Armalite, Inc. has now introduced a line of camouflage rifles. Whether you’re sliding over a crest to get a closer shot at that prairie dog that avoided you all morning or just sitting quietly in a deer stand, you’ll blend into the terrain perfectly with Armalites new line of camouflaged rifles. Two styles of camouflage are available, Realtree Hardwoods® and Advantage Classic©. Realtree Hardwoods is a three-dimensional camouflage with 13 natural colors, realistic leaves and limbs with light to dark contrast allowing the hunter to blend with a variety of habitats. Advantage Classic has detailed leaves and limbs that offer quality concealment up close, and at a distance it breaks up the outline completely. Each rifle is individually processed by experts, real artists, and covers the rifle from end to end for complete concealment. The hardest part about owning one of these rifles will be choosing between the patterns. Why not just buy one of each. For more information on the Armalite Camouflage Rifle contact Armalite, Inc., Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 299, Geneseo, IL 61254. Phone: 1-309-944-6939. Fax: 1-309-944-6949. Their web site is www.armalite.com.

M4 SLING ATTACHING PLATES FROM GG&G.

This new product from GG&G allows the user to attach tactical slings to the M4 Carbine in a more versatile and easier to use way. Instead of having to attach the sling to the sliding portion of the collapsible stock on the carbine, these new Sling Attachment Receiver End Plates allow the sling to be attached at a fixed point directly behind the receiver. This is the preferred mounting point for slings of this type. With the sling attached at this point at the rear and at the front sight, the operator can mount the weapon on either the primary or offside shoulder. As a result, during dynamic entries it becomes easier to “slice the pie” at doorways and move around corners, whether they are on the right or left side, without “telegraphing” the operator’s presence. All that is required for installation is replacement of the receiver end plate, sometimes called the “egg” because of its shape, with the new Sling Attachment Receiver End Plate. In the past versions of this type of product have been fabricated from flimsy sheet metal stampings or from plastic. Now you can have a high quality, very durable unit that will last forever. These new plates are precisely machined from manganese phosphates 4140 ordnance steel. They can be easily installed by the user. There are two types available. The first one has a rectangular sling slot that will accept sling straps up to 1.5 inches wide. The other features small mounting rings on both sides for the spring loaded attaching hooks like those found on the Chalker Tactical Sling or the Heckler & Koch combat-carry slings. With either type a dual point mount can be used with the weapon’s front sling swivel employed as the front mounting point. One significant advantage of the new Sling Attachment Receiver End Plate is that expanding or collapsing the stock does not affect the sling length. For more information on this as well as a wide variety of other firearm related products contact GG&G, Dept. SAR, 3602 East 42nd Stravenue, Tucson, AZ 87513. Phone: 1-520-748-7167. Fax: 1-520-748-7583. Web Site: www.ggaz.com.

NEW M16C RIFLE FROM M2 CORPORATION

M2 Corporation, long known for their innovative AR-15/M-16 variants, has now introduced another unique rifle. Known as the M16C the new rifle is a different type of security weapon. The ultra small weapon features a 6-inch barrel and a total overall length of just 22 inches with the stock retracted. The M16C also features a flattop design, allowing operators to choose from a wide range of aiming devices. Probably the best type of sight for this type of rifle is a see-through, non-magnifying, red-dot sight, but others can be used as well. One of the special features of the M16C rifle is the removable vertical foregrip, which ensures proper placement of the non-trigger hand. This is a must on weapons of very short barrel length. The M16C rifle is manufactured with a Vortex flash hider which virtually eliminates muzzle flash which can be very dramatic on a 6” barreled .223 weapon. M2 Corporation supplies Cleandraw muzzle covers that can be fired through when the weapon is deployed from its concealed carry position. The new rifle has a muzzle velocity of around 2100 f.p.s. depending on the ammunition used. The rate of fire on full-auto is between 650 and 700 rounds per minute. The M16C ships standard with 10 Cleandraw muzzle caps, 1 magazine, cleaning kit, deployment case and operators manual. Optional accessories include laser aimers, laser designators, night vision optics, tactical harness, additional magazines and several different types of flash hiders. For more information on this rifle as well as other innovative weapons contact M2 Corporation, Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 96207, Las Vegas, NV 89193-6207. Phone: 1-702-263-4450. Fax: 1-702-263-7875. They can be found on the web at www.m2corp.com.

James Webb served as Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan Administration and as an Assistant Secretary Of Defense. He was also a decorated combat Marine in Vietnam. He knows war and politics. Lost Soldiers deals with both.

The book is set in present-day Vietnam. Protagonist Brandon Condley, a former Marine with five years of combat in Vietnam, found Asia more congenial than the United States after the war. He drifted around Asia, working for the CIA, and as a security agent for private companies. As the book opens Condley has come back to Vietnam to assist Hanson Muir, a forensic anthropologist, in retrieving the remains of US soldiers lost during the war.

Those are some of the lost soldiers referred to in the title. Condley and his cyclo driver, Dzung, a former South Vietnamese soldier and war hero, are two of the others. Dzung was “reeducated” in the mountain camps after the fall of Saigon, and is a denizen of District 4 in the city, a slum where former anti-communists are forced to live. Out of loyalty to a former brother in arms, Condley hires Dzung and his cyclo whenever he needs to travel in the city.

The respect that can develop between former enemies is also a part of Lost Soldiers. Condley and Muir work with Colonel Pham, a former Viet Cong who rose to rank and power in the new regime. Pham has come to respect Condley and the respect is returned.

Vietnam is a character in the novel too. Condley loves the country, despite the war. It turns out that Vietnam has had the same effect on others, including an old, sick, Russian soldier, living in poverty in Moscow.

I was never in the service, or in Vietnam, but a vet once described the coast of South Vietnam to me. He said that, seen from a helicopter, it was “the most beautiful coast in the world.” I think the look on his face as he said that would have been on Condley’s face, when he thought about Viet Nam when he was away from it.

The straightforward retrieval of the remains of an American serviceman becomes a mystery when Muir discovers that the dead man is not who he appears to be. The dogtags with the body actually belong to an American deserter who dropped from sight during the war. Unraveling the mystery leads Condley and Muir to Australia, back to Viet Nam, and then sends Condley and Colonel Pham to Moscow.

The investigation leads to bloodshed which involves Condley, Dzung and a member of state security who also discovers some respect for an old enemy.

Webb has written four other novels, Fields Of Fire, A Sense Of Honor, A Country Such As This, and Something To Die For. I own the first and third books on this list, and I intend to acquire Lost Soldiers.

Webb is often ignored by the media, possibly because he fought in Vietnam and worked for Reagan. That is unfortunate since Webb has important things to say and says them well. More information about Webb and his books can be found at his website, www.jameswebb.com.

Silent Warrior
By Charles Henderson
A Berkley Book
Published by:
The Berkley Publishing Group
A division of Penguin Putnam Inc.
New York, NY 10014
ISBN 0-425-17660-6
Copyright 2000 by Charles Henderson
$19.98 from Military Book Club
Reviewed by Lee Arten

Silent Warrior is the sequel to Charles Henderson’s earlier book about Carlos Hathcock, Marine Sniper. The subtitle is, “The Marine Sniper’s Vietnam Story Continues.” Henderson says in the preface that some of the stories in Silent Warrior came from 300 pages of material the publisher cut from Marine Sniper. Other information came from Henderson’s meetings with Hathcock, and print reports and documents supplied by Jim Land. ( Captain Jim Land was Hathcock’s commanding officer during part of his service in Vietnam.)

Henderson interviewed former Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops during a 1994 visit to Vietnam. He also discussed the war with General Tran Van Tra, who was Commander in Chief of the Viet Cong during the war.

Some of the stories in the book are about Hathcock’s early time in the Marine Corps, including his shooting career before Vietnam. Henderson also tells what Hathcock’s devotion to Marine competitive shooting eventually cost him. Because of burns suffered when a command detonated mine blew up an amtrac he was riding on, Hathcock’s skin would crack and bleed when he wore tight shooting jackets. His sweatshirt would be covered with blood when he left the line. White cotton gloves he wore to pull targets would be stained red when he was done with his stint in the pits. Hathcock finally had to stop shooting matches, but continued as a rifle team coach. He had to leave the Corps in 1979 after 19 years and 10 months of active service due to the worsening of his multiple sclerosis.

Henderson met Hathcock after the sniper retired. Hathcock had been suspicious of journalists since a story about him appeared in Sea Tiger, a publication of III Marine Amphibious Force, Vietnam. That piece was the first real publicity about US snipers in Vietnam and led to the VC putting a bounty on his head. However, Henderson was also a career Marine. Hathcock and he became friends and Henderson was able to write Marine Sniper and Silent Warrior.

Hathcock took up shark fishing after a two-year depression over leaving the Corps, and found that life had new interest. One of the shark stories in Silent Warrior is of Hathcock, Henderson, and several other Marines, fishing in a gale with 15 foot seas. Hathcock caught and released a blue shark, estimated to weigh over 300 pounds, on that trip.

Charles Henderson spent more than 23 years in the Marine Corps, retiring as a Chief Warrant Officer after the Gulf War. He has written for a variety of publications and also runs cattle in Peyton, Colorado.

Silent Warrior is available from the Military Book Club and from some chain bookstores.

AK-47 and Kalashnikov Variation
by Masami Tokoi, 1993
ISBN 4-499-20582-4
Softcover
$54.50
Published by:
Dai-Nippon Kaiga Co., Ltd.,
Tokyo, Japan
Available from:
Kinokuniya Bookstores
1581 Webster St.
San Francisco, CA 94115
(415) 567-7625
e-mail: san_francisco@kinokuniya.com
Reviewed by H. Kim

Infamous worldwide for having perhaps the world’s most repressive gun control laws, Japan is paradoxically the source of some of the most remarkable gun books ever published, which feed a strong domestic cult interest in firearms. These books, rarely seen outside of Japan, are virtual firearms museums, lavishly illustrated with full color photos taken with a level of care usually reserved for antiques and artworks. Two such books reviewed here devote encyclopedic coverage to the two most ubiquitous small arms in the world today: the Avtomat Kalashnikov and the M-16. It is clearly evident from the outstanding quality of these books that extinguishing a people’s ability to legally own guns will still never extinguish their fascination with them.

We will begin with the AK47 and Kalashnikov Variation. This book is a photo encyclopedia of the world’s Kalashnikov models, listed alphabetically by nation of origin. Each model is shown in large full color side views, complemented with close up views of the unique model features and markings. Being built by more nations and in greater numbers than any other military rifle in history, AK-47 and Kalashnikov Variation truly exposes us to this fascinating subject in greater detail than any previous work.

Coverage begins with the Soviet AK models, starting with the earliest production AK-47 with a stamped receiver. Kalashnikov’s basic assault rifle action has proven to be one of the most versatile ever designed, being adapted for use as a light machine gun, SAW, sniper rifle, and SMG, all of which are covered in the book as the PK, RPK, SVD, and AKSU respectively. A rarely seen transition model to the AKSU, called simply the AKMS carbine, is also included, with closeups displaying unique vestigal vertical foregrip and large radially finned muzzle booster.

This book’s coverage of national AK variants is commendable, as both the straight clones like those of Red China, and the more evolved models like the Valmet, Galil, and Czech Vz-58 receive equal emphasis. Norinco and Valmet collectors will appreciate the attention given to the semi-auto sporters sold in the mid-80s, including the Type 56S-2 sidefolder and M-82 bullpup. One will certainly weep at the superb Finnish Sako M-90 with its FAL style sidefolding stock, forever barred from US import by its debut after the Bush import ban of 1989. Some truly bizarre AK variants exist possibly for the user’s (or victim’s?) comic relief, such as the Polish riot control WG-GS-4 net throwing gun, and bumper-chromed AKMS sold to the bodyguards of the Iranian Ayatollahs. The numerous close-ups of unique model features and markings will help in readily identifying any AK one may encounter, or more often to identify the bewildering variety of AK parts found at gun shows.

An entire section of this comprehensive book is devoted to accessories such as bayonets, grenade launchers, night vision sights, and silencers. As a bonus, the Soviet AK-47 manual is reprinted in its entirety, though unfortunately still in Russian.

Text and photo captions are in Japanese, which surprisingly is no obstacle to enjoying this book, as the abundance and quality of photos easily tell the complete story of the AK. Fortunately all model names and nations of origin are listed in English, which will sufficiently guide one through the pictures. An English translation supplement published by one previous importer (though not the current one) can be occasionally found at gun shows.

M-16 and Stoner’s Rifle
by Masami Tokoi, 1991
ISBN 4-499-20567-0
Softcover
$54.50
Published by:
Dai-Nippon Kaiga Co., Ltd.,
Tokyo, Japan
Available from:
Kinokuniya Bookstores
1581 Webster St.
San Francisco, CA 94115
(415) 567-7625
e-mail: san_francisco@kinokuniya.com
Reviewed by H. Kim

This companion volume to the AK-47 and Kalashnikov Variation covers the prolific M-16 and Stoner weapons family in a work of equal superiority. The enormous range of famed firearms designer Eugene Stoner’s designs, in their many incarnations as assault rifles, carbines, HBARs, belt feds, and SMGs, is showcased in large high quality full color photographs. The M-16 series is just a part of Stoner’s creative fountain, which has greatly enriched the world of small arms development.

From the first Armalite AR-15 prototype to the M-4 Carbine, this book shows all of the numerous M-16 variants in between such as the CAR-15 SMG, belt fed HBAR, 9 mm SMG, and even the Colt Sporter models. Developmental efforts like the gas piston M-16, and the ACR trials rifle are also included. One of these models, the prototype CAR-15 SMG, with its cut down M-16 handguard and stock, could even pass as the derisively fabled Matell toy. Some M-16 inspired designs emerged from Asia in which the troublesome direct gas system was replaced with a conventional piston. These models, the Korean Daewoo K-2 and Taiwanese T-65, receive coverage together with an outright M-16 clone from Communist China, the CQ-311. Though the superb pictures of this book tell the M-16 story better than thousands of words in a regular English language book, one fascinating picture remains unexplained by lack of text: an underbarrel flamethrower attachment in use by a Special Forces soldier.

Extensive coverage of Stoner’s other weapons, the AR-10, Stoner 63, and AR-18 truly set this book in a class of its own. Shown together with the commonly pictured Sudanese and Portugese AR-10 models are prototypes found in no other book: the AR-101 semiauto sporter (fully postban configured back in 1960!), 7.62×39 Finnish trials model using AK mags, and shorty carbine (though not named CAR-10). Stoner 63s appear in their full range of configurations with some nice detail views of the belt feed. The AR-16, large caliber ancestor of the AR-18, and even the AR-18 shorty model make their appearances as well.

Like its companion volume on the AK, a section on night vision sights and scopes is included in this book, and to close in a humorous note, the Vietnam-era M-16A-1 operating manual “comic book” is reprinted in its entirety.

M-16 and Stoner’s Rifle is simply the most comprehensive work on the Stoner weapons family yet published. One can only hope the publisher Dai-Nippon Kaiga continues this series with further volumes on the FAL and HK family.

Reviewer’s Note: When ordering from the cited source, ask for Suzuki. Be sure to specify the ISBN number as this is a special order item only.

It should surprise no one who is in any way attuned to the complex relationships of men and their machines that heated controversy remains even today between proponents of the M14 and those of the M16. Both rifles, and the very different cartridges they fire, have admirable characteristics and unfortunate flaws. Both were well suited for the terrain, conditions, tactics and troops they were originally intended for. Neither was the perfect rifle, but which was “Numba One” in Vietnam?

The M14

During the “Cold War” which followed the stalemate in Korea, America stepped up its search for a suitably modernized shoulder weapon to replace the venerable but obsolescent M1. Ideally, the resulting rifle was supposed to be agreed upon and adopted by all sixteen nations forming the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that sought to prevent the Soviet Union and its allies from further spreading Godless Communism.

For all sorts of reasons that have filled innumerable books and fascinated students of military history and armament, that didn’t happen. A dozen years after the end of WWII, during which most of the rest of NATO had happily chosen the Belgian FAL, America’s soldiers and marines got the home-grown M14, a product of Springfield Armory (the government arsenal, not the current commercial firm). This, after a bait-and-switch trick where our allies had grudgingly adopted the US 7.62 x 51mm T65E3 cartridge, essentially a shortened – thus less powerful – version of the combat classic US .30-06 (7.62 x 63mm) round.

For all intents and purposes, the new M14 was a product-improved M1 rifle characterized by lighter weight, better balance, increased on-board ammunition supply, and selective-fire capability. The rifle also boasted greater controllability and accuracy in semiauto fire than its predecessor; largely due to the reduced recoil of its new cartridge at no significant penalty in range and knockdown power.

Sturdily built using traditional manufacturing methods with machined steel and hardwood, the manly-looking M14 was plenty tough for grenade launching, bayonet fighting and standing up to the routine abuse that soldiers inflict even in peacetime. All in all, it was an effective, serviceable rifle for the kind of warfare that would likely ensue if the Soviet Union and its allies decided to steamroll westward.

Full Auto Follies

Unfortunately, the “Fourteen” was relatively expensive, a bit tricky to manufacture, and had a few problems in the reliability area despite such refinements as a roller cam on the right bolt locking lug and hard-chromed bore. However, this wasn’t nearly as much to be concerned with as the rifle’s near-uncontrollability in full auto fire; arguably the M14’s only significant new feature vs. the old M1. (Magazine capacity notwithstanding).

The Army’s best attempts at curing the problem included addition of a heavy barrel, sturdy folding bipod, sophisticated muzzle brake, and yes, even a nicely sculpted new wooden stock with pistol grips fore and aft. Alas, the resulting M14E2 (later designated M14A1) squad automatic rifle version remained clearly inferior to the BAR, a genuine embarrassment.

Both the standard M14 and the tricked-up A1 models were in general issue throughout the Army and Marine Corps when the first American ground combat units of both services were sent to Vietnam in 1965. Not to worry, though, as early combat reports rated the hard-hitting, long-ranging Fourteen as acceptably effective and reliable. So far, so good, but it wasn’t long before soldiers and marines were ordered to exchange their big .30 caliber rifles for little .22’s.

SALVO, SPIW, ARPA and AR-15

The story is far too big, juicy and convoluted to recount here, but the whole time the Army was struggling to field and then fix the M14, it was spending obscene amounts of money somewhere way out in left field. Projects known by the evocative acronyms SALVO and SPIW, were decades-long experimentation with all sorts of radical, high-tech rifles and ammo with an eye toward significantly improving the combat effectiveness of its Nuclear Age infantrymen. Didn’t work.

What did work – at least well enough at the time – was handed to the Army on a silver platter by the upstart firm of ArmaLite in partnership with time-honored Colt’s Patent Firearms Company. Making a very long story short, an innovative NATO standard caliber rifle, designed by the gifted Eugene Stoner, had been scaled down at Colt to very effectively shoot a high-velocity varmint cartridge that had become wildly popular with sportsmen and hunters. Stamped on the side of the magazine well of receivers on the first limited production run of the new 5.56 x 45 mm rifles was the designation “ARMALITE AR15, Cal. .223, Model 01.”

Tests in Saigon and stateside by the Army’s own Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in 1961-62, showed the AR-15 to be outstanding in virtually every comparison to existing US shoulder weapons. In particular, “its semi-automatic firing accuracy is comparable to that of the M1 rifle, while its automatic firing accuracy is considered superior to that of the Browning Automatic Rifle.” Strong stuff.

At about this same time the M14 rifle production and fielding program collapsed from a multitude of problems and the Ordnance establishment could no longer hold back the rising tide of support for the AR-15. The Army reluctantly placed an order for some 85,000 Colt rifles, now officially designated M16, with first deliveries scheduled for early 1964. A modified version designated M16E1, featuring a spring plunger to force the bolt closed if needed, quickly followed.

The first units equipped from this and subsequent orders included USAF security police, Army Special Forces and Airborne, Navy Special Operations, and MAAG advisers in Vietnam. Conspicuously absent from this list are the ARVN who had served so conveniently as the reason for considering the AR-15 in the first place.

Dirty Secrets

As fighting in Vietnam heated up in scale and intensity with arrival of more and more American units freshly armed with M16 rifles and mounting aggressive operations against the omnipresent Viet Cong, things began to go terribly wrong. Sporadic reports early on of serious stoppages and gross malfunctions of the M16 rifle began flooding in by the end of ’65. The most common stoppage was failure to extract fired cartridge cases, typically caused by a heavily carbonized and rust-pitted chamber. News reporters picked up the alarm and soon the American public became justifiably outraged over stories of GIs dying face down in the mud because of hopelessly jammed rifles.

Subsequent investigation showed combat failures of the M16E1 were partially the fault of inevitable “bugs” in the design of specific parts, sloppy manufacture, inadequate inspection, hasty fielding without adequate training, and the astonishing lack of specialized cleaning equipment needed for field maintenance! But the single most damning factor in the M16’s sorry combat performance at the time was bad ammo; the result of an unholy alliance of cost-cutting and corner-cutting.

Sadly, not only was the ammo left essentially as it was, but it took many months before sufficient numbers of adequate cleaning tools reached the front line troops. No excuse in the world justifies this outrage that borders on criminal negligence.

Product Improvements

Making the best of a bad situation, Colt’s engineers came up with a number of changes, two of which were most significant; an improved buffer, and hard-chroming the chamber. The first helped to solve problems of parts wear and breakage due to excessive full auto cyclic rate, and the second drastically reduced instances of corroded chambers leading to extraction failures. These modifications, along with regular and thorough cleaning gave newly fielded M16A1’s a quantum leap in reliability and things got decidedly better after 1967.

But, by this time nearly irreparable damage had been done to the reputation of the M16 both among combat troops in Vietnam and the American public. In contrast, the enemy’s AK-47/PRC Type 56 assault rifle had grown in folklore into what many considered the world’s most reliable, accurate and deadly shoulder weapon. Certainly not the most accurate, but that was the reputation it was gaining.

Back from the Dead

On the other hand, for those who properly employed the Sixteen, cleaning it often and lubricating it correctly, the “Black Rifle” proved more than a match for Kalashnikov’s AK. Its 5.56mm 55 grain bullet shot fast and flat, tumbling on entry to cause catastrophic wounds and shock-induced death. Its semiauto accuracy and full auto controllability were decidedly superior to that of the AK. It was nearly 3 lbs. lighter, and considerably more ammo could be carried for the same overall weight.

For many veterans and other RKI’s, there is little doubt that the compact, light, and fast-firing M16 was and is a better weapon for jungle combat than the longer, heavier, and barely controllable in full auto M14. Although its 5.56mm cartridge is certainly not nearly as capable of heavy brush penetration as the big and comparatively slow US 7.62 x 54 mm and the Soviet/VC/NVA 7.62 x 39 mm, it produces far less recoil — a critical factor in full auto accuracy — and its wounding/killing potential is in some ways superior to both rivals.

Standard A

The “experimental” designation was dropped on 26 May 1967 when Colt’s XM16E1 became the “US Rifle, 5.56mm, M16A1,” officially replacing the big M14 as “Standard A” throughout the Army. By the end of 1967 enough rifles had made it to Vietnam to arm all of the Army and Marine Corps’ ground combat units. Finally, by December 1968, 600,000 additional M16’s had been delivered into the hands of our Vietnamese partners.

This soon began to have a noticeable effect on the battlefield. In particular, intelligence analysis after the 1968 Tet Offensive showed the NVA to be particularly shaken by the effective firepower of both US and ARVN units now fully equipped with M16’s. Captured M16’s became coveted items for the VC, who called it the “Black Rifle.” Then, it was no cause for amusement among some US troops who had earlier disparaged the Sixteen as inferior to the enemy AK, to now be on the receiving end of 5.56mm fire.

M14 Rifle Technical Specifications

Caliber: 7.62 x 51 mm NATO Standard (.30 caliber)
Weight: 10.1 lbs. loaded
Overall length: 44.3 in.
Feed: 20 round detachable box magazine
Operation: Gas piston
Cyclic rate: 750 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 2800 fps
Maximum range: 3725 meters
Effective range: 460 meters

M16A1 Rifle Technical Specifications

Caliber: 5.56 x 45mm (.223 caliber)
Weight: 7.6 lbs. loaded
Overall length: 39 in.
Feed: 20 round detachable box magazine
Operation: Direct gas
Cyclic rate: 750 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 3250 fps
Maximum range: 2653 meters
Effective range: 460 meters
Primary Reference Sources

U.S. Rifle M14, Collector Grade Pubs. 1988
The Black Rifle: M16 Retrospective, Collector Grade Pubs., 1987
Personal Firepower (Illustrated History of Vietnam War Series), Bantam Books, 1988

Lead Photo: The remains of a chopper mounted Mini-Gun.

Imagine entering a military museum and being greeted by a statement like this: “Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to the future generations to explain why.” Robert S. McNamara.

Thus began the welcome to Vietnam’s War Remnants Museum. “Remnants” of war much different from the “remnants”, what remains, what is left over, which we are used to contemplating. Yet, that is the purpose for which this museum in Communist Vietnam was established, to contain what remains, to keep anti-American memories alive, to justify the actions of North Vietnam during the war and to support the Communist government of Vietnam.

SAR visited Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), Cu Chi and the Mekong. The evidence is clear; Vietnam is looking to the future. Since its Communist government’s amazing move in 1985 to convert this country’s economy to a free market economy, Vietnam is accelerating into the 21st century. A middle class is developing from its citizens’ unprecedented post-war economic opportunities. Yet, although the government’s focus is on building future international relations and a strong internal economy, memories of the war are preserved, manipulated and promoted.

Thoi Som Island on the Mekong River, once a heavily bombed Vietcong stronghold, is now a resort known for its tropical fruit. The unconquerable tunnels of Cu Chi are now accessible to the public, complete with booby trap displays, a souvenir shop and a Vietnam-era weapons live fire shooting range. But the most graphic display of a one-sided preservation of the Vietnam War encountered by this writer was the War Remnants Museum.

The museum grounds included equipment displays featuring examples of some of America’s more exotic bombs, a 15,000 pound “seismic bomb” claimed to be effective over a 3 kilometer area and a CBU-55B designed to “destroy all the oxygen within a radius of 500 meters”. U.S. light and heavy artillery were on display as well as attack-equipped T-33 and F-5 jet aircraft. Nearby, a UH1 Huey sported a somewhat cannibalized Minigun.

The Communist counterbalance to all of this sophisticated weaponry is a twelve foot tall portable guillotine. This is the very guillotine the Communists carted from province to province, from hamlet to hamlet, executing citizens who had shown a partiality towards the South Vietnamese or the Americans. The contradiction in technology was profound.

The Communist government’s intent of this museum is to demonstrate the brutality and senselessness of U.S. actions. Statistics were given comparing the number of tons of bombs dropped over Vietnam by the U.S., versus our similar contribution to World War II. The statistics included the number of schools, hospitals and religious buildings destroyed in North Vietnam and the comparison of the nearly 3 million Vietnamese casualties to the 58,000 American casualties.

The War Remnants Museum bore a close similarity to the many holocaust museums existing in America today. The Jewish statement “Never Again” is not unlike the Vietnamese equivalent: “In retrospect, it is not for inciting hatred, just for learning lessons from history: human beings will not tolerate such a disaster happening again, neither in Vietnam nor anywhere on our planet”.

Interior displays included poster-sized photographs of American soldiers involved in the destruction of Vietnam and its citizenry. Many of the photographs are horrendously graphic. That is the purpose of this museum: to show “America’s war abuse”. Expectedly, the other side of the coin is conspicuously absent: the equally disgusting Communist atrocities. What this museum is unintentionally displaying is Communist Vietnam’s inability to be self-critical. America’s Democracy creates a safe environment to present and debate mistakes we may have committed. But Communism has no such mirror to reflect its shames along with its pride. Vietnam’s War Remnants Museum is an unmistakable demonstration of its national shortcoming.

Today, sixty percent of Vietnam’s population is younger than twenty-five years of age! Sixty percent of the country’s population does not have personal experience in the war. Possibly for this demographic reason, the War Remnants Museum is oriented towards retaining the memory of the war and American violence against the Vietnamese. Exhibits are in both Vietnamese and English. Yet, coincidentally, during this writer’s visit to the Museum, the majority of the visitors were non-Vietnamese, primarily American and a few Europeans. Some of the Americans had a hard time digesting the graphic illustrations of the war. One photo depicted a body being thrown from a Huey a thousand feet above the ground with the caption “Refusing to answer interrogations, a man is being thrown from a flying helicopter”. A visitor’s comment this author overheard was “That’s a bald-faced distortion”. Yet the photograph was claimed to have been taken from a specific issue of Life Magazine, a fact easily documented. I saw no need to document it, having heard duplicate stories directly from Americans on the scene when such events took place. Ironically, most of the photographs appeared to have been taken by U.S. GIs or newsmen.

It is difficult for the majority of us, living a life secure and distant from the reality of human conflict, to understand the distortions of “sanity” such conflicts create. Criticism is easy, but by “walking in their shoes,” would we have acted differently?

The photo gallery was strictly a one-sided representation of the atrocities of war, showing nothing of the butchery which took place at the hands of the North Vietnamese and Vietcong. Thus, it is doubtful the sixty percent of the country’s population with no war experience, will ever see similar examples of the atrocities committed by their countrymen. They may never learn that their government’s intent is to indoctrinate them in the one-sided picture of atrocities inflicted upon their nation by the invading Americans. This may be an example of their government’s struggling attempt to counterbalance the peaceful evolution taking place in Vietnam today. Vietnam’s Communist government has much to fear, for this is an evolution from Communism to free enterprise, economic independence and eventually Democracy.

The peaceful evolution of Vietnam will take place, in part from the growing interest in establishing English as a second language. Surprisingly, one of the most popular prime time television shows is not Baywatch, the world-wide hit elsewhere on this planet, it is an English lesson!

The small arms exhibits were somewhat less propagandized, giving a good representation of the weaponry used on both sides of the war. On display were many fine small arms, including a variety of Colt M-16s, M-14s in several configurations and an interesting selection of .45 Thompsons and 9mm subguns used by our soldiers.

Grenade launchers were well represented, along with gas guns, all considered equal in this museum display. Several of the belt-fed grenade launchers appeared to be early prototypes of contemporary weaponry. But this author’s favorite was the display of miniguns and the unique feed system attached to one of the examples.

Next to the recoilless rifle in the center of the display was a single shot weapon bearing no similarity to anything with which this author is familiar. Photos are enclosed, hoping readers can identify this weapon.

Don’t worry, these small arms will be around for years, well protected from the intense monsoon humidity in Vietnam. The number of coats of varnish applied to these firearms will preserve them for posterity; hopefully, for Class 3 collectors once America’s laws are amended to again allow such imports for dedicated collectors of war history.

Propaganda was not absent in the small arms displays, though it was almost comical to a Reasonably Knowledgeable Individual (RKI). Colt and Smith and Wesson 357 Magnum revolvers were classified as “excessive”. 1918 A-2 Browning automatic rifles were referred to with disgust of their potential for overkill. Yet, displayed alongside them was the world’s foremost assault rifle, the Kalashnikov AK-47 and its Chinese counterparts, as well as the lethal belt-fed and highly mobile RPD. Conspicuously absent were examples of the feared booby traps which impaled too many American soldiers.

Possibly the envy of the display were the 4 miniguns. Yes, 4 complete miniguns, causing this author to ponder opportunities for post-86 imports!

The War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City is communist Vietnam’s one-sided representation of the atrocities of the war. Yet, who could expect otherwise. A visit to this museum is a valuable experience. Not only are the small arms and heavy equipment displays of interest and sometimes unique, but the visit reminds us of the pain and misery, of the profound sacrifice the war in Vietnam exacted from everyone involved, directly and indirectly.

The easy road is the road of blame, undoubtedly present in the minds of some of the readers of this article. It is much easier to cast blame and remain entrenched in the past, not unlike those members of our nation who are still refighting the Civil War. The much more difficult approach is that taken by many Americans and many Vietnamese. Theirs is the choice to look forward, a courageous choice in view of the suffering inflicted on all participants of battle. As one Vietnamese government official told me, “We have chosen to look forward to a new relationship between Vietnam and America”.

May we all choose to change our angle of view from looking back at the past, as former enemies, to a view of the future with a new cooperation and partnership between the United States of America and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

This article appeared in part in SAR Volume 1 Number 1, but it is so poignant to the subject, that we decided to present it again, updated and revised, in our Small Arms of Vietnam issue- Dan

On March 30, 1964, Cadillac Gage received order SS-22 for 60 rifles and 20 complete systems from ARPA, The large order was for weapons to be tested by the US Marine Corps. The Marines had been suitably impressed with the Stoner system and ARPA had agreed with their request to field test the new weapon.

Marine enthusiasm for the Stoner was well received and they took in some of the earliest weapons made. Stoner 63’s, serial numbers 00004 and 00005 are still maintained in the Marine Corps Museum’s small arms collection. Springfield Armory also ordered two fixed Stoner 63s during the Spring of 1964 for test purposes.

In May the Aberdeen Proving Grounds report on the Stoner was made to the Army. In July, the Office of the Chief of Research and Development made his report on the Stoner to ARPA. Neither of these reports listed the weapon in glowing terms. This situation is hardly surprising given that the Army had just recently been forced to accept a number of AR-15 rifles.

The leadership at Cadillac Gage still thought the future of the Stoner 63 looked promising. The manufacture of the weapon centered around sheet metal stamping, forming, and precision welding. The California Cadillac Gage facilities were inadequate to the task of mass producing the new weapon but the company also had a manufacturing facility in Detroit where the mechanical support for such manufacture was easily available. Detroit was the center of the automobile industry and the precision forming and welding of sheet metal was a common practice for such manufacture.

In September, 1964, after some 234 Stoner 63s had been produced and serial numbered, Cadillac Gage moved the production of the weapon to their facilities in Michigan. The Arms Development and Engineering staff, Eugene Stoner among them, moved to the newly set up Weapons Manufacturing Facilities in Roseville, Michigan, just north of Detroit. At this time, the wooden stocks and pistol grips on the Stoner 63 were changed. Grips and stocks were now made of polycarbonate plastic, though the forestock for the machine gun configuration remained black-painted wood.

General Wallace Green, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, had been impressed with the idea of the Stoner family of weapons. This may have come about in no small part due to Cadillac Gage hiring a newly retired Marine Colonel who, during the end part of his military career, spoke to General Green convincingly on the advantages such a system offered to the Corps. Colt at the time, was offering what they called a family of weapons based on the AR-15. But the Colt weapon system, the CAR-15, was made up of specific firearms which could not be interchanged easily. This did not meet some of the advantages of the Stoner 63.

The situation did start to look very good for the future of the Stoner 63 system in 1965. On 23 April 1965, the Army Weapons Command put in an order for 861 Stoner weapons in various configurations for testing as part of the new Small-Arms Weapons Systems (SAWS) program. Within just a few days of this purchase order being issued, the Marine Corps Landing Force Development center (MCLFDC) test report was delivered to Marine Corps Headquarters.

The MCLFDC report recommended the Stoner 63 for further, more advanced, field testing. This report helped fuel the enthusiasm for the Stoner 63 among the Corps Command and Marine Corps Commandant General Wallace Greene in particular. This situation was not well received by the Army Weapons Command who strongly disliked the new AR-15 rifle over the M14 rifle. For the Army, it was now looking like the Marine Corps was going to push for another, completely different, .223 caliber weapon that also could compete with the still new M60 machine gun.

On 20 December, 1965, the Marine Corps put in an order for 1,080 Stoner rifles as well as the parts necessary to assemble other configurations of the weapon. Extensive testing of the Stoner system by the Marine Corps did indicate some weaknesses in the system that needed correction. In the first several months of 1966, these weaknesses were identified and brought to the attention of Cadillac Gage.

While the modification problem was being addressed, the Marine Corps continued their testing of the Stoner 63 system. results from the field were varied, but in general, the weapon system was well liked by many of the men employed in testing it. Substantial tactical and logistical advantages were found in using the system by the evaluation groups. Testers included one rifle company, a platoon of the division reconnaissance battalion, and a platoon of the force reconnaissance company.

An almost immediate change to the fielding of the Stoner weapons system during evaluations was the dropping of the automatic rifle configuration. It was found that the automatic rifle was the least dependable of all of the Stoner 63 configurations. This was due to the top-loading magazine feed used in the automatic rifle. It was found during Marine testing that every time the automatic rifle was loaded, any sand, dirt, or foreign material in the magazine was poured directly into the receiver. With the open bolt of the automatic rifle configuration, this material jammed the action causing an unacceptable number of stoppages.

The remainder of the Stoner 63 weapons system was evaluated by the Marine Corps during March, April, and May, 1967. A comparison testing of the new M16E1 was conducted by the same test groups during June and July of that same year. Test results were tabulated and the report made at the end of August that same year.

Testing showed the Stoner rifle had the advantages of weight, accuracy, improved ammunition, and compatibility with other weapons (the balance of the 63 system), when compared to the standard M14 rifle. The Stoner rifle was found to have a lower reliability than the M14, but this problem was considered correctable with modifications. The difference in reliability between the Stoner 63 and the M14 was not considered significant when considering the overall advantages of the entire system. When compared to the M16E1, the Stoner 63 Rifle was found to be more accurate, more reliable, and had a family of weapons that it was compatible with.

The Stoner light and medium machine gun configurations also received high recommendations by the majority of Marine testers. The Stoner light machine gun was considered a suitable replacement for the automatic rifle configuration in the Marine rifle squad. The LMG and MMG were found to be highly reliable when compared to any other machine gun in the Marine testing environment.

The Marine testing was extensive. Boot Camp trainees were issued with the Stoner and completed their training cycle with it, in the process scoring higher during weapons qualifications than any comparable Marine unit. Stoners were taken into limited combat in Vietnam, where the design was proven to be accurate and reliable in the jungle environment.

The results of the first major Marine Corps evaluation of the Stoner 63 weapons system were very positive. In the words of the evaluation committee;

3. The basic conclusions of the evaluation are that the Stoner family of weapons provides substantial tactical and logistics advantages. There are some relatively minor modifications required prior to acceptance but none of these appears to create any problem. The system received a high degree of acceptance from personnel involved.

4. The Stoner Weapons System is strongly recommended for adoption.

Some of the difficulties with the Stoner 63 had been addressed by Cadillac Gage prior to the evaluations being run by the Marine Corps. The order for evaluation weapons put forward by the Marine Corps in December 1965, had been filled with the available Stoner 63s. The redesign of the Stoner 63 to the Stoner Model 63A was completed in March 1966. Changes from the Stoner 63 to the 63A configuration include;

a. Larger gas port opening b. Chromium plated chamber c. Stronger and better fitting dust covers d. A relieved breech block cam pin e. A gas nitrided bore f. Separate safety in front of trigger guard g. Feed tray machined casting instead of stamped metal h. Three position gas port valve i. Redesigned stock and forearm of polycarbonate material j. Three piece cleaning rod fitted inside of forearm k. ENDURION metal finish on all exposed surfaces l. Bipod locks onto weapon or locks open for stowage m. Right side belt feed mechanism available, exchanges w/left side feed n. Over-the-shoulder assault sling available o. Upper sling swivel attached to front of barrel handle

The removable trigger guard of the Stoner 63, intended for using the weapon when wearing gloves or mittens and easily lost during testing, was replaced with a permanently attached trigger guard. The size of the plastic ammunition box that could be hung onto the side of the light machine gun was reduced from 150 round to 100 rounds. It was found that the larger box was easily struck by the users leg when patrolling and could be knocked off the weapon.

Other changes to the system included replacing the folding stock of the carbine with a wire folding stock that had considerably fewer parts. The cocking handle of the Stoner 63 was the same for all of the weapons in the system. A perforated length of handle with an outward curved end extended along the side of the handguard, right over the gas tube. On the rifle/carbine versions of the Stoner 63, this handle was on the upper left side of the weapon, above the forestock. On the machine gun versions, the cocking handle was at the lower right side of the weapon, just behind the forestock.

For the rifle and carbine versions of the Stoner 63A, the cocking handle had been completely changed from the original. A small lug had been welded onto the operating rod, several inches behind the piston head. The new cocking handle was located on top of the receiver, over the barrel and handguard, where it could be reached by the operator with either hand easily. The new cocking lever rode along a slot cut into the receiver, just below the gas tube, and engaged the lug welded onto the operating rod. A plunger in the center of the operating handle could be pushed down by the operator and used to push the bolt forward to assist it to close.

For the machine gun versions of the Stoner 63A, the cocking lever engaged the new lug on the bottom of the operating rod, but was otherwise in the same place as in the earlier system. The machine gun cocking rod had been made longer so that it could be more easily reached.

The feed cover of the machine gun had been improved in both strength, manufacture, and function. The cap carrier had been redesigned to include a spring plunger mechanism. In the Stoner 63A, the feed cover could be closed with the bolt in any position while in the Stoner 63 the feed cover could only be closed with the bolt in the cocked position to insure no damage to the weapon.

Another change to the feed system of the Stoner 63A was the development of a drum carrier for the ammunition belt. The final drum design would hold a 150 round ammunition belt securely to the bottom of the weapon and feed the belt in smoothly while firing. The drum was made of spun aluminum to keep weight to a minimum and was securely attached to the receiver of the 63A.

To help keep the system from being jammed by excess dirt, spring loaded covers were placed over both the ejection port of the receiver and the link ejection port on the feed cover. The ejection port cover on the receiver would spring open and remain that way as soon as the bolt carrier moved. The cover over the link ejection port only opened when a link was being ejected and otherwise remained closed.

The gas tube of the 63A was made from 17-4 PH stainless steel to minimize corrosion and giving the new tube a silver outside finish. The inside of the gas tube of the 63A was remachined to prevent carbon build up from jamming the gas piston. This allowed the 63A to fire for longer periods of time between cleanings of the gas system. From roughly serial number 2,000, all Stoners produced by Cadillac Gage were built as 63A’s. No changes were incorporated in the markings Cadillac Gage stamped into the receivers of their Stoners and all weapons remained marked “Stoner 63”.

The large number of improvements in the Stoner 63A system made the weapon of even greater interest to the Marine Corps. On 3 October, 1966, Cadillac Gage received an order from the Marine Corps to modify 286 weapons to the new 63A configuration. The new weapons were scheduled for extensive testing under combat conditions in Vietnam. This combat test series was to be completed by May 31, 1967.

On March 3, 1967, a further order was received from the Marine Corps, this one for an additional 8 weapons to be converted to the 63A model. These additional weapons were intended for further testing under controlled conditions to confirm the field trial results. The tests did confirm what had been determined by most of the Marine users. The Stoner 63A was considered suitable for Marine Corps use without further testing.

Cadillac Gage received a further order from the Marine Corps on 19 April, 1967, for ammunition linking systems and spare parts for the overseas support of the 286 63A systems in Marine Corps hands. But shortly after this order was received, the Army Weapons Command declared the Stoner 63 and 63A to not be acceptable for issue at the time.

Without much fanfare, all of the Stoners in Marine hands were to be turned in. The Army was still interested in the Stoner 63A as a light machine gun, but only as a low-priority project. Army tests of the Stoner to approve the system for procurement were considered extremely biased. But for whatever reason, the question of the Stoner in Marine hands was over by the middle of 1967.

Lead Photo: A squad of South Vietnamese troops patrol armed with a number of U.S. manufactured WWII weapons, including a BAR and M1 carbines. The soldier at the center of the photograph is carrying a 1919A4 machine gun on his shoulder.

While the U.S. 7.62 M60 General Purpose Machine Gun was the most prevalent weapon of its type used during the Vietnam War, it fought alongside a seasoned veteran. The old soldier sharing the machine gun role was the venerable Browning 1919A4 and 1919A6. Early in the war both the 30’06 caliber 1919A4 and 1919A6 machine guns were used by U.S. troops, but as more M60s became available the old workhorse 1919’s were turned over to the South Vietnamese Government. Vietnam was the fourth major U.S. conflict that the old Browning design served in. Ironically enough the M60 GPMG shared many traits of the Browning’s old adversary in WWII, the German MG42 machine gun.

The Browning 1919A4 and 1919A6 machine guns both had their origins in WWI. When the United States entered the First World War on April 6, 1917 the U.S. Army had approximately 1,100 various Maxims, Benet Mercies, and Model ’95 Colt machine guns in its inventory. For a country that was entering a major war being fought with machine guns, the United States’ situation was critical. The same shortage was also faced in virtually all other areas of equipment and weapons.

John Browning first demonstrated his latest water-cooled machine gun in February of 1917. The demonstration was witnessed by many senators, congressman and high-ranking military officers, as well as representatives from many friendly foreign armies. In the months following the demonstration, Mr. Browning continued working to improve his machine gun. In May of 1917 his weapon was again tested at the government proving ground located at the Springfield Armory. Its performance in the test was nothing short of amazing. At a cyclic rate of over six hundred rounds per minute, 40,000 rounds were fired without a malfunction. The results of this test attracted interest as well skepticism. To quell any doubts of the gun’s worth, another test was scheduled for the weapon. In the second test, the gun was fired by Mr. Browning for 48 minutes straight with no malfunctions or stoppages. Duly impressed, the board of five U.S. Army officers who witnessed the testing recommended the weapon for immediate adoption. Unfortunately few of the Browning machine guns made it to Europe before the war ended.

At the conclusion of World War One in 1918, the United States Army had approximately 140,000 machine guns in its inventory. The conservative U.S. Army of the day felt no need for additional weapons. In the years following the war, the various machine guns like the Lewis, Vickers, Marlin and others were one by one declared obsolete. The U.S. Army did however kept the weapons in storage in the event of emergency. By the 1930’s only the Browning model remained as the United States’ standard machine gun.

The Ordnance department was pleased with the model 1917 machine gun, but realized that they needed a more compact machine gun for its fledgling tank corps. The liquid cooled Browning 1917 was simply too large and cumbersome for the job. Browning went to work to design an air-cooled version, the result was the Caliber .30, Tank Machine Gun Model of 1919. The Army also desired an air-cooled variation as a “Light Machine Gun” for infantry and cavalry units. Several modifications to the 1919 “Tank” gun were made eventually resulting in the Model of 1919A4 “Light” Machine Gun. Prior to WWII, the air-cooled .30 caliber Browning machine gun had only existed in blueprints and in a few hand built models at the Rock Island Arsenal.

During WWII, the Browning 1919A4 was considered the “light” machine gun of the United States Army. Its official nomenclature was the Machine Gun, caliber .30, H.B. M1919A4 (H.B. for heavy barrel). The weapon was air cooled, recoil operated and belt-fed. The receiver of the 1919A4 for all practical purposes was the same as the earlier “Heavy” Browning Machine Gun, the water cooled 1917 series.

The 1919A4 machine gun was utilized as a direct fire weapon, designed to deliver automatic fire at close and mid-ranges. Because it was considered a support weapon it was to be kept well forward so that the crew could see both their targets and the location of their own front lines. The flat trajectory of the light machine gun was highly destructive against unsheltered enemy troops, and when well directed, could inflict heavy casualties. When used against a well dug-in enemy the weapon had little effect except to neutralize their fire and pin them down.

Principle of Operation

In a recoil operation weapon, the rearward force of the expanding powder gases is utilized to mechanically perform the operations of; unlocking the breech, extracting and ejecting empty cartridge cases and feeding a fresh round, as well as cocking, locking and firing. The air cooling system was less efficient making the 1919A4 less capable of rapid, sustained fire than the water-cooled 1917. The air-cooled heavy barrel could keep the A4 weapon at operating temperature for approximately 30 minutes at a rate of fire of about 60 rounds per minute. A rate of approximately 150 rounds per minute could be maintained for about 15 minutes, but faster rates of fire could only be maintained for short periods. The 1919A4 had a heavier barrel than the 1917 to aid in heat dissipation.

Mounting

The 1919A4 light machine gun was mounted on the M2 tripod. The tripod design provided a stable platform and gave maximum strength and rigidity for its light weight. The tripod consisted of three tubular steel legs, articulating in a tripod head, the two rear legs being joined and supported by a traversing bar forming an “A” truss and serving as a rear support for the mounted gun. The tripod head and short front leg provided frontal support. Although the M60 had its own tripod mount, the M122, it could also be used with the earlier M2 tripod by use of a special adapter. The M122 was essentially the older M2 with upgrades.

The 1919A4 light machine gun was considered a rifle company weapon. Its crew could maintain the march rate of a rifleman, but could not move as fast as the individual rifleman. It could deliver a large, rapid volume of fire with good accuracy. It was well suited for support of attacking infantry units by flanking action, and in defense it could supplement the heavy machine gun.

While the 1919A4 was successful in its intended role, a more portable weapon was desired to fill the gap between the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) and the tripod mounted 1919A4. The Ordnance department decided to modify the 1919A4 as an expedient solution to the problem. As is the case with most adaptations of existing weapons, the resulting 1919A6 model was less than ideal for the task it was intended to perform.

The 1919A6 Machine Gun

The new version of the 1919A4 was designated as the Browning Machine gun, Caliber .30, M1919A6. The weapon was equipped with a light bipod assembly attached to the front barrel bearing, and a shoulder stock that was attached to the buffer tube. The weapon was capable of delivering rapid automatic fire. The gun was designed primarily as an offensive weapon, and was most effective in employing direct fire against enemy personnel and unarmored vehicles. Its high mobility and low relief adapted it to front-line missions and enabled it to accompany the attacking echelon. At midranges, when mounted on the M2 tripod, its accuracy was approximately that of the heavy machine gun. Its most important characteristic as compared with the heavy machine gun, was its superior mobility, which made it a suitable weapon for use in the rifle company. This advantage, however, was obtained at the cost in the efficiency of the cooling system. The 1919A6 had a lighter barrel than the 1919A4, consequently its rate and length of fire was limited by its tendency to overheat. Although it could fire indefinitely at the slow rate of fire of approximately 40 rounds per minute, it could maintain a medium rate of about 75 rounds per minute from 25 to 30 minutes. At a rapid rate of 150 rounds per minute it begins to overheat after about five minutes firing.

Flash Hider

The function of the flash hider M7, was to conceal the weapon’s muzzle flash, as well as ensure ample recoiling when the weapon was fired at angles other than horizontal. Accomplishing this, the weapon cyclic rate was also increased. The detachable retaining clip assembly secures the flash hider to the front barrel bushing. Therefore when a portion of the expanding powder gases are trapped in the chamber of the flash hider, the rearward force was exerted on the front of floating barrel to aiding in its recoil.

Bipod mount

The A-6 weapon was equipped with a bipod assembly that was attached to the front barrel bearing and was held in place by a lock ring. The bipod legs could be folded back alongside the barrel, or placed in a position at right angles to it. Each leg had a sliding leg that could be pulled out to raise the position of the muzzle. A wing nut and clamp were mounted on the sliding leg assembly, to permit adjustment of bipod legs with one hand. The bipod head rotated around the bearing so that the gun would not be canted when on a slope. The bipod legs were constructed to remain in a position that was vertical or parallel to the barrel when clamped in place. The sliding legs were clamped in place by means of the lower thumbscrews. Fixed rest legs were attached to the bipod head for use when the legs were folded back parallel to the barrel.

The M60 General Purpose Machine Gun was adopted by the Ordnance Corps, along with the M14 service rifle in 1957. The 7.62 M60 and the M14 were intended to replace virtually all of the WWII era small arms in the U.S. inventory. Soon after the M60 was being produced in number, the Browning 1919’s began to be phased out of front line service. The M60 offered a lightweight (23.1 pounds versus the 32.5 pounds of the 1919A6 model) weapon that could be fired from its barrel mounted bipod or a tripod. It also had the desirable feature of a true quick-change barrel without the headspace adjustment procedure of the Browings. The M60 however had its share of critics and problems. The weapon was nicknamed “The Pig” by the troops.

The 1919 Browning is very popular with today’s collectors and shooters, and is available in a number of configurations. The most common 1919A4 and A6 Brownings are those that were assembled from surplus parts sets and a “new manufacture” receiver side plate. Completely original Browning machine guns can be obtained, but are difficult to locate and more expensive. Original Browning machine guns are on the BATF’s Curio and Relics list. There are also a number of semi-automatic-only models as well as non-firing display guns being produced by a number of companies.

1919A4 Light Machine Gun General Characteristics

Weight of weapon: 28 pounds
Weight of weapon with pintle and elevating mechanism: 31.25 pounds
Weight of tripod mount, M2: 14.11 pounds
Length of barrel: 24-inches
Rate of fire: 400-550 rounds per Minute
Maximum usable rate of fire: 150 rounds per minute
Sight graduated to (yards): 2400
Muzzle velocity (w / M2 ball cartridge): 2700 feet per second

Anyway, the reason I bring up the show is that in the huge outdoor market there, Britain’s greatest military booksellers are hidden in their tents, rooting through box after box of interesting and arcane books. On this particular trip, I found a book “Viet Minh Weapons”, dated 1956. It was a confidential report filed with the British government. The pictures weren’t that good, but the intelligence was incredible. The gun handlers borrowed this book from me as a guide to some of the “Mobile Force 100” ambush scenes flashing back to 1954, in “We Were Soldiers”.

One thing that the Viet Minh, and the later NVA and Viet Cong were noted for was the ingenuity of their booby traps. Everything from a Coke can to a round of ammo to commo wire could turn into something deadly.

The best diagrams in the book depicted the standard issue/ improvised mines of the Viet Minh era. SAR is pleased to present these to the readers with the original British descriptions. – Dan

Vietnam Era: Passive Scopes

The Vietnam era scopes were the early passive scopes. The blooming problems and fade-outs made them somewhat unreliable for sniper use. The AN/PVS-2 was useless as a sighting device. The adjustments in the scope just would not hold a zero at any range, even with the best of rifles. They were, however, useful for observation and often used from towers to scrutinize enemy activity.

The rubber eyepiece has a device to open the aperture so you may view the scope. Obviously the light coming from the scope could give away one’s position. On the first generation scopes there was no such device. Special Forces personnel many times noted that the operators often had “Owl Eyes”, a greenish glow that emanated from the eyes during use.

One sometimes sees photos of a “starlight” scope mounted on an M2 HB .50 caliber Browning machine gun. This was not very practical as the recoil forces soon destroyed the device. Also, the first shot most often blotted out the orthicon tube.

The AN/PVS-2 starlight scope was, also know by the acronym STANO (Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Night Observation). It was developed by the US Army at the US Army Electronics Command with optical support of the Wollensack Optical Company, as its prime contractor. With a weight of 5.94 pounds it is rather ungainly on an M16 Rifle. It eliminated the cumbersome backpack battery, but in the humid conditions of South East Asia, battery integrity was a nagging problem. There was also a constant whining sound from the instrument that threatened to give away one’s position.

John “Gunny” Smith (Gunny ran security at the old North Country Shoot) was on the “Rock Pile” DMZ, when he encountered a first generation starlight scope mounted on an M14. It had been stabilized on a tripod in the bunker. He reported movement on the line, and was given the order to fire. He fired a burst at the movement but his contact, in reality, was of the Simian kind. He had eliminated a rather large indigenous Monkey!

Active Devices

There were some infrared, active devices used in Vietnam including the WWII Sniper scope on the M3 Carbine. There was one used on the M14, but it still required a battery pack, a six-pound, six-volt nickel cadmium battery.

There was also the metascope originally designed in World War II by the US Navy, which evolved into a transistorized hand held active device for viewing out to 50 meters. When you see the large 1000-watt searchlights on tanks, with the infrared filter, they would be used to illuminate the area to be seen through the metascope.

The Other Side

Though the VC and NVA “ruled the night”, they had very little in the field of night vision. The dreaded Dragunov Rifle sight (PSO-1) had one feature that few knew about. It did have an infrared detector sensitive to any active light source. The reticule was also illuminated in red in order to maintain visual purple integrity. This is the mechanism in your eye that allows you to see in low light. By no means was the sight capable for seeing any better in low light, but it was the best they had.

The use of the night vision devices in Vietnam was in the incipient stage. For the detection of enemy movement and disposition, it had its moments; but for target acquisition of individual soldiers, it was less than satisfactory. It was not until the Gulf War that man’s dream of seeing in the dark was fulfilled.