandr Efimovich Zhezherya. In a two month span in 1944 he was wounded three times, yet never left the field. He was credited with killing 343 German soldiers and repulsing 22 enemy counter-attacks. His weapon, a M1910 Maxim 7.62 watercooled machinegun.

The Russian Model 1910 Maxim machinegun served with distinction through the First World War, the Revolution, numerous small border conflicts, the Second World War, and then with the Red Chinese in Korea. A dependable and reliable weapon, it utilized Hiram Maxim’s basic recoil toggle system. Born in Sangerville, Maine in 1840 Hiram Maxim was originally apprenticed to a coach builder. He was gifted with a wide-ranging inventive faculty which embraced such things as electric lights, gas generating plants, steam and vacuum pumps, and engine governors. After setting up shop in Hatton Garden, one of the more exclusive market areas in London, he spent from 1882 through 1885 patenting every possible way of using a weapon’s own energy to operate itself. At this time all repeating guns were manually operated. Weapons like the Gatling, Nordenfelt, and Hotchkiss gun were all dependent on the muscle power of their operator. Hiram however was able to harness the weapon’s own energy to operate it using what became known as the recoil principle. Using a toggle lock it operated very much like your knee joint. With your knee locked, upward pressure against the sole of your foot is easily checked. However, a sharp rap to the back of the knee while there is pressure on the sole of the foot will unlock the joint allowing the leg to fold. While seemingly simple, it was revolutionary at the time.

Hiram demonstrated his new invention in front of the Czar in St. Petersburg in 1887. The Russians had been using the Gatling gun since 1865 but had no concept of what true automatic fire was. Looking at Hiram’s invention Russian officers ridiculed it until he sat down and fired 333 rounds in exactly half a minute, shooting the center out of the target. After seeing this Hiram said, “they became enthusiastic”. He promptly received an order for 12 guns in caliber 10.75x58R Russian Berdan for testing and evaluation purposes. Between when Hiram first demonstrated his machinegun in front of the Czar and when their initial order was delivered the Maxim saw its first use in combat. The British where the first to draw blood with it. On 21st November 1888 General Sir Francis de Winton led a command to the newly formed colony of Gambia. Arriving at the fortified village of Robari it is said that the General himself set up the Maxim and opened fire. His dispatch read as follows, “the bullets rained in through the portholes and between the planks killing numbers of the enemy. The breastwork and other towers were treated in the same manner, and in a few minutes it was seen that the garrison were issuing from the fort and flying for their lives.” The abilities of the Maxim were now proven in combat, a small prelude of what was to come.

After Maxim’s M1887 successfully completed trials the Russian Artillery Committee issued a very favorable report. They stated that the automatic machinegun had advantages over all of the mechanical types. Revolving the firing handle of a mechanical gun had required considerable physical strength and quickly tired the gunner so that crews had to be constantly changed. The Maxim eliminated this. The single barrel of the Maxim also brought a substantial weight reduction compared to the multi barrel weapons. Plus a hang fire in a multi-barrel mechanical gun could damage the weapon and injure the crew. An additional advantage was that the cloth belts used by the Maxim were much more convenient than the magazine and cartridge assemblies then in use.

The Imperial Russian Army took delivery of its first automatic machineguns in 1899. Interestingly enough these guns were purchased from DWM in Berlin and were their 1894 Ludwig Loewe commercial model. This was an exact copy of the British 1889 Smokeless Powder Model with heavy brass jacket, early crank handle, 1889 style lock, and was chambered for the “Three-Line” 7.62x54R cartridge. Mounted on large wheeled carriage mounts with gun shields they were issued to the artillery in batteries of eight. Tactical thinking of the time was to deploy them to repulse mass attacks on fortifications and fixed positions. The Russians didn’t have long to wait before they had a chance to use them in combat. Their first use of the Maxim came in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. One such deployment of the Maxim came at the Yalu River where eight Russian Maxim guns stood their ground and beat off several Japanese assaults. The highly motivated Japanese infantry who were accustomed to attacking en-masse were decimated, the Maxim guns stacking their lifeless bodies up like cordwood. They were an immediate success in combat wherever they saw action. The Russians did find out as the war progressed however that the heavy cumbersome artillery style gun carriages did not allow sufficient maneuverability posing the possibility of being outflanked and overrun. Necessity being the mother of invention, the Russian gunners took it upon themselves to improvise expedient mounts out of materials on hand to increase their weapons maneuverability and effectiveness. Later, during World War I the Germans would also make expedient trench mounts for their MG 08’s in an attempt to increase their portability.

While the war ended in defeat for Imperial Russia it was of no fault of their Maxim guns. Over half of the Japanese casualties were officially credited to Maxim gun fire. Satisfied that it was superior to the Hotchkiss machineguns fielded by the Japanese the Russians decided to begin manufacturing it in quantity to equip their forces with. The first Russian manufactured Maxim was called the M1905. While closely resembling the 1894 Ludwig Loewe Model (Bolotin refers to this gun as the Russian M1895, this may be when the Russians officially adopted it, Goldsmith refers to it as the M1899 as this was the year the Russians actually received them) the Russians incorporated 2 major improvements. These were a new easily field stripped lock (as introduced on the 1901 “New Pattern” commercial Vickers-Maxim), and an “S” shaped crank handle. The M1905 was in turn modernized and replaced by the M1910. This new improved model was basically a fluted jacket copy of Vickers, Sons & Maxim’s “new light” Model of 1906. The heavy brass parts of the earlier guns having been replaced by steel, the M1910 weighed 10-12 pounds less than the previous models. It was mounted on a sturdy wheeled mount that had been designed by Aleksandr Alexeevich Sokolov. The Sokolov mount was an extremely stable firing platform, and could be towed by the gun crew via a rope while traveling on a road. During the winter the wheels could be removed and replaced with ski’s. The Sokolov mount shows a striking similarity to the Vickers commercial combination tripod/wheelmount. While a stable firing platform, the Sokolov mount did have one serious drawback, its weight. The early mounts which incorporated a set of folding legs to allow firing over parapets tipped the scales at a whopping 110 pounds! Later simplified mounts that did away with the extra legs still weighed in at a hefty 80 pounds. A simpler and lighter mount designed by Ivan Kolesnikov was adopted in 1915. However it did not replace the Sokolov mount but merely served alongside it in smaller quantities.

The M1910 Maxim proved to be a tough, sturdy weapon with excellent reliability, even in the muddy conditions of trench warfare during World War I. Yet even the firepower of the Maxim could not make up for the inept senior officers of the Imperial Russian Military. Common German propaganda photos taken during the war show Russian prisoners towing their M1910’s into captivity. During the war the Sokolov mount was simplified by doing away with two extra legs that could be used to raise the gun for firing over a parapet. The excessive weight of the weapon system was also noticed. The guns and early mounts tipped the scales at a none to amusing 155 pounds, while the later mounts lightened the combination up to 125 pounds. To the gun crew desperately trying to wrestle their weapon forward over mud clogged terrain to support their comrades in attack the gun’s weight was a serious drawback. It’s no simple feat to scramble forward with your Mosin-Nagant under interlocking MG 08 fire with 77 cm shells bursting around you. To do it with a 45 pound (not including water) M1910 on your shoulder with its jacket full of boiling water, a steam plume belching out to mark your position, knowing you have to keep up with the attack to provide suppressive fire must have been something else all together.

The M1910 fought on both sides during the Revolution and was adopted by the Red Army afterwards. An interesting note is that it was even successfully used by mounted troops during the Revolution. Mounted on a special cart it gave the cavalrymen increased firepower and flexibility. During the 1920’s an attempt was made to lighten the M1910 so as to produce a light machinegun version. Ivan Kolesnikov and Fedor Tokarev both produced lightened air-cooled versions of the basic Maxim. Equipped with a bi-pod and shoulder stock they remind one of the Browning 1919A6. While Tokarev’s design was adopted, it was only produced in small quantities and, due to inherent problems, was subsequently withdrawn from service.

To increase the long-range and indirect fire capabilities of the weapon a new 7.62x54R load was introduced into service. The M1930 Heavy Bullet Type D load consisted of a 182 grain boattailed projectile whereas the normal M1908 load utilized a 148 grain projectile. The new bullet was designed by Dobrzansky and Smirnsky and was intended to increase the effective range out to 4500-5000 meters. It can be identified by a yellow tip (Light Ball was identified by a silver tip). This load was along the lines of the British .303 Mk 8Z ball round designed for long range use with the Vickers MK I. While the 7.62x54R cartridge continues to give excellent service with the Russian Army today, both the M1908 and the M1930 Heavy Bullet loads are officially obsolete. Although officially replaced in Russian service by more modern steel core loads large stocks still exist and may be encountered in odd places around the world.

With war looming on the horizon the Soviets were eager to replace the M1910 with a lighter, more modern weapon. While the development of a new HMG had been desired since 1925, such was not to be. As the Wehrmacht blitzkrieged into the Soviet Union Ivan Lubenets and Yury Karazin developed a simplified version of the M1910. Using accumulated combat experience, including lessons learned during the 1939-40 Winter War with Finland, they improved and simplified the Maxim to increase production and eliminate any superfluous features. A new simplified rear sight was installed which lacked the lateral adjustment scale and range graduations for the M1908 Light Ball load. The new rear sight was graduated for the Heavy Bullet load in 100 meter increments out to 2700 meters. It was recognized that the Maxim was normally used to engage targets at ranges up to 800-1000 meters, at these distances the difference in trajectory between the two loads was not great. The original small diameter barrel jacket filler cap was replaced with an enormous one. This allowed the coolant to be refilled much more rapidly. But more importantly it allowed snow and ice to be poured into the jacket. This was useful in the long, bitterly cold Russian winters and was a trick learned the hard way from the Finns who had incorporated this feature on some of their Model 09/32 Maxim guns. Weapons intended for Army service had the optical sight bracket removed. Plus a high pressure aluminum alloy casting replaced the machined steel feed block.

Yet even with constant improvements and good combat characteristics some of the Maxim’s fundamental drawbacks were impossible to eliminate through modernization. The speed of war had changed dramatically since Hiram had originally designed it. Its excessive weight was a significant drawback. The gun and mount were 20-25 kg heavier than its foreign rivals. The water-cooling was a hindrance to combat readiness, especially in temperatures below freezing. Also the barrel jacket was vulnerable to damage from small arms fire and shell fragments. A puncture in the water jacket would severely curtail the sustained fire ability of the weapon.

The Ukrainian Front issued a report on Soviet Artillery Equipment that had this to say, “Maxim 7.62 machinegun is quite satisfactory in regard to its reliability and stability; it is durable and can deliver powerful fire. It is trusted by the soldiers. However, its weight (70 kg) renders the system totally ineffectual; it reduces maneuverability, forcing the crews to lag behind their units in offensive battles and sometimes leaves the attack without fire support. Experience with the combat application of heavy machineguns during the Patriotic War shows that all machineguns weighing more than 40 kg(88 pounds) are a burden in an offensive and thus do not meet combat-maneuver requirements.” And so the venerable Maxim Model 1910 machinegun was replaced in Soviet service after 1945. Many wound up in China and saw action in Korea, and I’m sure some made their way to Vietnam. Then the old war horse faded into the history books, the days of watercooled machineguns being past.

At the 1999 Hiram Maxim Machinegun Shoot in Dover Foxcroft, Maine I had a chance to meet Robert E. Naess and his 1943 vintage M1910 Maxim. Manufactured at Tula Arsenal his M1910 is an excellent example of a wartime production Russian Maxim. Exhibiting a rough finish with unground rivet heads it was not the prettiest thing you ever saw. However there’s just something about holding onto a set of spade grips attached to a watercooled machinegun. It kind of reminded me of a 1968 Plymouth Hemi Roadrunner. With dog dish hubcaps and a spartan taxi cab interior it wasn’t much to look at, but it wasn’t made for looking at, it was made for driving and driving hard. Simply flooring the gas and opening those two enormous 4-barrel carburetors would instantly bring a smile to ones face (and a look of terror to your passengers). So it was with the rough wartime finish M1910. With a belt hanging out of the weapons right side I snapped the crank handle forward twice and with my elbows resting on the inside of my knees I gripped the spade handles. Pushing the safety out of the way with one thumb I pushed the trigger forward with the other. Immediately the old Maxim roared to life spitting 7.62 rounds down range. The crank handle slapped back and forth as the belt danced, indexing through the weapon. A steady flow of empty 7.62x54R cases spilled from the ejection port as 148 grain Light Ball rounds pounded a car down range. At the 100 yards we were shooting at, a 148-grain 7.62x54R projectile is still traveling at 2477 fps for 1919 ft-lbs of energy. It was obvious an automobile was poor protection against a belt fed watercooled machinegun!

Accuracy was surprising. Robert said that with a Finnish made barrel in the weapon it would group into 1 1/2 feet at 450 yards. He feels the Finnish barrels are of superb quality while the Russian barrels tend to be much poorer. While fabric belts were originally used with the Maxim we had no problems using metal non-disintegrating link belts for the Finnish Maxim or metal Goryunov belts. We discussed the subject of fabric belts and how they could affect the weapon’s reliability due to shrinkage from becoming wet. As the belts shrink the pockets grip the cartridges much tighter than normal which can lead to malfunctions. It was his opinion that the 7.62x54R cartridge has a different recoil impulse than the 7.92×57 round. He feels this difference makes the 7.62 guns slightly more reliable when feeding cloth belts.

I was very impressed with the Maxim M1910. My time behind it came to an end much to soon. The weapon exhibited excellent firing characteristics and the Sokolov mount was a very stable firing platform. It was easy to see why the weapon inspired confidence. But of course I didn’t have to pack it about on my back either! For someone interested in owning a Maxim M1910 Robert Naess is currently building them from original Russian parts and registered MG 08 sideplates. For more information and current prices give him a call. For the Imperial Russian/Soviet collector, or the person who just has always wanted a belt fed watercooled machinegun, this might be just what you’ve been looking for.

Postscript: Aleksandr Efimovich Zhezherya was killed in action in one of the last battles of the Great Patriotic War. He was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union and included in perpetuity in the roll of honor of the 1st Company of his Motorized Guards Infantry Regiment. His Maxim M1910 machinegun is now preserved in the Central Museum of the Armed Forces of the USSR.

Acknowledgments: Thanks to Robert E. Naess for his help, knowledge, patience, and time spent behind his 1943 M1910 Maxim.

By Larry Pratt

Maryland Attorney General’s War on the Constitution

This month’s “Anti-Gun Nut Of The Month” is Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran, Jr.

Curran has issued a 63-page report titled A Farewell To Arms: The Solution To Gun Violence In America. But, Curran’s report is a “solution” to nothing. Instead, it is a brazen, blatant, ignorant, erroneous, brass-knuckled, knee-in-the-groin attack on the Second Amendment.

Curran has circulated his Farewell to Arms to the other 49 Attorneys General hoping to gain their support in his war against the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

His proposals, if enacted into law (God forbid!), would have the effect of doing to the Second Amendment what the explosives did to that Federal building in Oklahoma. That is to say, Curran’s proposals would, if they became law, demolish the Second Amendment.

And — like in Oklahoma — lives would be lost because millions of law-abiding Americans would be denied the right to defend themselves with handguns.

About one thing, however, Curran is absolutely correct. His proposals are none of those “small, timid measures” or “band-aid” solutions he denounces. No, siree.

Curran says, flat out: “Our public policy goal should be to restrict the sale and possession of all handguns to those who can demonstrate a legitimate law enforcement purpose or can guarantee that the use of such guns will be limited to participation in a regulated sporting activity…. We must institute a plan that will move us to a point where people are ready to accept an end to unrestricted private handgun ownership.”

Unrestricted?! In our country today, we have more than 20,000 so-called “gun control” laws!

There is so much in Curran’s wretched report that is false, half-true, and intellectually dishonest, that one hardly knows where to begin in trying to correct the record.

But, let’s start with his false view of the Second Amendment. Curran says: “This notion of an individual constitutional right to own firearms is a myth. The Supreme Court and all lower Federal courts have unanimously held, since the first decision in 1886, that the Second Amendment is about the states’ right to maintain a militia, and has nothing whatever to do with an individual’s right to bear arms outside the context of a state militia.”

Wrong! In a case called United States v. Miller (1939), the U.S. Supreme Court noted that the militia reference in the Second Amendment alludes to “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion,” that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense” and that ordinarily when called for service “these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

As Stephen P. Halbrook notes in his book That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution Of A Constitutional Right (The Independent Institute, 1994): “The Supreme Court’s historical review demonstrates that the ‘well regulated militia’ referred to in the Second Amendment meant the whole people armed and not a select group, that each private individual had the right and duty to keep and bear arms, and that the people were to provide their own armed protection rather than depend upon a militarist and oppressive standing army.”

Maryland’s constitutional history shouts against Curran’s pro-civilian disarmament policies. In his book For The Defense Of Themselves And The State: “The Original Intent And Judicial Interpretation Of The Right To Keep And Bear Arms (Praeger, 1994), Clayton E. Cramer, quotes a member of the Maryland convention considering ratification of the U.S. Constitution (Alexander Contee Hanson) as referring to the militia, “which is ourselves.” And a committee of this same convention called the militia “all men, able to bear arms.”

These words from the Maryland Convention echo the Virginia Ratifying Convention in which George Mason (a long-time friend of George Washington) argued that “the militia is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

Curran is retailing the Handgun Control, Inc. myth that the Second Amendment applies only to a state’s ability to maintain a militia and does not protect a God-given right of individuals to keep and bear arms. As recently as 1991, the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez held that throughout the Bill of Rights where the term “the people” is used, it refers to an individual right — as in the first, second, fourth, ninth and tenth amendments.

Another thing Curran denounces as a “myth,” as “hype,” as “false propaganda,” is that handguns are needed for self-defense. He says: “Study after study shows that guns are rarely used successfully in self-defense.”

Rarely used? His own report quotes a U.S. Justice Department survey estimating that there are, on average, 108,000 defensive uses of gun annually — which is 9,000 times a month, 2,077 times a week, 296 times a day. Not exactly “rare” by any definition.

And there are even higher, and more reliable, estimates. For example, Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz estimate that 2.5 million Americans use a gun in self-defense each year. Curran, however, says this figure is “wildly over-estimated.”

But, the late Marvin E. Wolfgang, a Liberal icon who called himself “as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among criminologists,” said in The Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology (Vol. 86, No. 1) that Kleck/Gertz’s research is “an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.” Wolfgang, who had done research on guns and violence for over 25 years, added that he had to admit “my admiration for the care and caution expressed” by Kleck/Gertz in their research.

There was a time in colonial Maryland when — depending on who was in power — Protestants passed laws to disarm Catholics, and vice-versa. And, of course, in Maryland, a slave state that remained with the Union, slaves were prohibited from carrying guns without “a license from his said master” before the War Between the States, and free blacks were completely forbidden possession of either firearms or ammunition.

Now, Attorney General J. Joseph Curran, Jr. would make all the law-abiding citizens of Maryland “slaves” by seeking to deny them their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and use handguns to defend themselves against criminals. But, this must not succeed. We hope that all the good, decent, law-abiding citizens of Maryland will rise up and say to Curran and his report what King Charles I said when Parliament demanded control of the militia: “By God, not for an hour!”

Not only the people of Maryland need to make their opposition known to Curran’s tyrannical views, but citizens of all states should let their Attorney General know that they want a quick goodbye said to Farewell to Arms.

Larry Pratt is Executive Director of Gun Owners of America located at 8001 Forbes Place, Springfield, VA 22151 or at http://www.gunowners.org on the web.

By Stephen Stuart

Proud Promise, French Autoloading Rifles 1898-1979
By Jean Huon
Published by Collector Grade Publications Incorporated
PO Box 1046
Cobourg, Ontario Canada K9A 4W5
Price $ 39.95 plus $4.50 s&h
Reviewed by Stephen Stuart

Hard information on French firearms has always been a little spotty in this country. In the past decade there have been a lot of surplus French firearms coming into the United States, including several different lots of semi-automatic firearms. Some of the semi-automatic firearms imported include the MAS 44 and most recently the MAS 49-56 (for more information on the MAS 49-56, see Frank Iannamico’s article in Vol. 1 No. 3 S.A.R.). In Jean Huon’s book, Proud Promise, the author takes a hard look at the development of French autoloading rifles. Perhaps not so surprisingly, the French were some of the leaders in the field of small arms during the early part of this century, not only did they produce smokeless gun powder (in 1886), but they also made some really big advances in semi-automatic rifle design. These advances include the rear locking, tilting bolt, which was originally thought to be created by the designer of the FN-49. Other advances included the first gas system to cycle a rifle’s action. The main part of the text lists these advances and the rifles themselves. Some of the rifles featured in the text include; the A1 (the first semi-automatic rifle developed), the Rossignol, the Chosse’, the Fusil Automatique Modele 1917 (the first semi-automatic rifle ever issued), MAS 1928, MAS 49, and of course the MAS 44 and MAS 49-56 mentioned above. Included with the production of these rifles, the author includes a detail analyses and the different equipment issued with the latter MAS rifles. This part includes ordnance tools, the different types of ammunition available, bayonets, and a section on rifle grenades, which I found to be most interesting. As with all of Collector’s Grade publications, the book is well organized, and thought out. The pictures and line drawings to great justice to the rifles featured. This is just not a book on French semi-automatic rifles, it is a reference book that should be included in every collectors and small arms enthusiast library.

ULTIMATE SNIPER: THE VIDEO
By Major John L. Plaster
Paladin Press
P.O. Box 1307
Boulder, CO 80306
1-800-392-2400
ISBN 0-87364-745-9
$14.95 Plus S&H
Aprox. 90 Minutes
Reviewed By David Fortier

Major John Plaster broke new ground in his book “Ultimate Sniper” which is a veritable treasure trove of information. Now you can see the lessons taught first hand in this video. Major Plaster takes the viewer from rifle and gear selection, to covering fieldcraft, marksmanship, and tactics for the military and police sniper. He is a natural teacher and knows his subject as second nature speaking with authority on everything that he teaches. No classroom here, he takes the viewer straight into the field. Most people think that sniping is being a great rifle shot, but that is only a part of it. While Major Plaster does go over shooting positions, trigger control, breathing, dry firing, sight picture, figuring range and windage, ammunition and rifle selection, that is only a part of this video. He also covers camouflage patterns and which ones work best, making a ghillie suit, applying face paint, stalking techniques, using terrain to your advantage, choosing a location for and making a sniper’s hide, basic offensive and defensive techniques and more. Also of great interest is the first appearance on film of famed sniper Carlos Hathcock, who recently passed away. Carlos recounts some of the tactics he used to achieve 93 confirmed kills in Vietnam. He tells of a 5 day engagement with an enemy company, his countersniping duel with an N.V.A. sniper sent specifically to kill him, and his longest recorded sniper shot of 2,500 yards. This is a very informative video, but it does have its down side. Nothing to do with the information, but the camera work and sound is not the best. At times it is very good, other times there is a lot of wind noise on the mike and the camera work is sometimes shaky. However even with these minor irritants the price on the video is a bargain. It complements the book “Ultimate Sniper” very nicely.

By William R. Bishop

Perhaps the single most visible factor when evaluating a legally converted HK full auto firearm is the manner in which it is refinished. Does it have that smooth satin black finish like that of an Oberndorf-produced firearm? Or, much more likely, does it have a grainy black finish which came out of a spray can from the proverbial hardware store? Does this finish obscure small proof marks, become easily abraded, not fully resist all firearms-related chemicals, and have the color shade and sheen which screams “cheap”? Heck, if this is the situation – and it is in so many cases – then are the conversion and associated machine work also of low quality? What else could be wrong with it?

If your HK finish is in this undesired category and you have been searching for a economical way to closely replicate the superb finish from Oberndorf there is now salvation. Coat it via the same electrostatic process the Germans use!

The rest of this article will describe in detail a new product which has recently come on the market and how it is used to duplicate the legendary HK finish. SAR will take you through the entire process as it is applied to an HK 94 semiauto carbine during its conversion to a MP5A2. The end result would make Oberndorf proud and….well…you be the judge of this!

Theory of Operation

Electrostatic spraying is a very straightforward process which HK has used for years on its longarms. An extremely fine grained coating is sprayed from an electrically charged dispenser onto a grounded piece of metal, which then attracts and holds the coating onto its surfaces. It is very similar to static electricity (hence the common name of “electrostatic spraying”) attracting dust to a glass rod. The coated metal is then transferred to an oven and baked for a specific period of time, causing the coating to tightly fuse to the surface. During this curing process the coating becomes self leveling and extremely durable. Also, there is no hazardous waste, little overspray and highly efficient use of the coating material. It is very environmentally friendly.

There are two types of coatings which are typically used in this electrostatic process: 1) liquid coatings which are sprayed at 35-50psi and require up to 80KV DC to charge the particles; and, 2) powder coatings which are sprayed at 5-10psi and a 9KV DC rate. The functional difference (hardness, bond, appearance, etc.) between the two coating methods is quite small. The main difference is cost, as the liquid method outfits go from $4000-7000 and require stronger electrical current, higher rated compressors and fairly specialized equipment. The powder method requires significantly less of everything, but, when compared to the liquid method has a fairly limited range of color availability.

HK uses a two-part epoxy liquid finish for its electrostatic painting. This method yields a beautiful coating which is recognized around the world. But, it requires very expensive equipment which is beyond the range of practically all individuals and most shops in the United States. The alternative to this – the powder method – has not been available at a cost effective level…until now.

Another name for this powder method of electrostatic painting is “powder coating” and this process has finally become available for our use at home. Most importantly, a color is now available we sure can use and at a cost we can afford. In short, we can now almost duplicate the HK finishing process by using the much lower cost powder coating method of electrostatic spraying!

The Powder Coating Kit

The Eastwood Company of Malvern, PA is very well known in automotive circles for their unique line of products in the areas of restoration and repair. As a member of an automotive club, I had heard about this revolutionary product which was the answer to many restorer’s demands. I was also in the process of converting my HK94 carbine to full MP5A2 specs and had long dreamed of finishing via the HK factory process. Could the Eastwood kit be the answer to my prayers? A phone call to Eastwood had their “Hot Coat” powder coating outfit on the way to me.

What arrived was a well designed unit which looked sort of funky, but, the very complete instructions (read them first!!!) began to dispel my concerns. I had already received from them several paint chips to determine which one was closest to HK satin black. Fortunately, their #10103 powder proved to be an almost exact color match to the factory finish of a late production MP5.

After reading the instructions several times – I was not about to mess up my expensive HK 94 or get zapped by 110v house current – it was time to go. But first, an overview about the conversion process to MP5 specifications, as several C2’s out there really deserve some recognition for the skills and service they provided.

The Conversion

I had a S&H Arms of OK registered sear already installed in a HK94 trigger pack and wanted my HK94 carbine converted to as-near-to-factory specifications as possible. The first step in my conversion process was to get it remarked. Ron Moyer of Class Three Supply told me they owned a $5,000 New Hermes engraving machine with a 7-way fully adjustable bed. The key words were “fully adjustable bed” as it could positively retain the HK94 at any required angle throughout the engraving process. Further, Ron guaranteed the MIG welding of the existing HK94 script, surface milling the receiver flat, and remarking with “HK MP5” would be to precise Oberndorf standard. Well now! After viewing many remarked MP5’s which ranged from crudely hand stamped to near-perfect engraving, this seemed to be a bold statement.

But…Ron was 100% good on his word with the final marking of “HK MP5” even neater than HK could do! Clearly, Class Three Supply has set the standard for welding/remarking the HK 91/93/94 series of weapons.

Now it was time to gather up the conversion parts. Considering the market value of a fully transferable MP5, I deliberately chose to use all German parts for my conversion. The cost would be high, but the increase in value would offset it. Once again, Class Three Supply came to the rescue with an SEF plastic lower, front sling pin, true MP5 (not G3) paddle mag release, and spare locking pin for use as a fake push pin. Emails to “Jack at Public Safety” yielded a German MP5 bolt carrier while “Bob T.” produced a new-take-off German MP5 8.85” lugged barrel. Time for the actual conversion to be done.

I had heard many good reports on the work which Joe Gaddini of SWR was doing and gave him a call about my project. We agreed he would perform the barrel replacement/headspacing, milling the SEF plastic lower to fit the semiauto HK94 receiver, installation of the pseudo SEF locking pin, installation of the MP5 paddle mag release, and bead blast/parkerize the entire receiver. He would then ship it back to me for the final powder coating and reassembly.

Everything was collected and forwarded to Joe for his use…and…Joe did a 100% superb job to absolute factory standard. There was not one slight thing which was out of place or incorrect. Turnaround time was one month – this alone is darn near a miracle – while his costs were very competitive.

The barrel was pressed into place/headspaced at the optimum .015” and the lug pointed exactly towards 12 o’clock; the new sling pin was straight and its head was flared to standard. The cocking tube was precisely centered into the front sight assembly and the SEF plastic lower was carefully milled out to firmly fit onto the receiver. Its fake push pin was neatly sliced and epoxied into place. As requested, the head of the pin was on the left and the spring tip was on the right so it matches the two real locking pins The paddle mag release was installed into its blind drilled hole and then the insertion hole was filled with stainless steel. Joe then stoned this area to be exactly flush with the receiver. Finally, the bead blasting and parkerizing was completed and to the same color as a German factory MP5.

In my opinion, having seen numerous HK conversions, Joe Gaddini’s MP5 work exceeded my strictest demands and rises to the level of artwork. It is that good. Powder coating time!

Description of the Hot Coat System

The Hot Coat powder coating system is well built of plastic and metal. It is comprised of the paint gun itself and a 120V DC power unit. This unit has three cables: 1) one running from the power unit to the gun and supplying 9KV DC; 2) one to the target part and acting as the ground clip; and, 3) one to the push button activation switch. Finally, a can of #10107 high gloss black powder paint is included with the kit. If you talk with Eastwood be sure to ask if they can substitute a can of satin black #10103 for the semi-gloss black. But, as extra powder paint is only $10 per can, it is just as well to order the satin black separately and give yourself a wider color range.

A very well written and complete booklet of instructions comes with the Hot Coat system. The main thought behind the instructions is quite simple: this is a straightforward process to do, but it must be done safely. You will be dealing with 110V house current which is normally not deadly, but can give a nasty shock. (Editor’s note: 110v current can easily kill you if it grounds out through your body passing vital organs-Dan) Also, the paint is a very finely ground polyester powder and as such can be explosive if allowed to build up into too great an aerial concentration…sort of like the old “dust bomb” we learned to make at Special Forces school. For this reason, no flames or spark should be in the area of painting. Pilot lights from hot water heaters, extraneous sparks, cigarettes, etc. are to be avoided. This means the oven performing the thermal curing must be electric and not gas. Finally, the instructions specifically state this oven should not be used for food service. More on this later!

A few extra supplies you should get from Eastwood will include some of their special Hot Coat moisture filters, high temperature silicone plugs and fiberglass masking tape. Total cost for all this is less than $225 for a kit that will last for years. Plus, the tape and plugs can be used for other related gunsmithing services (molycoating, parkerizing, etc.) and further reduce costs.

Preparation for Powder Coating

The absolute surest guarantee of a first class powder coating job is surface preparation. It is that simple. My MP5 had all removable parts including the front sight blade, rear sight assembly, cocking handle/support, front end cap and most of the mag well locking assembly stripped from the receiver. The only parts which could not be removed were the flapper mag lever itself and its 1/8” stainless steel axis pin. These were permanently installed and would require masking.

After stripping the receiver, it took almost two hours to thoroughly degrease it. This very critical process was accomplished by painting it with acetone via an acid brush, letting the solvent evaporate, and then warming it in an oven for 10 minutes at 150F. This caused the remaining oil to creep out of the metal’s pores and internal crevices. After 6-8 trips from the oven, to degreasing, and then back to the oven, all oil had flowed out and left behind a totally bone dry receiver. Particular attention was paid to the rear sight flat, front sight/barrel mount point and especially the barrel trunnion areas. This trunnion area was very time consuming to degrease as the heat seemed to bring out a never-ending supply of oil trapped between itself and the receiver shell. But, this tedious process must be done to achieve a properly prepared surface.

As the painted receiver would be thermally cured at 400F for 15 minutes, the traditional masks of newspaper and tape would not apply. The temperature would be too near their ignition point (paper burns at 454F according to Ray Bradbury) to take any chances of combustion. To eliminate this worry I used Eastwood’s previously mentioned fiberglass masking tape and high temperature silicone plugs. Also, standard aluminum foil is used instead of newspaper to fill up the larger cavities and protect them from errant overspray.

Start the masking process by putting on a pair of vinyl or nitrile gloves so that no skin oils can accidentally get onto the prepared surface. Next, insert a 1/4” unfinished wood dowel rod through the muzzle and all the way out the other end of the receiver. Cut it off so that about 4” sticks out from both sides as this will be the primary means of handling the receiver and suspending it in the oven. Carefully tape off that portion of the lugged barrel which will not be painted. When doing so, continue the taping so that it secures in place the dowel rod extending from the muzzle. We do not want the rod to slip and that precious receiver to drop!

Now, use a combination of aluminum foil and fiberglass tape to mask off the rest of the receiver. Pay particular attention to the mag well area and very carefully mask the mag release lever . Factory MP5’s have about .25” overspray into the well and absolutely none on the lever itself. The rear of the receiver is sealed off and no more than .10” of overspray should intrude. The bottom of the receiver where the SEF plastic lower fits should allow only about .10” overspray. The only other part to coat is the front end cap, which is easily taped off so the visible front portion is left exposed. Take your time and figure that about an hour will be required to do it all correctly.

Now, the final step before the actual painting is to take some unfinished stove wire, or Eastwood’s stainless steel safety wire, and rig it to both ends of the dowel sticking out of the receiver so it can be suspended from the top rack of the electric oven. Run another piece of wire through the tape that is masking the front end cap. Do a test hang to verify the receiver and cap will touch nothing during the upcoming thermal curing and also to give them one last warming/acetone degreasing. By now, there should not be any evidence of oil seeping out! When you pull them out of the oven for the last time before powder coating, turn the thermostat up to 400F so it can heat up while you are painting.

Powder Coating

The paint gun is first adjusted to achieve the correct pressure before any painting is ever done. My 3.5HP Sanborn 115V compressor has both a pressure regulator and Campbell Hausfeld water trap installed, plus, I used the optional moisture filter which Eastwood has available for the Hot Coat gun. A third water trap consisting of a Norgren trap/pressure regulator was directly attached to the sprayer. The air must be dry when dealing with such fine powder! Adjust the pressure so that no more than 10psi is coming out. 8psi is the optimum pressure as you want a wafting of powder to come out and form a charged fog around the target part. Too much pressure will simply blow the powder past the part and also blow off any powder which did hit the part. Once again, you want a fog – and low pressure is the answer. The minimum pressure which the gun can correctly use is .5cfm at 5-10psi…pretty low pressure!

Once the pressure is adjusted to 8-10psi, take the powder and carefully pour it from the can into the cup, using a cone of glossy paper, to a level of 1-2” deep. Do a test spray into the air to make sure the pressure delivers a fog and not a hard spray. Adjust the regulator as necessary to achieve the fog.

Now, suspend the masked/degreased receiver and end cap from an overhead support. I used 550 paracord as it is strong, cheap and available. Any support such as a broomstick, dowel rod, 2×4 lumber, etc. is OK. With the Hot Coat power unit plugged into a grounded 110V outlet, attach the ground clip to the receiver. I attached mine to the underside of the rear locking pin bushing.

Let’s see…the pressure is tested and powder fogs out…the power unit is plugged in…the receiver is grounded…let’s go.

Press the button on the activation switch and a second later squeeze the trigger on the paint gun. Air pressure flows through the gun and mixes with the powder in the cup. The fluidized powder flows up from the cup and down the emitter tube where it receives a positive charge. When the paint exits the end of the gun it forms a black fog immediately to the front. At the same time, the clip attached to the receiver has caused it to become grounded so the fog is gently sucked down onto the negatively charged metal. It is truly amazing to watch how this fog seems to blow out of the gun and then slowly change its direction to attach itself to the part.

Be sure to direct your immediate attention to the various nooks and crannies on the receiver, such as the rail areas, so they get painted first. This helps avoid a too thick buildup of the powder in adjacent areas by the end of the job. Paint in a circular pattern and coat everything evenly from several different angles. Typically, the distance from the emitter to the part is about 6” – pretty close, so do not accidentally touch the emitter to the part. After a minute, release the activation button and carefully inspect the receiver for powder thickness. If it settles too much in one area, simply tap the part with a wooden implement so that any loose powder shakes down to a lesser coated area. Over the next few minutes continue this process of painting the receiver, stopping to inspect, shake/tap if necessary, and proceed with more powder. After about five minutes you will be completed when the receiver is evenly coated with a matte covering. Release the activation button, unhook the receiver’s ground clip and give that exposed area one last fog of powder to coat it.

Attach the power clip to the front end cap and proceed with the same process. It goes very fast and is done in less than 15 seconds. When finished, release the activation button and remove the ground clip; give the exposed area a final fog. Unplug the power unit, discharge the emitter tip to the ground clip, put down the gun and you are finished powder coating your almost-completed MP5.

Thermal Curing

Carefully pick up the receiver/end cap and take them to the electric oven, ensuring to not bump anything or allow wind flow to disturb the charged powder. Hang them via the support wires from the top rack and close the door. As the oven should have already been preheated to 400F all there is to do is wait for magic to happen. Watch through the viewing glass until the powder on the parts has “flowed out” and the entire surface of both parts has a shiny wet appearance. As it is significantly smaller, the end cap will flow out first and then the receiver. For me, flow out occurred at the one minute point. Now, turn on an accurate timer for precisely 15 more minutes.

At the end of 15 minutes immediately turn off the heat, open the door and let everything naturally cool down. Do not breathe the fumes which come roiling out!!! Let the temperature stabilize over the next 10 minutes while inspecting them for any thin spots or imperfections. If there are – there probably will not be – then simply respray and repeat the process. Final thought on the oven: if you cheated and used a food service electric or toaster oven (some of you will), thoroughly clean it and ventilate the house before the wife returns. The gaseous fumes (isocyanide, I believe) given off by the curing will gag a maggot. Walter T. Birdsong of “Black T” fame very seriously advised to get an old oven and use it in the garage as the curing fumes can embed themselves into the wall of the oven. This is excellent advice from an industry leader in firearms refinishing. I now have two used ovens sitting in my shop for future use. The following warnings are located in the instruction manual and should be followed:

“Always cure powder in a well-ventilated area and wear an activated charcoal respirator while curing to protect against unpleasant fumes. Once the curing is complete, allow the part to cool down gradually by turning the oven off and opening the door slightly.”

Page 12, the Eastwood Company “Hotcoat” Instruction Booklet, Rev 5/99

“Do not use an oven used for food preparation or located in a living area, as mildly toxic fumes are given off by the powder residue during the curing process! Do not use a gas oven!”

Page 4, the Eastwood Company “Hotcoat” Instruction Booklet, Rev 5/99

After the parts have completed cooling, remove all the masking and be amazed at the results. Carefully oil/reassemble everything and you now are the proud owner of a MP5 which equals the beauty of HK/Oberndorf’s output. Truly, a factory-correct finish which gleams like a satin black jewel.

Conclusion

The Hot Coat powder coating outfit from Eastwood is a quality product which delivers a first class finish and is well within the budget of practically all home hobbyists. By following the detailed instructions and properly preparing the target surface it delivers a coating which closely replicates that produced by HK Oberndorf. As shown in this article, when the Hot Coat system is applied over an HK94 receiver – which has been converted by professionals such as Class Three Supply and SWR – you are assured of a highest quality weapon which yields increased market value…and years of first rate service.

Where to now? Well, the #10103 satin black powder is perfect for refinishing so many of our most popular C3 items out there. The IMI Uzi, FN FAL, Belgian FAL and FNC magazines, 9mm/.22RF suppressor tubes, etc. immediately come to mind as excellent candidates. You are only limited by the size of the electric oven, ensuring the parts can be electrically charged and tolerate 400F heat, and your imagination. And SAR readers are noted for having large imaginations!

The Eastwood Company
Box 296
Malvern, PA 19355-0296
(800) 345-1178

Class Three Supply
Attn: Ron Moyer
1400 N. Hermitage Road
PO Box 1119
Hermitage, PA 16148
(724) 962-1890

SWR
Attn: Joe Gaddini
119 Davis Road
Suite G-1
Martinez, GA 30907
(706) 869-0026

Another Amnesty? We in the Class 3 community kick this subject around on occasion, and wish for one to be declared- simply to guarantee that the records are straight. Most of us have a not unfounded fear that “Something will happen”, and some overzealous ATF agent will attempt to make a Registry error into a SWAT visit. With President Clinton’s recent comments about adding many agents to “Go after bad gun dealers”, the automatic understanding is that this adminstration considers ALL gun owners to be “Bad”, and adding hundreds of untrained personnel to ATF and encouraging them to “Go get em” might be very counterproductive to justice. The addition of more law enforcement trained professionals would certainly be a welcome move, people who go after criminals- but in a rushed hiring, that is usually not the case. If the NFRTR is off as much as many of us suspect from our daily records dealing with ATF, then something certainly needs to be done to correct the Registry. SAR has a position of supporting an administrative driven amnesty program, but we are not holding our breath. Readers are cautioned to apply considerable restraint on this subject, any action would probably be many years away. Eric Larson has been bulldogging this subject for a number of years, and he has been writing about his progress. Herewith, is his opening salvo about where this came from, and why it is needed. The old saying about “Be careful what you ask for, you might get it” applies here as well. Opening The door on the NFA might lead to other actions that would not be so favorable, so we are proceeding with due caution on this. SAR would like to encourage intelligent discourse from both sides of this Issue, and readers are of course invited to send their thoughts to the Honorable Representatives listed at the end of the article. – Dan Shea

The Congress is now considering encouraging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to establish a new amnesty period to correct errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR). On November 19, 1999, ATF submitted a list of what it terms 10 “Disadvantages” of establishing an amnesty period to the House Committee on Government Reform, and to the House Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations. Each committee asked me to review ATF’s statement and I did so on January 12, 2000, as shown in the copies of documents accompanying this article. I submitted my review to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, which also have oversight responsibility over ATF.

Because the decision of whether or not to establish an amnesty will probably be mainly based on policy considerations, I want to share some of my thoughts and research with readers of Small Arms Review, to assist in the public debates that will certainly occur. That the NFRTR data are significantly inaccurate and unreliable has been established. What remains now is to decide the best way to correct them.

In this article, I discuss recent events that led to putting serious discussions of a new amnesty on the policy table, and historical background regarding voluntary and amnesty registrations under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, as amended, from 1934 to 1968. In a second article I will discuss the period from 1969 to 2000, and include materials from ATF’s appropriations hearing currently scheduled for March 9, 2000, a time frame too short for inclusion in this issue.

As many readers of Small Arms Review know, I have testified before the Congress several times about errors in the NFRTR. In 1997, the Honorable Dan Burton, Chairman, House Committee on Government Reform, thought my research was credible enough to request the Treasury Department Office of Inspector General (IG) to conduct the first-ever audit of the NFRTR by an entity outside of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). In late 1998, the IG released two audit reports on the NFRTR, each of which determined that the NFRTR data may not be accurate or reliable. Brief summaries of the IG reports were published in Small Arms Review. Both IG reports, my testimonies, and related materials are posted on James Bardwell’s NFA web page at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/index.html.

ATF has not released NFRTR statistics since 1996, discontinuing an annual practice that began in 1989. I filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the data ATF provided the IG in conducting its audits. In a letter to me dated May 18, 1999 (which was published in Small Arms Review), ATF stated that NFRTR data it gave the IG was submitted “with the understanding” that the NFRTR data “was not accurate, because some of the report functions associated with the database are not working properly” [italics in original].

ATF’s statement is troublesome for at least three reasons. First, if the NFRTR software has errors in its “report functions,” data retrievals are probably not accurate or reliable either. Second, ATF’s statement confirms what virtually all Class III dealers have known for years-that the NFRTR does not always accurately reflect NFA firearms in the dealers’ inventories. Third, there is no statement in either the OIG report which confirms that ATF advised the OIG that the data “was not accurate.” In fact, one of the reports describes it as “the best available ATF data from the years 1934 through July 31, 1998, on the types of activity in the registry.”

According to a staff member I met with on November 30, 1999, the House Appropriations Subcommittee is going to require ATF to submit a plan, including priorities and a timetable, to correct errors in the NFRTR. The Subcommittee is very unlikely, he stated, to force ATF to establish another amnesty period or to involve itself in issues of NFA firearms classifications, which are other issues I have addressed in my testimonies. The Subcommittee has some jurisdiction regarding the errors the IG discovered, because it funds ATF’s firearm registration activities. The Subcommittee, he emphasized, is interested in errors in the NFRTR as a case of mismanaged administrative records, which may indicate waste or abuse in the administration of a government program, and because of the harsh penalties (up to 10 years in prison, and a $10,000 fine) for a single violation of the NFA. People who comply with the law, he added, deserve better assurances against being victimized by faulty records.

Further, the House Appropriations Subcommittee, and the House Committee on Government Reform are concerned about the whereabouts of an estimated more than 100,000 NFA firearms the IG determined are currently registered to people ATF has stated are dead. At the time this article was written (mid-January 2000), ATF has not stated how it plans to resolve this problem.

The only errors in the NFRTR that ATF may be correcting now is when Class III dealers or owners provide valid registration or transfer documents. In the case of NFA firearms in estates, it appears there have been cases that ATF has added firearms to the NFRTR for which it had no record, after being confronted by lawful heirs with valid NFA paperwork. In other cases, ATF has apparently confiscated the firearms, despite circumstantial evidence that the firearms probably were registered.

ERRORS IN THE NFRTR HAVE OPENED POLICY DISCUSSIONS INVOLVING AN AMNESTY

To make sure this point is clear, I would like to emphasize to Small Arms Review readers that the House Appropriations Subcommittee does not plan to force ATF to establish a new amnesty period. “We consider that to be part of the responsibility of the authorizing committees,” the staff member stated. “Those are the House Committee on Government Reform, and the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary.” People who want to support establishing an amnesty should contact those committees, as noted at the end of this article, as well as their Senators and Representative.

Under current law, no person may legally register an unregistered NFA firearm, except during an amnesty period. In the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, the Congress passed legislation which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to establish unlimited numbers of future amnesty periods (not to exceed 90 days per amnesty), and immunity from liability during such periods, “to contribute to the purposes” of the NFA. Things weren’t always this complicated.

NFA REGISTRATIONS FROM 1934 TO 1968

Under the original NFA, persons had 60 days to register NFA firearms they possessed on July 24, 1934 (the date that 1934 Act became effective), whether or not the firearm was in their possession on that date. Section 5(b) of the NFA stated if a person was shown to have possessed an unregistered NFA firearm for 60 days without having registered it, “such possession shall create a presumption that such firearm came into the possession of the defendant subsequent to the effective date of this act, but this presumption shall not be conclusive.”

Original registrations were made in duplicate original on “Form 1 (Firearms)” and submitted to one’s local “Collector of Internal Revenue.” The very first Forms 1 requested the registrant’s name; place of business or employment; home address; city or town; state; date firearm was acquired; and similar information.

The original registration was tax-free, and no photograph or fingerprints were required. After approval by the local federal tax collector, one copy of the Form 1 was returned to the registrant and the other was sent to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Some registrations (which occurred for many years after September 24, 1934) included a separate declaration why the firearm wasn’t previously registered, such as the owner being unaware it had to be registered, or that it was obtained through inheritance. Such registrations were treated in the same manner as tax delinquencies, but without any monetary penalties, because the NFA is a federal tax statute.

The Congress repealed section 5(b) effective September 1, 1952, but voluntary registrations were still allowed. Some registrations state that ATF allowed the voluntary registration of an unregistered NFA firearm if the Assistant Regional Commissioner, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, where the unlawful possession occurred, determined that the possessor had committed a “nonwillful violation” of the NFA. Such registrations, which were made on ATF Form 1, are stamped “NONWILLFUL VIOLATION -APPROVAL RECOMMENDED.”

BACKGROUND OF THE 1968 AMNESTY PERIOD

The idea for an “amnesty period” did not originate with the GCA, or with a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled one of the registration provisions of the NFA to be unconstitutional. I first encountered the proposal for an amnesty when it was raised by the Treasury Department during Congressional hearings in 1965, at which Treasury proposed the registration of “destructive devices” such as bazookas, anti-tank rifles, land mines, hand grenades and similar items that were then not required to be registered. Treasury also wanted to register (or in some cases re-register) so-called Deactivated War Trophy (DEWAT) machine guns that had been deactivated or removed from purview of the NFA under a program that Treasury created and subsequently revoked. Finally, Treasury proposed to double the transfer tax on NFA firearms from $200 to $400 (the $5 transfer tax on an “Any Other Weapon” would have been doubled to $10).

The Congress ultimately revised the NFA under Title II of the GCA, in part, to remedy a constitutional defect in the original NFA. In January 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that the NFA’s registration provision was unconstitutional (Haynes vs. United States, 390 U.S. 85), because it required persons to register NFA firearms and for ATF to make these data available to local, state, and other federal officials upon request. But persons who possessed NFA firearms in violation of state or local law(s) risked the hazards of prosecution by supplying the registration information required by ATF, which violated their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

The Congress resolved this conflict by (1) prohibiting any information required to comply with the NFA to be used against a registrant or applicant “in a criminal proceeding with respect to a violation of law occurring prior to or concurrently with the filing of the application or registration, or the compiling of the records containing the information or evidence”; (2) establishing an amnesty period from November 2, 1968, to December 1, 1968, when persons could register unregistered NFA firearms with immunity from prosecution; and (3) prohibiting ATF from releasing any information about the registration status or ownership of any NFA firearm. During the 1968 amnesty, firearms were registered on Form 4467.

The 1968 amnesty is the first and only one the federal government has held so far. As was the case under the original NFA, fingerprints or photographs were not required to voluntarily register an NFA firearm during the 1968 amnesty period.

WHAT THE LAW SAYS ABOUT FUTURE AMNESTY PERIODS

The Congress did not provide for the continuous voluntary registration of unregistered firearms after December 1,1968. In fact, on Form 4467 (“Registration of Certain Firearms During November 1968”) itself, the following statement (bold and underline are in original) appears above data block 1:

IMPORTANT This form cannot be accepted for registration of firearm except when received by Director during the time period November 2, 1968, through December 1, 1968.

Evidence of Congressional purpose is contained in the legislative history of the GCA, which states that “every firearm in the United States should be registered to the person possessing the firearm” by December 2, 1968, the day after the 30-day amnesty period expired. Some people have alleged that ATF used only 30 days of a 90-day amnesty period in 1968, and thus “owes” another 60 days; however, this belief is incorrect. The reason is that the Congress established a 30-day amnesty period in 1968, not a 90-day amnesty period.

In a separate provision of law, the Congress provided that the Secretary of the Treasury could establish unlimited numbers of future amnesty periods. The amnesty period statute (section 207(d) of the GCA) is codified in United States Statutes at Large (Volume 82, 1969, page 1236), as follows:

The Secretary of the Treasury, after publication in the Federal Register of his intention to do so, is authorized to establish such periods of amnesty, not to exceed 90 days in the case of any single period, and immunity from liability during any such period, as the Secretary determines will contribute to the purposes of this title.

Approximately 65,000 NFA firearms were registered during the 1968 amnesty period. In 1996, ATF reported that number was reduced to 57,223. According to the data ATF submitted to the IG the number as of July 31, 1998, was 57,238. The reduction of the 65,000 number has resulted, in part, from ATF administratively removing certain firearms from purview of the NFA since 1968. The Congress authorized ATF to remove NFA firearms from the NFA as collector’s items, after determining they are unlikely to be used as weapons. Increases in the number of amnesty registrations (such as from 57,223 to 57,238, as noted above), may be due to ATF adding firearms back into the NFRTR after being confronted with a valid registration document.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

There were virtually no restrictions on registrations during the 1968 amnesty. On the reverse of Form 4467, Instruction 6 (entitled “Penalties and Immunity”) states, in part:

“The statute requiring you to register your firearm provides that information or evidence required to be submitted or retained by you (if a natural person) shall not be used against you directly or indirectly in any criminal proceeding with respect to a prior or concurrent violation of law. However, the statute does not preclude the use of any such information or evidence in a prosecution or other action under any applicable provision of law with respect to the furnishing of false information.”

In my judgement, it is likely that a new amnesty period would include some restrictions that were not imposed during the 1968 amnesty. For example, for many years ATF has routinely disapproved applications to transfer NFA firearms to otherwise qualified persons who reside in states where possession of such firearms is prohibited by state or local law. Interestingly, the 1968 amnesty allowed such registrations, and there is no provision in current federal law which would allow states in which the law is changed to prohibit the possession of certain NFA firearms, to determine how many such firearms are registered to persons living in those states. It is unrealistic to assume that persons living in states whose laws prohibit the possession of certain NFA firearms, would be allowed to register such firearms during a new amnesty period.

So far, in my opinion, ATF has taken an unwisely narrow view by apparently not considering the benefits of an amnesty period to correct errors in the NFRTR. For example, a well-publicized amnesty period would be a “win-win” situation in at least two important ways: (1) it would provide an opportunity to correct defective records, and thus strengthen ATF’s cases for violations of the law-it would be difficult to claim errors in the NFRTR as a defense; and (2) it would increase the confidence of law-abiding owners of NFA firearms that if their registration or transfer documents were destroyed through no fault of their own (such as in a fire, hurricane, burglary, flood or other unforeseen disaster), the Government would not prosecute them for unauthorized possession of an NFA firearm.

In my next article, I will analyze the registration of unregistered NFA firearms from 1969 to 2000, including a post-December 1, 1968, “amnesty” period which ATF conducted for a number of years, which the Treasury Department Office of Inspector General determined may have been illegal because ATF failed to publish the required notice in the Federal Register as required by law. I will also analyze the continuing (since March 1, 1994) “amnesty” for the registration of certain shotguns which ATF ruled to be destructive devices. I will also do an update on Congressional activity regarding the consideration of a new amnesty period. It is possible that the Congress will formally request the Treasury Department Office of Inspector General for an opinion on the extent, if any, that an amnesty period would correct the deficiencies it discovered during its audits of the NFRTR.

NOTE: Small Arms Review readers and others interested in political participation regarding the issues I have discussed should direct letters to the appropriate Congressional committees: The Honorable Jim Kolbe, Chairman, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, B-307 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515; The Honorable Dan Burton, Chairman, House Committee on Government Reform, 2157 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515; The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20512; and The Honorable Bill McCollum, Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, House Committee on the Judiciary, 207 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. The ZIP Code for your Senators is 20510, and 20515 for your Representative. Ladies and gentlemen of the Class III community: Please conduct yourselves as the ladies and gentlemen that you are. This is an opportunity to educate and to learn.

By Julio A. Montes

For most of last decade, Communist guerrillas of the FMLN (Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front) fought the Armed Forces to a standstill in El Salvador. The FMLN fielded some 10,000 fighters assisted by Cuba and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas. The Army deployed almost 60,000 soldiers and militarized police. It depended on one Special Forces Group, five large rapid infantry reaction battalions, one parachute battalion, and one light armored cavalry regiment to spearhead its attack. The rest of the Army was distributed in 6 Infantry Brigades, 1 Artillery Brigade, 7 Military Detachments, and 1 Engineer Detachment.

Between 1945 and 1962, the Army was organized in 6 Infantry brigades, one Artillery Regiment and one Cavalry Regiment. The 1st Infantry Brigade consisted of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Infantry Regiments (San Carlos Barracks, San Salvador), the Artillery Regiment (El Zapote Barracks, San Salvador) and the Cavalry Regiment (Casa Mata Barracks, San Salvador). The 4th Infantry Regiment (Sonsonate), and the 5th and 6th Infantry Regiments (Santa Ana) formed the 2nd Infantry Brigade. The 7th and 8th Infantry Regiments of Chalatenango formed the 4th Infantry Brigade, with the 9th (Cuscatlan), and 10th (San Vicente) Infantry Regiments formed the 5th Infantry Brigade. The 6th Infantry Brigade comprised the 11th (La Paz) and the 12th (Usulutan) Infantry Regiments. The 3rd Infantry Brigade deployed the 13th (San Miguel), 14th (La Union), and 15th (Morazan) Infantry Regiments. This organization would change considerably before the civil war.

The 1918 Organic Law of the National Guard ordered the formation of 14 Guard Companies with a Cavalry Section attached to each unit. The basic patrol element was the pair, with several pairs housed at a Guard Post (Puesto); several Post formed a Line (Linea), and in turn several Lines formed a Command (Comandancias of 1st or 2nd Classes). Several Commands formed a Tercio (equivalent to a Regiment). The National Guard was incorporated as an elite specialized outfit within the Army.

This unusual position was demonstrated in war. During the 1969-war with Honduras, the National Guard formed the so-called Expeditionary Force “TACO,” with the 1st, 2nd and 3rd National Guard Companies as forward units. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th National Guard Companies and the Mortar Company (81mm types) were deployed as the main elements of TACO force. The Logistical Operational Base, at Aguacatan, operated with the 10th Guard Company (Logistics), the Transport, and the Signal Groups. In addition, the Destacamento Montes (under CPT Aristides Napoleon Montes), comprising the reinforced 11th Guard Company, was established to assists the Army at the Northern Operational Theater. While the Destacamento Monterrosa (under CPT Domingo Monterrosa) organized with the 12th, 13rd, and 14th Guard Companies to assists the Eastern Operational Theater. The war lasted 4 days, but demonstrated the capabilities of the National Guard as an infantry element of the Army.

In fact, by the time of the civil war, the Salvadoran Law Enforcement agencies were under military command, and comprised three Public Security Corpses. These consisted of the the Guardia Nacional Corps (National Guard), in charge of rural police functions; there was a Policia de Hacienda Corps (Treasury Police), in charge of the national revenue service. Urban law enforcement fell under the responsibility of the Policia Nacional Corps (National Police). The smaller Policia de Aduanas (Custom Police) was incorporated into the Treasury Police during the conflict. In the interim post-war period, the customs duties went to the National Police. The Peace Treaty ordered all these units disbanded, and the establishment of a new internal security entity, under the command and control of civilian authority.

SMALL ARMS

The Salvadoran Army received 7mm Remington rifles in the early 1900s, but by 1920 the Chilean-made Mausers in 7mm and French Hotchkiss Model 1914 machine guns were standard issue. Up to 1931, the Cavalry and Artillery regiments were still equipped with the elderly and heavy Gatling machine guns. The Army was eventually modernized with the acquisition of quantities of 9mm Steyr Solothurn SMGs, and Madsen M1934 and Solothurn MG-30 machine guns.

Soon after WWII, the Army received quantities of 7.92mm VZ24 Mausers and 9mm M46/M53 Madsens from European sources. The 0.30” Madsen Saetter machine gun was also acquired for support and as replacement of the Hotchkiss M1914 and Colt PTFA machine guns. The 57mm Madsen Platoon Mortar came along from Dansk Industri Syndikat, Denmark. By 1961 the entire National Guard was equipped with the M1 Carbine and the Madsen M1934 and Saetter machine guns. The standard side arm was the FN Mle.35 GP High Power, but the 0.45” M1911A1 was encountered as a highly prized badge. The regular Army was re-equipped with the semi-automatic Garand. The US had delivered more than 1365 0.30” M1 Garands between the end of WWII and 1965 together with more than 100 0.30” M1919A6 delivered by 1977.

General Jose Alberto Medrano was commander of the 1st Infantry Brigade prior of taking command of the National Guard. As such, he yielded considerable power in the military regimen of the time. By 1968, Medrano had re-equipped the entire National Guard with modern 7.62mm G3 rifles. The Army followed, and by the time El Salvador went to war with Honduras in 1969, the regular Army had been equipped with HK G3 rifles and 7.62mm HK-21 light machine guns.

The National Guard again played a crucial role in the re-equipment of the Army when it adopted the MP5 as the standard submachine. General Ramon Alfredo Alvarenga contracted for the first of 8000 MP5s purchased by El Salvador in the late 1970s. In fact, the Salvadorans were one of the first customers of this superb weapon. There was also an introduction of some 2000 5.56mm HK-33s. Those observed in the hands of officers were equipped with 40 round magazines, and telescoping stocks. However, the HK-33 was soon discarded and replaced with the 5.56mm M4.

Without a doubt, the Guard’s police methods were rudimentary and obsolete. The Guard was known for its violent acts, but not so much for corruption. Nevertheless, the guerrilla commanders demanded the National Guard disbanded as a concession from the government to reach a peace agreement. The guerrillas also demanded the rapid reaction battalions (Atlacatl, Atonal, Arce, Belloso, and Bracamonte Bns.), the Directorate of National Intelligence, and the two other Security Corps be disbanded as well.

The former installations and some of the former guardsmen were incorporated into the newly established Army Special Brigade of Military Security (Brigada Especial de Seguridad Militar – BESM). This unit deploys the 503rd and the 504th Military Police Battalions, and the 501st and 502nd Border Guard Battalions; there are a Support Battalion, a Security Company, and an Instruction Company. The MP battalions are equipped exclusively with refurbished MP5s.

FROM HK TO COLT

By the mid-1970s the Salvadoran Armed Forces had been completely equipped with Heckler & Koch products coming from both Germany and France. Material included G3 rifles in all variants and HK-21 LMGs. This simplified training and knowledge of Infantry weapons and logistics.

The Israeli 9mm UZI replaced the Madsen SMG in 1975, but due to unclear reasons, the UZI had been replaced with the MP5 by 1979. The UZI and Madsen were relegated to second-line units. The FN Mle.35 GP continued as the preferred side arm.

By the early 1980s, Argentina entered the picture, delivering US$17 millions in military aid. The material delivered included 9mm FMK M35 High Powers and 9mm FMK-PA-3 SMGs manufactured at the Domingo Matheu factory at Rosario. Taiwan followed with the delivery of hundreds of 5.56mm T-65 rifles.

American aid poured into El Salvador after 1981. The US delivered 32,629 M16A1s between 1981-84. The US supplied 1640 40mm M79 and 224 M203 grenade launchers during the same period. Nevertheless, the Security Corps and many other Army units refused to exchange their G3s for the M16. Therefore, the US supplied hundreds of semiautomatic G3 rifles, including numbers of G3A4 types with telescoping stocks for the Parachute Battalion, and quantities of 7.62mm M14 rifles.

The complete infantry was eventually re-equipped with the Colt M16A1 rifles. Thousands of additional surplus M16A1s, and M203s were delivered between 1985 and 1991. The G3 was retained solely by the National Guard and the Treasury Police. Some Civil Defense units also received surplus G3s and M14s. The Armed Forces Workshop refurbished all the HK G3s, HK-21s and MP5s in the late 1980s & early 1990s.

In 1985, the Cavalry Regiment received the first 500 Colt M16A2 rifles. These were in reality the 14” short barrel 5.56mm submachine gun variant with telescoping stock. It was denominated M16A2 because it had not been typified by the US Army yet. The Salvadorans were the first customers of this “new” weapon. Many of us simply referred to it as the CAR-15 for its roots to the Vietnam-era model. The weapon was eventually adopted by the US Army as the M4 submachine gun and the 16” barrel variant as the M4 Carbine. The 5.56mm M4 SMGs and Carbines replaced the 9mm MP5s and 5.56mm HK-33s in the hands of the officers and mechanized infantry.

For high precision duties, the Army had adopted the Austrian Steyr SSG69. However, with the expansion of the Army, more high precision weapons were needed. Surprisingly, the US delivered 211 Sniper M1D Garands. During this time, Soldier of Fortune magazine personnel assisted in modifying some G3s as closely as possible to G3SG/1 standards. Fortunately, the M1Ds were soon followed with more modern M21 and M24 types.

Until then, the Army had done well using the HK-21 for platoon level support and the heavier Saetter, M1919A4 and M1919A6 machine guns were kept as vehicle mounted weapons. However, the US delivered 598 M60 and M60Ds between 1981 and 1983. Hundreds more followed. The Armed Forces Workshop (Maestranza) modified many 0.30” Madsen Saetter to 7.62 x 51mm NATO standards to augment the arsenal, an effort that could had been better spent on the M1919 types.

THE NEW POLICE

Today, all law enforcement activities are in the hands of the National Civilian Police (Policia Nacional Civil – PNC). This law enforcement agency has received considerable international assistance. It is now rated as the best and most modern police force in Central America.

The police were first equipped with surplus equipment from the Army and former National Police. Army officers turned over their M9 Berettas and High Power Brownings and these were supplied to the police along with new .357 Magnums. However, the pistols were insufficient to fight criminals in El Salvador.

The war had left huge quantities of weapons in the hands of criminals. As an initial measure, the PNC incorporated hundreds of new 7.62mm AKM and older 5.56mm M16s rifles found in huge former guerrilla warehouses. The government added numbers of surplus 5.56mm T-65, stock 5.56mm Mini-14/20GB and Ruger AC-556, some G-3 rifles, and new Mossberg and Remington shotguns. With the arrival of Chilean assistance, the police acquired the 9mm SAF submachine gun.

The SAF is basically a SIG551 scaled-down to a 9mm caliber. The SAF was acquired in several variants: fixed stock, folding stock, short machine pistol, and silenced model. In 1995, the PNC decided to transfer all automatic rifles back to the Army. The PNC retained the pistols, SAF submachine guns, and shotguns. The government also looked for a new standard police issue rifle. The favorites were the semiautomatic version of the 5.56mm SIG551 for compatibility with the SAF, and the 5.56mm HK G-41 for compatibility with the MP5. The advantage of the G-41 was that it accommodates the 20 and 30 round M-16 type magazines.

In 1998, the PNC contracted for 1500 semiautomatic 5.56mm Galil rifles, which beat the others due to price. The Galil is a great rifle, but-as with the lonely SAF in service—it does complicate logistics in this poor country. Prior to this, the few 5.56mm Galils found in El Salvador had been either captured from the guerrillas or abandoned by the Nicaraguan National Guard in 1979. A better choice for the police would have been the newly developed IMI MAGAL rifle in 0.30” caliber, capable of taking the M1 Carbine magazine. In fact, the Army now is trying to dispose of thousands of M1/M2s, and magazines are readily available. Under the Military Assistance Program and direct sales, the Salvadorans had acquired some 5000 M1s and about 156 M2s by 1964. More Carbines arrived during the 1960s and 1970s. The 7.62 x 33mm rounds (0.30”) fired by the M1/M2s are still adequate for most police tasks. The Police could have taken over the Army surplus M1 & M2. Furthermore, the PNC would have been able to refurbish them and upgraded with stocks made of Zytel. The M1/M2 could had been issued to foot patrols while the more compact and modern MAGAL would had gone to the motorized units. Ammunition could have been standardized in 9mm for pistols and SMGs and 7.62 x 33mm for the MAGAL & M1/M2.
The acquisition of the Galils was followed by the adoption of the 9mm CZ-75 as the standard police sidearm. This is a superb pistol at a reasonable price. The CZ-75 is recoil-operated, using the Browning dropping barrel system. I have one of these pistols in my collection and can say that it is a pleasure to shoot. It is likely that the PNC will acquire the CZ-75 Compact pistol to complement the full-size model. The Compact model accepts 10 and 13 round magazines, and it would be ideal for off duty and undercover duties. Ironically, the Army Officer Corp exchanged the M9 and Mle.35 High Power for the 9mm Jericho (Baby Eagle), which is in essence a copy of the Tanfoglio (Italy) built CZ75

The elite Police Reaction Group is equipped with better equipment than the Army. This includes new and highly priced 9mm SIG P-228 pistols, 9mm MP5 submachine guns, and 7.62mm SIG-3000 precision rifles. The Group leadership acquired seventy 5.56mm HK-53 short barreled rifles. The unit also requested-and acquired—four more SIG-Sauer 3000 precision rifles together with 10 sniper gear sets, 3 electric generators, 8 scuba gear sets, and two Zodiac boats.

AFTERMATH

It is noticeable that gun laws have been “liberalized” in El Salvador, and weapons can be purchased legally in the country. During the war, any one without connections to the government caught by government forces with a 9mm pistol or a 22 rifle could have been considered a rebel. On the other hand, if the rebels caught any one with a gun, they consider him an informant. The other option was to be considered a potential fighter by either side and recruited on the spot. Gun control was never effective, and only left the guns in the hands of the warring factions.

Large corporations can afford private security. According to data supplied by Arturo Villeda and Gustavo Gomez, from the PNC Public Relations Section, there are 62 Private security agencies accounting for 5936 security guards, 2926 of them armed. However, the typical citizen depends on the police for security. Due to the lack of sufficient manpower, several operations are taking place with the assistance of the Army. There are as many as 5,000 soldiers involved in rural police activities.

Crime has become the most important issue for the Salvadorans. In particular the drug traffic and money laundering have severely damaged the local economy. Drugs are now a big post-war problem. The police confiscated about 5 tons of cocaine recently at San Jorge, busting 7 former-national policemen and a Mexican member of ONUSAL (UN Mission in El Salvador)1.

The corruption that was rampant during the war at all levels became more apparent after the war. Even high level politicians and aristocrats have become suspects of drug trafficking and other illicit activities. War heroes are exposed as common criminals, and former combatants fight each other to settle old scores.

Numbers of deportees have joined gangs such as “Mara Salvatrucha” and “Mara de la 18,” both with links to the Crips and the Bloods gangs in the US. The gangs have formed an unexpected subculture of the Salvadoran society. Unfamiliar to these new threats, popular sectors are now asking the Army to go back to the streets to clean them out.

The Army is equipped with 9mm Jericho pistols, 5.56mm M4 SMGs and Carbines, and M16A1 rifles, 7.62mm M14 rifles (for special units only), M79 and M203 grenade launchers, M60 and M2HB machine guns. It would be a good investment to acquire kits to convert the hefty 25 lb M60s to lighter M60E3 and E4 models. The Military Police and Special Forces continue to use refurbished 9mm MP5s. Troops would had preferred the 9mm GLOCK or SIG models to the Jericho, and the Colt 9mm SMG should be acquired in place of the MP5s for compatibility with the M16.

For those interested, the Salvadoran Army is trying to dispose of the large excess small arms arsenal. There are relics in new conditions: new M1/M2 Carbines, M1D Garands, Mausers, MG-30 ect. There are also refurbished G3s, Madsens, UZI SMGs and many others. The money acquired from the sale of excess equipment will be used to improve the remaining arsenal with kits, and new parts.