ARMALITE, INC. INTRODUCES NEW AR-180B RIFLE

Armalite, Inc., has just introduced the new AR-180B™ which boasts a combination of the best features of the famed AR-180™ with the best features of the Armalites® latest M15™ rifles. The lower receiver is made of steel reinforced polymer and is stronger than the sheet metal receiver of its predecessors. The AR-180B™ lowers employ most of the parts of the M15™ receiver group. Best of all, the new AR-180B™ uses standard M-16 type magazines and triggers. Like the earlier rifles, the receiver is formed of sheet metal and features the famed AR-180 gas system to keep operating gasses and fouling out of the receiver. The upper and lower receiver groups interchange with those of the earlier rifles. First generation AR-180 rifles may therefore be repaired by replacing the appropriate half. The barrel is chrome moly steel and features an integral muzzle break and Armalite’s exclusive adjustable front sight base. The AR-180B has been subjected to a 6000 round endurance test during development and passed without a single rifle malfunction. Naturally the rifle is chambered in .223 and weighs 6 pounds unloaded. Metal parts on the rifle are manganese phosphate finished much like the finish on the original rifles. The new rifle comes with 1-10 round magazine and carries a 1 year warranty. The new rifles will have an introductory retail price of just $590.00. For more information on these great new rifles contact Armalite, Inc., Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 299, Geneseo, IL 61254. Phone: 1-309-944-6939. Fax: 1-309-944-6949. Their web address is www.armalite.com.

NEW SECOND GENERATION NIGHTSTALKER® “SO SMART™ LASER SIGHT

Wilcox Industries Corp. Has announced the release of its advanced Second Generation Night Stalker “SO Smart” laser Sighting Module. The NightStalker “SO Smart” Laser Module utilizes a microcontroller, “computer system on a chip”’ to provide extensive features not available on other products of its kind such as: eight preprogrammed user selectable blink rates and battery remain time indicator both displayed on a patented LCD (Liquid Crystal Display). The eight preprogrammed blink rates were incorporated to meet consistent requests from Law Enforcement and Military for a simple method to differentiate among team member lasers. The commercial customer enjoys the ability to select a steady on or several different time pulsing blink rates for user preference rather than have the manufacturer dictate one due to design constraints. This is all accomplished with one rotary selector switch for mode selection and one button for different blink rates, if desired. The new NightStalker “SO Smart” Laser Sighting Module is available in Visible Laser, Visible Laser/Infrared laser/Infrared Illuminator and Infrared Laser/Infrared Illuminator configurations. The true strength of the system is the modular design. The NightStalker “SO Smart” Laser Sighting Module and Nightstalker “Beamer” Tactical Flashlight work together via wireless communication or separately. Both the “SO Smart” Laser Sighting Module and “Beamer” Tactical Flashlight fit together or can be used separately with Wilcox’s extensive and growing list of “Sight and Forget” mounts. The “Sight and Forget” mounts are affixed and boresighted to the weapon (pistol, carbine, rifle or launcher). The “SO Smart” Laser Lighting Module and/or “Beamer” Tactical Flashlight can be transferred from one weapon platform to another through the use of the quick release levers. This provides significant versatility over the approach of a dedicated laser or tactical flashlight and a more cost effective and simpler solution. The NightStalker line is made from high impact composite material, corrosion resistant, waterproof and built to last. For more information contact Wilcox Industries Corp., Dept. SAR, Pease International Tradeport, 53 Durham Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801. Phone: 1-603-431-1331. Fax: 1-603-431-1221. Their website is www.wilcoxind.com.

BLACK HILLS AMMUNITION ADDS NEW .45 ACP LOADING

The .45 ACP has long been accepted by armed professionals as the king of defensive handgun calibers, providing excellent results due to its large diameter, heavy bullets. Many police agencies, desiring increased stopping power, have switched to the .45 ACP. Black Hills Ammunition now has a powerful new load to further increase the effectiveness of the .45. Their new .45 ACP, 230 Grain JHP + P. The new Black Hills load propels a 230 grain Hornady XTP Hollow Point at 950 feet per second. This powerful new load develops 460 ft lbs of energy. This new loading should make for an excellent load for .45 caliber submachine guns as well as handguns and rifles chambered for this potent caliber. For more information contact Black Hills Ammunition, Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 3090, Rapid City, SD 57709. Phone: 1-605-348-5150. Fax: 1-605-348-9827.

AR-15/M-16 OVERSIZED SAFETY SELECTOR SWITCH

Defense Procurement Manufacturing Services Inc., (DPMS) has just introduced a must have accessory for most AR-15/M-16 users. It’s an oversized safety selector switch. The oversized safety selector switch is an extended selector, which is precision-machined from 8620 steel and ground to tight tolerances. The oversized pad makes switching the selector easier, without removing your finger from the trigger or turning your hand. The new oversized selector switch retails for just $29.95. For more information or to place an order contact DPMS, Dept. SAR, 13983 Industry Ave., Becker, MN 55308. Phone: 1-612-261-5600. Fax: 1-612-261-5599. They are on the web at www.dpmsinc.com.

This is not a gun book in the usual sense of the term. Rather, it is a description of a fortunately transitory world made by the machine gun and artillery. Focusing entirely upon World War I, this book supplements Ellis’ The Social History of the Machine Gun, which dealt in large part with the adversaries’ difficulty in adapting to defensively employed machine guns. Ellis’ assessment is that the Western Front was an unparalleled nightmare of filth, decay, noise, blood and death, in which men fought for reasons they hardly understood for a future they almost ceased to believe in, and which offered nothing when it came.

At the outset both the Central Powers and the Allies foresaw a war of movement, but French reliance upon elan and the bayonet proved no match for German Maxims. Yet the French had enough firepower to stall the German advance and, after several engagements followed the Battle of the Marne, the lines began to coagulate, all the way from the North Sea to the Swiss frontier. Because the Germans decided first that they would dig in and hold the ground they had won, they chose the high ground and most defensible points, obliging the Allies to set up defenses on the most indefensible ground, often with poor drainage and a high water table.

It is Ellis’ belief that “though artillery causes a great many casualties throughout the war, when advancing against enemy trenches it was the machine gun bullet that was likely to fell a man. It is no exaggeration to say that they completely dominated the actual battlefield.”

Most combat veterans wonder how their wars compare to other wars. Ellis provides a wealth of information on just what trench warfare was like, often in graphic detail. Consider mud – he states that the worst aspect of the mud was that men drowned in it. When they found impassable communications trenches and were forced to travel on top of the ground, they could fall into a shell hole and be sucked down. A soldier at the Third Battle of Ypres described:

“A khaki-clad leg, three heads in a row, the rest of the bodies submerged, giving one the idea that they had used their last ounce of strength to keep their heads above the rising water. In another miniature pond, a hand still gripping a rifle is all that is visible while its next-door neighbor is occupied by a steel helmet and half a head, the staring eyes staring icily at the green slime which floats on the surface almost at their level.”

There are similar descriptions of other hazards that the soldiers faced: trench foot, cold, randomly buried decomposing corpses, huge rats, flies, nits, artillery fire, poison gas, raids and patrols, infection, shell shock, inadequate and bad food and venereal disease.

Some 23% of the British troops who were wounded in December of 1915 were hit in the head, neck or face, attesting to the activity of German snipers. The latter were specially chosen and given specialized equipment, including scope sighted rifles and camouflaged capes. Moreover, unlike the British, the Germans stayed in the same sector for long periods, thereby learning the topography intimately. Usually they crawled into no man’s land at night and stayed out until the following night, moving from cover to cover after firing. Even hollow trees were used as “hides”. One British officer who took a quick look over a parapet in 1916 was hit twice by different snipers. The British did not begin really to organize their sniping organization until mid-1917.

Trench raids were organized to secure information and to maintain the offensive spirit. As the war progressed distinctive weapons evolved: rifles were shortened, truncheons and clubs were adopted, and knives came into use. Grenades were rediscovered. We can see the beginning of the specialization that produced the assault rifle, the sub-machine gun, and the small unit tactics used at Stalingrad twenty-five years later.

As the war dragged wearily on and became an isolating, alien, all-enveloping nightmare, where did the soldiers find the capacity to endure? They realized that no one who hadn’t been there could understand what they suffered, so a kind of compensatory alienation from home concerns set in. This alienation was accompanied by a heightened sense of comradeship and compassion and by pride of self and of unit. For many, too, there was a strong feeling of patriotism along with personal honor. “What most men feared was fear itself, finding themselves unable to do what was required of them.”

In addition to Ellis’ own competent exposition, he utilizes much good source material. The book is well illustrated with period photos, frequently of casualties, although photo quality leaves much to be desired. The book benefits immeasurably from the inclusion of well chosen quotations from letters home, poetry and soldiers’ descriptions of battlefield conditions. Although the author makes clear that, between military censorship and the soldiers’ desire not to worry loved ones, there was much false optimism sent home and relatively little realistic reporting during the war. Much of the source material chosen is poignant and eloquent, possibly because of the social classes that were most likely to be writing. Regrettably, Ellis does not include footnotes or endnotes to identify the sources beyond identifying the authors and should have done so.

All in all, Eye Deep In Hell presents a vivid and unforgettable record of life and death in World War I trenches and will be of interest to almost all veterans and students of war and its technology.

THE SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE MACHINE GUN
By John Ellis
The Johns Hopkins University Press
2715 North Charles Street,
Baltimore, MD 21218-4319
800-537-5487, 1896 192 Pages
Forward, illustrations, bibliography, bibliographical essay, index.
$16.00 paperback
ISBN 0-8018-3358-2

Man’s struggle to adapt his social practices and institutions to the possibilities of his technology is a popular theme in much late 20th Century writing, and nowhere is it more interestingly discussed than in John Ellis’ The Social History of the Machine Gun. It is Ellis’ thesis that “the general aspirations and prejudices of particular social groups are just as important for the history of military technology as are straightforward problems of technical efficiency. Guns, like everything else, have their social history… The anachronistic ideals of the European officer class, the messianic nature of nineteenth-century capitalism, the imperialist drive into Africa and elsewhere…were more important to the history of the machine gun than any bald assessment of its mechanical efficiency.”

After passing quickly over the technical preconditions necessary for the development of rapid firing cartridge arms, Ellis describes how the development of the industrial revolution determined that the machine gun would be invented and improved by an American. An acute shortage of labor necessitated high production per worker in order to hold prices down. Consequently, there was great incentive to utilize machines not only to make products but also to make other machines. The country had few guns and gunsmiths, so that it was relatively unarmed. These facts, combined with the absence of an organized guild of hand-workers who would feel their livelihood threatened by machine production, caused a lasting association between the machine tool industry and small arms production beginning as early as the famous Ely Whitney musket contract of 1798.

Ellis compares the reception of the machine gun by several social and occupational groups. American gangsters, beginning in the mid 1920’s, took to the Thompson sub machinegun enthusiastically and used it deep into the 1930’s. A second group, consisting of adventurers and industrialists, used machineguns to subdue natives in Africa and India, while in the U.S. they were employed, often by National Guardsmen, to threaten workers in West Virginia, Colorado and San Francisco. Yet another group that got extensive experience was the far-flung collection of junior officers, principally British and German, whose mission was instilling the blessings of western civilization among the residents of remote colonies. But because Europeans regarded colonial warfare as having little in common with “real” wars, machineguns came to be associated in the military mind with colonial adventures against strange, subhuman adversaries, so that they would have no relevance in a European war among equals.

The primary focus of the book is on the spurning of the machinegun by the European senior officer corps in the years before World War I and the painful, grudging acceptance of fully automatic weapons during the war. According to Ellis’ theme of the dichotomy between social-in this case military-institutions and technology, it was the industrial revolution, with its sweeping alterations in the way things were made and financed that surged past European armies, leaving their leaderships as an isolated, multi-national backwater. The armies were officered by that part of the landowning class bypassed by the industrial revolution, and while these officers were dimly aware that the machine had transformed much of society, they clung desperately, decade after decade to the pre-industrial belief that men controlled the battlefield and would dominate it by personal courage and heroic action directed by superior will power. The old certitude of the battlefield-that the issue would be decided by a glorious charge, pressed home by cold steel and would result in recognition of superior heroism-must not be threatened by a mere machine. Because the revolutionary firepower of the machinegun threatened to end this myth and thereby the opportunities to display material virtues, the senior officer class of the European powers attempted to ignore this new class of weapons.

Understandably, Ellis’ research has been concerned principally with the British officer class, and he tends to universalize his findings by asserting that it was the same in other countries, despite having done much less research on them.

Numerous photos and sketches enliven the book, and the many quotations add color and punch.

A former faculty member of the University of Manchester, Ellis writes smoothly and gracefully. A bonus which greatly increases the value of the work is the author’s extensive use of end notes, so that the reader can consider the author’s sources. Their presence should not disturb those who don’t read end notes, while it enhances the volume of those of us who do.

There are, regrettably, several errors that a good editor should have excised. They include reference to “William” Browning where the context indicates John, and even though he mentions the difference, Ellis persists in including Gatling and Gardiner guns, along with the mitrailleuse, as machineguns. Perhaps he should have said “rapid firing guns.”

On balance, this is a splendid volume that will be found thought provoking by everyone interested in machineguns, war and technology.

Fabricated out of CNC-machined high tensile strength aluminum alloys, Gemtech’s Viper has a similar profile to an original WerBell can, but the Viper is smaller and lighter Furthermore, the Viper delivers vastly more sophisticated engineering and craftsmanship. While keeping the nostalgic look of the WerBell can for those who like the aesthetic appearance of a period silencer, Greg Latka of Gemtech invested two years in this project to solve all of the shortcomings of the WerBell sound suppressor. The Viper is 9.25 inches (23.5 cm) long. The grip tube has a diameter of 1.825 inches (4.7 cm), while the baffle stack is enclosed in a tube measuring 1.375 inches (3.5 cm) in diameter. The grip tube is fully checkered for a very positive gripping surface, which fits the hand comfortably. The entire can is finished in a hard matte black anodizing. Despite all of this advanced engineering, the Viper suppressor only weighs 13.8 ounces (390 grams).

The Viper’s patent-pending mounting system features a separate collar that screws onto the Ingram’s barrel just behind the 3/4×10 TPI (also called 3/4 inch NC) threads, where it is attached with three set screws using the hex wrench which Gemtech thoughtfully provides with each system. The front of the collar has angled teeth that mate with teeth on the rear of the spring-loaded grip tube and keep the suppressor from working loose during firing. This provides an important margin of safety. According to Greg Latka, “the Viper’s mounting arrangement is inspired by the locking-teeth couplers that have been used in the aerospace industry for at least 40 years, but the Gemtech system takes the concept in a valuable new direction. This is what innovation in science and technology is all about.”

Fortunately for end-users, Latka already had special jigs and CNC machinery dedicated to making locking-teeth couplers for aerospace clients, which enabled him to include this technology in the Viper without having to increase the suppressor’s price to amortize this expensive tooling. Using similar technology to what might be found on an F16 fighter adds a level of safety and security for the shooter not found on entry-level cans. The Viper is designed to remain rigidly locked on the barrel whether or not the operator is holding onto the can. That effectively removes the danger of ruining the can and perhaps losing a finger or two if the can loosens and sustains catastrophic baffle contact. That feature alone is worth the price of upgrading to the Viper. Furthermore, the raised grip tube remains cool during firing, which eliminates the risk of discomfort and burns during sustained use. Here’s another feature that can only be termed invaluable. Incorporating these advanced design features makes the Viper more expensive than an entry-level can, but the additional investment is less costly than the simplest of stops at a hospital’s emergency room and represents extremely cost-effective insurance to my way of thinking.

Installing the Viper for the first time may be a bit counter-intuitive for first-timers. To begin, slide the barrel collar onto the raised lip between the threaded portion of the barrel and the strap hanger, but do not tighten the set screws. Next, screw on the suppressor as far as it will go, ensuring that the teeth of the barrel collar fully mate with the teeth at the rear of the suppressor. Push the barrel collar forward as necessary to fully mate these teeth. Now tighten the three set screws. To remove the suppressor, pull the spring-loaded grip tube forward so the suppressor teeth clear the teeth in the barrel collar, and then unscrew the suppressor in a counterclockwise direction. After 1-1/2 turns, the teeth on the suppressor will clear the teeth on the barrel collar, so it is no longer necessary to hold the checkered grip tube forward. The operator can then allow the spring-loaded grip tube to return to its rearward position while continuing to unscrew the suppressor from the barrel.

Once this initial fitting has been accomplished, installing the suppressor merely requires that the operator simply screw the suppressor fully onto the barrel. The spring-loaded grip tube enables the slanted teeth of the suppressor to slide over the slanted teeth of the barrel collar until the two sets of teeth are fully mated, which secures the suppressor into place and ensures proper alignment.

The Viper features CNC machined aluminum baffles of advanced design and a domed front end cap. This design provides excellent performance in terms of both sound suppression and operational life.

Performance of the Viper was tested on a Cobray M11/9 submachine gun using a variety of Black Hills Ammunition including 115 grain RN FMJ, 147 grain flat point FMJ, and a new specially designed submachine gun round which features a 147 grain round nose FMJ projectile. The standard 9x19mm subsonic round found in the Black Hills catalog features a flat point projectile with velocity optimized for pistols. This makes perfect sense because the vast majority of customers buying 147 grain ammo are agencies using the FMJ subsonic round as an affordable equivalent training load to 147 grain hollowpoint duty ammo used in their pistols. This FP ammo is not desirable for use in submachine guns for several reasons. Since submachine guns have greater barrel lengths than pistols, this Black Hills ammo frequently generates a loud ballistic crack in subguns, negating the value of adding a silencer to the weapon. Furthermore, FP or HP ammo doesn’t feed worth a damn in weapons that feed like Ingrams and Uzis because of the abrupt feed ramps found in these submachine guns.

The new subgun ammo from Black Hills features a round nose for reliable feeding and a slower velocity for effective suppression in submachine guns over a more practical range of temperatures and barrel lengths. This new RN subsonic is not found in Black Hills literature but is being made available to submachine gun shooters as a special service. The 9mm 147 grain RN subsonic round must be ordered directly from Jeff Hoffman, the president of Black Hills Ammunition. It is in stock as this was being written. The first experimental lot could still go transonic when fired in an HK MP5, so subsequent production has not been made quite as hot. This 147 grain RN FMJ ammo is highly recommended for all silenced submachine guns. (Contact Jeff Hoffman, Black Hills Ammunition, Inc., Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 3090, Rapid City, SD 57709-3090; phone 605-348-5150; fax 605-348-9827; URL http://www.black-hills.com).

I’ve been using a single lot of G&L 147 grain FMJ ammo for benchmark sound testing for nearly a decade. It proved ideally suited for use in suppressed submachine guns in terms of projectile velocity, accuracy, reliable weapon function, and gracefulness when fired with a sound suppressor. This G&L round also works well in pistols. Never widely available, G&L ammunition is no longer available. Maybe that’s just as well, because several people have told me that the quality of G&L ammunition went down the toilet during the last few years of production. Therefore, I’ll be using the new Black Hills 147 grain RN FMJ as my subsonic 9x19mm reference standard henceforth. During this transition, however, I’ll continue to report data using both the G&L and Black Hills subsonic 9x19mm ammo so that we all can get a feel for comparing new data with previously published studies.

I tested the performance of the suppressor using the specific equipment and testing protocol advocated at the end of Chapter 5 in the book Silencer History and Performance, Volume 1 (Wideworld, Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 2560, Conway, AR 72033; $50 plus $5 s&h, check or MO). Testing was conducted three times, at atmospheric temperatures of 54°F (11°C), 81°F (27°C), and again at 93°F (34°C). Ammunition was kept at ambient temperature in a cooler in the shade until needed. Unsuppressed sound pressure levels (SPLs) were measured 1 meter to the left of the muzzle using a Brüel and Kjaer Type 2209 Impulse Precision Sound Pressure Meter (set on A weighting and peak hold) with a B&K Type 4136 1/4-inch condenser microphone, while suppressed levels were measured 1 meter to the left of the suppressor. Velocities were measured in feet per second using a P.A.C.T. MKIV timer/chronograph with MKV skyscreens set 24.0 inches apart and the start screen 8.0 feet from the muzzle (P.A.C.T., Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 531525, Grand Prairie, TX 75053, 214-641-0049). At least 10 rounds were fired to obtain an average sound signature or muzzle velocity. The suppressed and unsuppressed sound signatures appear in Table 1, the net sound reductions are in Table 2, and the velocity data appear in Table 3.

The first thing that impressed me during the course of the testing was the thoroughly user-friendly design of the Viper. The checkered grip tube provided a very positive handhold that remained pleasantly cool through the shooting sessions, even though the suppressor tube itself got very hot indeed during rapid action drills. Furthermore, I was gratified that the suppressor never loosened during the coarse of the testing. I was also very pleased with the satisfying sound signatures produced by the Viper with both vintage G&L subsonic as well as the new 147 grain RN FMJ submachine gun round from Black Hills Ammunition. Both produced identical suppressed sound signatures (see Table 1). The G&L round was not quite as loud unsuppressed, however, so it delivered 1 decibel less performance when the suppressed SPL was subtracted from the unsuppressed SPL to give the net sound reductions shown in Table 2. It is also noteworthy that the Viper dropped the SPL of supersonic ammo to well below the international safety limit of 140 dB, above which hearing damage is likely when a person is subjected to impulse sound while not wearing a hearing protection device.

I was pleased to note that the new Black Hills 147 grain RN FMJ ammo was more accurate than the G&L round, which was itself very accurate. It was also interesting to note that every round being tested delivered greater velocity when the M11/9 was fitted with the Viper suppressor (see Table 3). The unusual design of this suppressor enables the gas stream following the bullet to continue to accelerate the projectile even after the bullet leaves the barrel and enters the rear chamber of the suppressor. This phenomenon has been termed “freebore boost.”

All of these numbers are interesting, but what do they mean in the real world? In order to see just how stealthy the Viper could be in the real world, I fired three BH 147 grain RN FMJ rounds into the ground (with the selector set to SEMI) while my wife and teenager were watching TV inside a house of standard frame construction that included a glazed wooden door in the wall between us. I was three armspans outside of the door, and they were three armspans inside. Neither lady heard a thing, so I’d say that Gemtech’s Viper is pretty darned stealthy in the real world.

Gemtech’s new suppressor for the M10/9 and M11/9 combines a robust and secure mounting system with a very cool and positive gripping surface, making the Viper both safer and more pleasant to use than entry-level suppressors. These advanced features put the Viper in a class by itself. The Viper also delivers plenty of sound suppression for the real world. Finally, the museum-grade workmanship provides a pride of ownership that only an outstanding product from a company committed to excellence can deliver. Whether you are primarily a shooter or a collector, I can recommend Gemtech’s Viper sound suppressor with enthusiasm. For more information, contact Gemtech (Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 3538, Boise, ID 83701; phone 208-939-7222; fax 208-939-7804; URL http://www.gem-tech.com).

As a whole, the course demanded straight shooting and control down narrow lanes of fire, all the while incorporating diverse elements for shooters and allowing the target crew fast reset times. The no shoots were thoughtfully located to forestall either horizontal or vertical sweeps.

Ian Dunleavy flew through the tricky course best in an outstanding 69.55 seconds with a M16 9mm. Second was Roger Meyer with an MP5 in 74.53 seconds. Scott Carlile was third in 80.11 seconds with an M16 9mm.

Meanwhile, back up on the noisy main range, the assault riflemen were jockeying for position.They fired from any position they wished over two horizontal hay bales, one atop the other.Targets were steel knockdown plates at 50, 100 and 150 yards. For these shoots plates are welded to steel right angled bases, and the target part measures 12” x 12” high at 100 yards, 12” x 18” high at 150 yards and 12” x 24” high at 200 yards. At the assault rifle maximum range of 150 yards, some of the targets stubbornly resisted knockdown by .223 bullets. Following the 150-yard stage, the rifleman had to stand and puncture an elevated filled gallon water jug at about 25 yards to stop the clock.

Randy Jewell won the minor caliber assault rifle match with an impressive 33.04 seconds with a M16. Runner up was Hal Gould in 59.81 seconds, gun unspecified, with Jim Ebert, also shooting a M16, placing third in 140 seconds.

Major caliber honors went to Wayne Woodcock’s 71.59 seconds with an H&K G3. The same model garnered second for Ron Fortier in 80.15 seconds, Larry De Mello, shooting an M14, closely trailed him in 80.97 seconds.

In the unlimited class – that is, any assault rifle and any sights – Bill Koald had the fastest time, 43.81 seconds, with an unspecified gun. Ed Omland followed in 59.34 seconds with an M14. An identical model gave Fred Simmons a time of 108.46 for third.

The crew served match used the same falling plates out to 200 yards. Ron Fortier, shooting a Browning 1919 A4, won impressively in 39.56 seconds. Steve Wozny was second with an A6 in 75.41 seconds, just ahead of Bachynski’s 79.47 seconds with another A4. Each bank of plates had a red no shoot in it to require fine traverse control. It’s always both pleasant and novel to see crew served guns fired as they were intended to be fired – using the sights combined with fine adjustments of traverse and elevation -rather than the Hollywood method that most civilian gunners adopt.

Those shooters who came back on Sunday for Albany’s monthly subgun match were treated to a modified course with some even more challenging elements than Saturday’s, making Albany’s Spring Shoot a particularly inviting place for buzz gunners. Even looking at the equipment is worth the trip, and all this is in addition to the club’s large two-day open shoot.

Non residents render valuable support to the Albany full-auto program, and this seems a good time to thank them. The club is grateful both to the many Washingtonians who drive down to rent guns and to the growing number of Idaho residents who bring their own guns hundreds of miles to shoot with us. You’re all appreciated!!

Also much appreciated is the fine statistical work done by Wayne and Joan Woodcock, who provided the match results for this report.

Although the monthly sub-gun matches go on all year long, Albany’s next major machine gun shoot will be in December. Further information may be obtained from Mark Cook at 541-745-5619.

Auto-Ordnance, Bridgeport

Although all Thompson Submachine Guns have the Auto-Ordnance Corporation name roll-marked on the receiver’s right side, only a small portion of the total production were actually manufactured at the Auto-Ordnance Corporation’s own Bridgeport factory, especially when compared to the total number made. The Auto-Ordnance Corporation had first relied on Colt’s Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company in 1921, and then Savage Arms in 1940 to actually manufacture the Thompson for them. It wasn’t until the autumn of 1941 that Auto-Ordnance opened its own factory, to assist Savage with the overwhelming wartime demand for the weapon.

Russell Maguire opened his Auto-Ordnance factory in a former automotive brake shoe plant located in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The first months after the building was occupied were spent renovating the facilities, and making tools and gauges not already supplied by Savage. By August of 1941, the plant was manufacturing the U.S. M1928A1 model. At first Auto-Ordnance only made receivers and frames in house. Their guns were assembled with parts purchased from Savage and other subcontractors. The plant ran seven days a week and worked two eleven-hour shifts per day. In January of 1942, Auto-Ordnance began to renovate other buildings on the property to further increase production. The Thompsons being produced in Bridgeport were identical mechanically and in appearance to those being made by Savage. All 1928 Thompsons that were made at the Bridgeport factory had with the letters “A.O.” preceding the weapon’s serial number. The serial numbers, like on the Savage and Colt guns, were roll-marked on the center of the left side of the receiver. A duplicate serial number was stamped on the trigger frames, under the stock slide attachment. The marking of the serial numbers on many Auto-Ordnance, Bridgeport guns was rather carelessly done, as the numbers are quite often unevenly spaced and out of line.

The production of Auto-Ordnance, Bridgeport M1928A1 models began approximately sixteen months after Savage. This would mean that a low serial number Auto-Ordnance, Bridgeport M1928A1 would have been manufactured at the same time period as a mid-range Savage M1928A1, and so on. The receiver markings on Auto-Ordnance, Bridgeport Thompsons differ slightly from those on the Savage guns. All 1928 Thompsons manufactured at the Bridgeport factory were US Model 1928 A1’s. The U.S. designation, like early Savage Thompsons had no periods after the letters.

The receivers of Savage Thompsons were roll-marked on the left side “Model of 1928”, while the receivers manufactured by Auto-Ordnance, Bridgeport were marked “Model 1928” without the word “of “ being included. Another detail difference on the receivers was the abbreviation for the word number, stamped before the weapon’s serial number. On Savage Thompsons the abbreviation “NO.” was used, while Auto-Ordnance, Bridgeport guns used the slightly different “No.” abbreviation. The style (font) of the lettering used on the Savage produced Thompsons was also slightly different than that of the Auto-Ordnance guns.

The Auto-Ordnance, Bridgeport plant was under the jurisdiction of the Springfield Ordnance District. Thompson Guns were inspected and proofed by on site Springfield ordnance inspectors. The Army Inspectors of Ordnance or AIOs of the Springfield District during WWII were Colonel Waldemar Broberg and Lt. Colonel Guy H. Drewery. Colonel Waldemar Broberg using the stamp WB, served as AIO of the Springfield District from 1 July 1941 until 30 June 1942. The stamp bearing his initials has been observed impressed on the receiver’s left side above the magazine well area. GHD was the stamp of Lt. Colonel Guy H. Drewery who replaced Colonel Broberg, serving as AIO from 1 July 1942, until 15 July 1945. His stamp was often placed on the receiver’s left side, just forward of the Thompson Submachine Gun logo. The WB inspector’s stamp would be the most common mark encountered on Auto-Ordnance, Bridgeport manufactured US 1928 A1 Thompsons. Colonel Drewery took the position of AIO near the end of the US 1928 A1 model production run at Auto-Ordnance. His initials are primarily only seen on Auto-Ordnance, Bridgeport manufacture M1 and M1A1 models.

An interesting variation of the Auto-Ordnance, Bridgeport produced US 1928 A1 model that has been observed, are those Thompsons that have had the US designation ground off and the numeral “1” of the A1 mark overstamped with a letter “C” to read AC. A letter X was often added as a suffix on the serial numbers of these guns. Interestingly, some of the AO “1928AC” overstamped Thompsons did not have Army Inspector of Ordnance (AIO) acceptance stamps on them, but were stamped with the Ordnance “crossed cannon” acceptance mark. While other examples of these guns had no government acceptance stamps at all, suggesting that they were never inspected or accepted by the U.S. Government. Perhaps these guns were contract overruns or assembled from parts that remained after the government contracts were filled. However, no documentation could be located that could prove or disprove this theory. The Numrich Arms Corporation also removed U.S. markings from original 1928 and 1928A1 model Thompsons they sold in the 1950’s.

The quality, fit and finish of the Auto-Ordnance produced guns was identical to those of Savage manufacture. Interchangeability of parts was 100% as per Ordnance Department directives.

The West Hurley 1928 Model

The Numrich Arms Company of New York purchased the remaining assets of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation in the 1950’s. They were the third company to do so since 1945. Included in the sale were several complete Thompson submachine guns, and a large number of spare parts. Numrich sold many Thompsons that they had assembled from the parts. Many of these guns have NAC added to the serial numbers. These guns were sold to police departments and a few affluent individuals that could afford the $200.00 transfer tax back in the 1950’s. Approximately ten to twelve guns were sold per year until early 1961 when Numrich ran out of critical receivers and frames and no more Thompsons could be assembled.

In 1975 the Numrich Arms Corporation of West Hurley, New York after receiving approval from the BATF, decided to begin manufacture of both semi-automatic-only and full-automatic versions of the Thompson 1928 model, using the Auto-Ordnance name. The receivers, trigger frames bolts and barrels were of new manufacture, while the remainder of the parts used to assemble the early guns were GI surplus. The parts were Savage manufacture, the original Auto-Ordnance, or one of their subcontractors. As production of the West Hurley guns continued, many parts became unavailable, thus forcing the company to manufacture whatever parts they needed to continue production. In the first year of production there were only 199 select-fire 1928 models made.

In addition to the Thompsons the company also produced a thirty-nine round and a fifty round “L” type drum magazines for the guns. Surplus twenty and thirty round GI magazines were also offered. In 1991 the company began a limited run of the coveted one hundred round “C” drum. There were also special commemorative versions of the 1928 Thompson made. Some of the commemorative West Hurley guns were accepted by the BATF for inclusion on their Curio and Relics firearm list.

Most of the 1928 Thompsons manufactured by the modern Auto-Ordnance Corporation of West Hurley, New York were fitted with a compensator equipped finned barrel, vertical foregrip and a replica of the original Lyman adjustable rear sight. The receivers, frames and barrels of the guns were finished with a black oxide, much like the originals had been. Although the majority of the guns had the aforementioned features, special requests were often honored for specially equipped and serial numbered guns. Special order 1928 guns have been documented with and without compensators, rudimentary military “L” and protected “L” style rear sights, as well as military horizontal foregrips. Wide ranges of custom serial numbers were also issued upon a customer’s request. By the time production ceased in 1986 West Hurley Auto-Ordnance had produced a total of 3,306 select-fire 1928 models. Small production runs of a .22 caliber version of the full-automatic 1928 model were also manufactured.

The West Hurley manufactured Model 1928 receivers were uniquely roll-marked as; U.S. MODEL 1928, with the U.S. mark, but lacking the A1 suffix as stamped on the original military guns. The rear of the receiver’s left side was marked THOMPSON SUBMACHINE GUN CALIBER .45M1. This marking was different than the original markings, and the word caliber was not spelled as calibre as the original 1928’s had been. The center of receiver’s right side was marked AUTO-ORDNANCE CORPORATION WEST HURLEY, NEW YORK, U.S.A. The markings on the trigger frame were reminiscent of those of the WWII Auto-Ordnance guns with the words FULL AUTO on one line. The rocker pivot position arrow was also the smaller design of the original Auto-Ordnance frames.

SAR had the opportunity to be there, as we have in the past, to try out HK’s newest items. Some of these we are not able to discuss with the readers yet, but rest assured that HK is out at the forefront again, innovating and challenging with new designs. When they tell me that we can tell you, then you, the readers will get the first look at some amazing new small arms.

One item that I did have a chance to openly test, was the newly adopted German army version of the HK PDW offering in 4.6 x 30mm, type classified as the MP7. We have some nice pictures of this weapon presented here, and some responses to the test. We will be doing a much more comprehensive test at a later date, when the US market is prepared to receive production models of the PDW- we’ll show you what is coming to the US LE and Military markets at that point.

“Personal Defense Weapons”, “Individual Defense Weapons” and their similar named counterparts are intended to fill multiple roles. The fundamental idea is to arm troops that are not the basic infantry, so that they will have small, effective firepower to utilize if combat comes into their area. This means drivers, maintenance personnel, tank crews, artillery personnel, air crews, and the REMF group in general. Too often these soldiers and sailors are confronted with combat that they are unprepared for. One instance that comes to mind is the US Air Force personnel who were on the airbase in Da Nang during the Tet offensive in 1968. The US Marines were providing defense at the airbase, and the Air Force personnel were generally not armed, M16s were left in the armory. When the VC/ NVA forces overran the Marine defensive positions, it left the Air Force personnel unarmed, with the resultant loss of 18 aircraft and many lives. The lack of weaponry was from orders up the line, where certain officers viewed these military personnel as not being able to perform their jobs if they had to drag their rifles around with them. This policy cost a lot of lives, as well as lost equipment, and that unfortunate situation has been repeated countless times in armies around the world. An issue sidearm/ handgun was insufficient for fighting AK47 armed adversaries.

Giving these support troops a viable weapon is a wonderful idea- a weapon that makes them efficient in defense out to 200 meters, in a package small enough that it can be carried or kept at hand at all times.

Additionally, the MP7 lends itself to Special Operations due to its small size, controllability and probable lethality.

Typical of HK products, the MP7 worked flawlessly, and was smooth to operate. The readers would expect that the German engineers working on this project would not bring an offering to the table until they were fairly certain they had the bugs out and were fine tuning the project, and they would be correct in that assumption. There is, however, a more controversial question here than “Can HK produce a high quality, effective Personal Defense Weapon”. It has to do with the ammunition.

As readers of SAR are no doubt aware, controversy once again engulfs the small arms community. This article is not going to arbitrate a final agreement on it, but I think it is safe to say that if we view the results of steel plate firing and accept the ballistic evidence from HK, we can punch some holes in the side of the argument that is “Dissing” the new smaller cartridges like the FN 5.7 x 28mm and the HK 4.6 x 30mm. While the claims of both FN and HK are that their cartridges are very different, with different results, the “Old School” is lumping them together and saying that neither cartridge has the terminal ballistics necessary to be an effective combat arm.

Your faithful correspondent is here to say that while this may be an old argument, at the risk of being somewhat disrespectful to some very learned men, it is not necessarily true. We went through this with the “9mm vs 45 acp”, the “Magnum” debacle, and more to the point- in the “7.62 x 51mm Nato vs the 5.56 x 45mm” debate. The old school at that time argued that you needed a full thirty cal, with all of its burning propellant, to effectively kill the enemy. The first reports from Vietnam on the terminal ballistics of the new AR15 5.56mm cartridge were that the soldiers were shocked by the massive damage it did to the enemy. Contrary to the naysayers, this new, small cartridge was indeed effective, and at the range of engagement at 300 meters or less, the lighter weight of the 5.56 cartridge allowed carrying extra ammunition with the same combat load, which was a great advantage to the soldier.

Waxing poetic here, this author is fond of semi auto’s in 308 fired with aimed fire, full auto belt feds out to 1400 meters in 308, etc, etc, ad nauseum, but the fact remains that the M16’s 5.56 x 45mm cartridge has proven to be a workhorse- and a very effective battle round. It is a devastating round in full automatic, and very controllable with the proper firearm as a platform, and the proper training. All of this is contrary to what the conventional wisdom was at the time.

Just because something is new, does not necessarily make it better or worse. The factories that are making these new Personal Defense Weapon style firearms have a lot of very knowledgeable people working at them, and they wouldn’t be risking as much of an investment if they didn’t have faith in the end result. I have learned to listen to them, and to try and understand what they are saying before I say “The projectile is too small to be effective”.

The ballistics of FN’s 5.7mm offering are different from the ballistics of the new HK 4.6mm offering. While some are saying “They are both smaller and appear to have less energy”, that is not a scientific statement, and the two new cartridges are not on the same page because they are “Smaller”, so while I have some extensive test time on the 5.7 x 28 FN offering, we will leave this discussion simply to the 4.6 x 30 HK offering.

However, I do have to point out that there have been several terminal instances with both cartridges, and the reported results were impressive. We do not have the written reports at this point, but will bring them forward as they become public. As I write this, there is an LE incident with a 5.7 x 28, where the subject dropped on the first burst, and was totally incapacitated before expiring. Everybody goes home, except the bad guy.

The new HK 4.6 x 30mm round fires a 24.7 grain projectile at a muzzle velocity of just under 2400 feet per second. HK’s claim is that the basic copper plated steel projectile will not only penetrate all standard issue body armor (up to CRISAT specs of 1.6mm titanium and 20 layers of Kevlar), but it will have sufficient terminal ballistics after performing that job. HK has supplied graphics of ballistic gelatin testing that would bear out their claims.

SAR’s conducted a steel plate test and this was the result: At 100 yards, the MP7 was controllable to the point of keeping long bursts on the target, and the penetration was impressive. I have little doubt that the penetration of typical body armor leaves sufficient energy to achieve HK’s claimed terminal ballistics, but that is something that time will tell about.

I fired about 350 rounds through the MP7 over the course of several days (there were lots of other interesting new firearms to be tested). Most of my firing was done at 100 meters, simply because that was where the steel plate was located.

There are three basic firing positions that the PDW lends itself to: as a supported pistol, as an SMG from a two pistol grip at either the hip or extended arm, or as a shoulder braced SMG. All of my firing was done with a 20 round magazine, which would be the primary method of carrying the MP7 in a holster. This would keep the profile compact.

I tried to imagine the various roles that the MP7 might be called for, and starting with the “Drawn and fired as a handgun”, it performed well. The length extending over the rear of the pistol grip and out to the front will throw the shooter “Off” at first, until you get used to the idea- the MP7 is very lightweight, and balanced so that when held in the standard two handed firing position for a handgun, it is very controllable. I fired this position from semi auto only, and burst fire would be recommended for close range targets. In order to consistently hit the target at 100 meters, I used other methods. The reflex sight was very quick and simple to use in all positions.

Firing with the front pistol grip down, using both hands, but keeping the stock retracted, was an impressive SMG style package. Accuracy at long range went up, and I was most impressed with the “Nose”, meaning how compact the whole package would be for an entry team to use. When the firearm is too long, or has ergonomics that bend the wrists into unnatural positions so it must be kept out from the body when maneuvering through doors and other tight spaces, we say the “Nose” is off. This can be adversely affected on most firearms with the addition of a suppressor. While I did not get the opportunity to use a suppressor on the MP7, the ergonomics and small size of the MP7 lead me to believe that the suppressor would still be within a maneuverable package for Entry work.

Of course, my favorite was firing from the shoulder. My belief is that while we need to train for firing from every position, we should always try to get a solid shooting platform, and shoulder fired usually supplies that position. Adding the buttstock to the equation made for a good, solid support triangle, leading to increased controllability. This was evidenced by keeping all rounds on a 100 meter target. Very impressive.

Part of the reason for the good control is the recoil impulse of the 4.6 x 30 mm cartridge. There is a sharp recoil but the time is so fast that the recoil appears to be absorbed in the system, and the cyclic rate is tuned to the gun. Very controllable.

My take on the MP7? Well designed, well executed, and quite reliable in the tests. I saw it take a lot of abuse, and just keep on running. With a full 20 round magazine, at 3.8 lbs the MP7 is very handy, and with a holster will probably be kept with most troops instead of being left in the mess tent. The plan to keep the ammunition offered in the ten cents per round range is a good idea. I think HK has a winner on their hands, and as long as the terminal ballistics bear out the factory claims, the MP7/ HK PDW should be considered by most departments with tactical officers, as well as military support groups, and as a tool for Special Operations teams. SAR gives a thumbs up, and we look forward to bringing a much deeper look to the subject when HK is ready to start importing the PDW version for US use.

H&K PERSONAL DEFENCE WEAPON TECHNICAL DATA

Type of Weapon: Close-range weapon for all firing positions
Operating principle: Gas-operated weapon
Bolt system: positively locked, rotary bolt head
Calibre: 4.6 mm x 30
Modes of fire: Single and burst fire
Ammunition supply: Staggered magazines for 20 or 40 cartridges
Rate of fire: Approx. 950 rds/min.
Sight: Optical and mechanical sights