EDITOR’S NOTE: SIG Sauer recently issued a safety recall for some CROSS rifles. See sigsauer.com/crossrecall for more details.

“Why?” That was the initial thought when reading about SIG Sauer’s introduction of the CROSS bolt-action rifle at the 2020 SHOT Show. This was SIG’s reentry into the bolt-action market. Significantly, the CROSS is not intended for the tactical/sniper role—hunting is its realm. Tom Taylor, SIG’s Chief Marketing Officer & Executive Vice President, Commercial Sales, answers the “why” for the CROSS:

“Stagnant” is not a word that applies to SIG, with its innovative products in multiple classes of weapons—handgun, submachine gun, assault rifle, precision, belt fed machine gun and now bolt action. SIG designed the CROSS bolt-action to not only offer performance with current cartridge designs, such as 6.5 Creedmoor and .308 Win, but also with their highly anticipated high-pressure ammunition starting with the .277 Fury. The CROSS’ action is incredibly rigid but also light, thanks to its one-piece receiver eliminating the need for bedding and action screws. The CROSS one-piece receiver interacts directly with trigger, bolt, AICS magazine and barrel mounting—think AR, but without upper and lower distinctions. This is a change from typical bolt-action methods that serves to minimize many of the accuracy-robbing causes associated with bolt actions while also contributing to ruggedness afield. The CROSS in .308 Win with 16-inch barrel weighs a mere 6.5 pounds.

With any precision rifle, the trigger is a crucial part of the equation. SIG created a fully-housed, two-stage match trigger with a range of adjustment between 2.5 and 4.5 pounds with no creep. The urge to change or tinker with your trigger will not be present with the CROSS.The other noteworthy feature of the CROSS, both in terms of aesthetics and performance enhancement is the fully-adjustable folding stock. Comb height, pad height, pad cant (screws on the pad assembly go 7 degrees either way), a reversible comb and length of pull are all easily adjustable and locked in place. This allows a user to “fit” the CROSS like no other production rifle. Its adjustability mimics what is possible only with a custom stock. This should not be discounted in importance.  

For this evaluation, the author kept it a “SIG party” in terms of rifle, ammunition, optic and suppressor. A SIG SIERRA3BDX 4.5-14x44mm riflescope was mounted on the CROSS. Arrangements were made to use a SIG SRD762-QD suppressor—it was as simple as installing an optional SIG Taper-Lok muzzle device adapter. The heart of SIG’s Taper-Lok system is a tapered and threaded barrel. Taper-Lok compatible muzzle devices thread on with concentricity assured by the matching tapered shoulder on the muzzle device. The Cross includes a thread protector along with a tapered washer that serves as an adapter for use with non-tapered muzzle devices.

SIG Elite Hunter 165 grain and 150 grain Elite Copper HT ammunition was used with the CROSS. SIG Elite 168 grain Match was also tested to establish a baseline for accuracy. No ammunition tested produced greater than 1.5-inch groups at 100 yards. The CROSS feeds from standard AICS-pattern magazines with a Magpul 5-rounder arriving with the rifle. It has a proprietary sled follower for optimized single-round loading through the ejection port. The single-stack profile of the AICS lends itself to a thinner overall width for the CROSS and stiffer action due to less material needing to be removed from the bottom of the receiver. 

The focus of this article is a return to the hunting style symbolized by the bolt-action CROSS chambered in .308 Win. (The CROSS is also available in 6.5 Creedmoor and SIG’s .277 Fury.) Instead of focusing on long-range hunting scenarios, let’s operate under the assumption that “closer is better” when taking an animal. This puts the onus on scouting and choosing the best ambush position, or stealthily creeping through the woods in search of your desired prey. Of course, if a 300+ yard shot is the only option, having the ability to successfully place the round where needed is an asset.

The CROSS is tailor-made for pursuing game in rugged/steep terrain. Its high degree of accuracy is also conducive to hunting from stands or ground blinds with shots across wide, clear-cut clearings, yet it still provides svelte handling for spot/stalk techniques. Most do not realize that even with the relatively short ranges involved in thick-timber hunting, pinpoint accuracy is crucial to finding the shooting lane. The CROSS is easily carried in the hand, ready to go when quarry is spotted.  

Secured in a hunting pack is another option allowing for hands-free movement with the CROSS. The Eberlestock X31 LoDrag II pack serves as an excellent example. Eberlestock strives to design a pack so items are easy to find. They also make it easy to attach things to the outside of the pack. There’s no digging and wrestling with your pack to free an item—it’s quick at hand. It’s a great combination. By having the pack carry the rifle, your hands are free for all of the things you need them for when you are traversing terrain. The X31 incorporates a tactical weapon-sized scabbard. It has a unique contour shape that tapers at both the top and the bottom, giving the pack an excellent close-to-the-body ride. The packs are fully compressible with pairs of side-mounted compression straps that draw the load upward to optimally position the pack’s contents over the wearer’s center-of-gravity. The X31 LoDrag II has two generously-sized, form-following pockets on the exterior of the upper and lower front flaps. MOLLE-10 lightweight webbing is used, to which you can attach conventional 25mm MOLLE accessories.

Numerous positive qualities of the CROSS quickly became apparent upon use.  The author has always been a fan of using detachable magazines for safely/efficiently loading/unloading a rifle. Every time in/out of transportation, in/out of blind, which happens multiple times a day, requires weapon manipulation that the detachable magazine simplifies. The AR-like safety found on the CROSS is natural to manipulate, considering the CROSS’s pistol grip profile. Our blinds were situated with expected shots in the 100- to 225-yard range. The CROSS’ MOA accuracy instilled confidence it would do its job.  

The CROSS’s pistol grip gives it superior overall carry qualities, with one-handed carry more feasible as well. The natural ergonomic attributes of the CROSS are conducive to quick, well-placed shots when an animal presents itself. This stems from the custom fitting made possible by the SIG stock. Not a lot of time was spent at the bench on Echo Valley Training Center’s (EVTC) 100-yard range. There are more indicative evaluations for a hunting rifle than merely firing from a bench at a 100-yard target. The CROSS’ adjustable buttstock allows for a good cheek weld that aids in handling recoil by preventing a “slap” of the face that is more typical of the jaw welds found on a lot of rifles when scopes are used. The CROSS proved potent on the Jungle Walk range at EVTC with targets placed at 30 yards out to 220 yards. The ability to move through its varied terrain and engage randomly-placed targets hidden within cover suited the CROSS perfectly. The emphasis was on accurate shot placement and how the CROSS’s smooth bolt facilitated follow-up shots. The 6.5 pound, 16-inch barreled CROSS is easy to handle with little time needed to find the reticle when the rifle is brought up to the shoulder.

The CROSS is well suited for still hunting forays. This translates into fluid off-hand shots at game and not off rests or bipods. If lucky, the hunter will be able to adopt a kneeling or sitting position in lieu of offhand. Range T&E simulated this by setting up clay pigeons at various ranges and then assuming sitting, kneeling or standing positions. Another twist is to have a companion pick the target and shooting position for the shooter to engage as quickly as possible. Follow up shots were encouraged to get a sense of the CROSS’ potential. The detachable magazine feature simplifies reloading via a spare magazine. While not empirically quantifiable, the CROSS proved to “hang” well and was very manageable in getting into and out of field shooting positions.

The CROSS is equally at home for long-range engagement. Other range drills consisted of shooting steel targets out to 550 yards on Echo Valley Training Center’s Known Distance Range. The key point with the CROSS is it has out-of-the-box performance without the owner having to resort to a trip to an armorer or gunsmith for tuning. The CROSS takes a back seat to no rifle in terms of precision, repeatable accuracy, ergonomics and reliability. A rifle which weighs 6.5 pounds, uses a detachable magazine, is chambered in a hard-hitting caliber and is capable of 1.5 MOA or less cannot be ignored.

SPECIFICATIONS: SIG SAUER CROSS

• CALIBER:  .308 Win
• BARREL: 16-inch stainless steel, 1:10RH twist
• OA LENGTH: 36.5 inches
• WEIGHT: 6.5 pounds
• ACTION: Bolt
• CAPACITY: Detachable AICS, Magpul 5-round magazine with proprietary follower included with rifle
• PRICE:  MSRP $1,799 USD
• URL: sigsauer.com

In May 2010 the Russian Ministry of Defence launched a program for developing the new assault rifle for the Russian armed forces. Afterwards it’s been speculated that the original goal of that program was to replace the AK-74-type assault rifle with the AEK-971 rifle, which was developed by the Kovrov arms plant. This project was a part of the Russian army Ratnik program that’s the comprehensive individual soldier equipment system.

According to public information, Izmash started the AK12 development from scratch, but it’s likely based on earlier work developed in Ishevsk in decades past. The project was originally known as the AK200 and its goal was to get the rifle included into the Russian Army Ratnik program. The AK200 type rifle included certain features like the hinged receiver, ambidextrous cocking handle, thumb operated safety, among others. Many of these features were not common with the standard AK rifles. Most of these features were rejected and the following AK400 rifle resembled the AK74. To make a long story short, the AK400 was adopted by the Russian armed forces as the AK12 in 5.45×39 and the AK15 in 7.62×39.

The Saiga TR3 is a semi-auto only version of the AK12/AK15. It shares most features with the AK12, but it bears some differences. It’s currently available in 5.45×39 and 7.62×39 calibers as well as in the 366 TKM (9.55×39) smoothbore caliber aimed primarily at the Russian domestic market.

RECEIVER AND BARREL

The receiver is a U-section of stamped 1.5 mm sheet steel and assembled by rivets and spot welds. The bolt rails are likely laser cut sheet steel parts riveted inside the receiver section. The barrel extension and rear trunnion are machined from steel and pinned to the receiver.

The receiver cover is stamped from sheet steel and it is basically similar to previous AK-variations. However, it’s mounted in a far different way. At the front end of the cover is a machined eyelet that fits into a recess on the gas tube base. The cover is locked in place with a cross pin that goes through the gas tube base. The rear end of receiver cover has machined steel hooks that fits the receiver rear trunnion. The receiver cover fitting is much tighter than that found on AK47/AKM/AK74 type rifles. The receiver cover mounting is far different from the standard AK because of how the optical sights mount on top of the receiver cover.

The barrel is mated on a barrel extension (trunnion) by threads. The barrel is a four groove model with a right hand twist and a 16.38 inch length (416 mm) as measured from muzzle to bolt face. The chamber and bore are chrome-plated. The twist rate was not measured or given with technical data, but the 5.45×39 caliber barrels have usually 1 turn in 200 mm (7.87 in) twist. In theory the barrel is free floating as the lower part of the forearm is mounted on the receiver, not on the barrel. However, the gas tube is fixed on the barrel, so the barrel is actually not free floating.

There is no muzzle thread, but the muzzle brake is mounted by rotating until it catches a QD lug and secured with a spring-loaded plunger.

BREECHBLOCK AND TRIGGER

The bolt carrier and bolt are of the basic AK-type with a long stroke gas piston. Even as it’s intended for the 5.45 mm cartridge, its weight and dimensions are similar to an 7.62 mm AK. However, the 5.45 mm and 7.62 mm parts are not interchangeable. The gas piston is chrome-plated and it has no circular grooves like the AK47or the AKM. Like the AK military versions, the TR3 bolt has a floating firing pin. The bolt handle is on the right side of receiver and it’s the same finger-hook type as used with the AK rifles.

The trigger mechanism is a basic AK-type in semi auto configuration and there’s no auto sear or even a place for it. The trigger is two-stage with a pull weight of 4.2 pounds. The safety lever operation is of the basic AK type and the lever has second shelf for easier access. The safety lever is similar to the Krebs Enhanced Safety.

FURNITURE

The buttstock is both collapsible and folding. The buttstock length of pull has 4 positions from 10.7 to 13.2 inches (273 to 335 mm). The buttstock and its tube look similar to those of the AR15, but the dimensions are different and the parts are not interchangeable. A rubber recoil pad is fixed on a removable buttplate that covers a compartment inside the stock tube. The stock is held open with a spring-loaded button/latch located at the rear of the left side of receiver.

The stock folds on the left side and it locks on the side by a spring-loaded hook. The stock hinge includes a mechanism that locks the trigger mechanism and prevents bolt and slide movement. There is no provision to fire the rifle with the stock folded; that feature is likely omitted to comply with Russian firearm laws.

The plastic pistol grip is ergonomically shaped with finger grooves and an ambidextrous thumb rest. The pistol grip has a removable core that stores an oil bottle and some tools.

The handguard is also made from plastic and it has two halves. The lower half is mounted on the receiver with a large cross pin. The upper half of the handguard is mounted on the lower half with a snap-on coupling. The handguard has fixed Picatinny rails on top and bottom. There is also a provision to mount short plastic rails.

SIGHTS AND MAGAZINE

The iron sights are more similar to the Valmet/Galil pattern than typical AK open sights. The front sight is mounted on the gas block. The front post is adjustable for elevation with a separate tool and it has protective ears.  The rear sight is mounted on the rear of the receiver cover. The rear sight is anaperture type with sliding tangent adjustable from 100 meters up to 600 meters, and with a battle sight setting of 400 meters, marked with a Cyrillic ”P”. The rear sight is also adjustable for windage with 0.22 MRAD clicks. The adjustment mechanism is similar to the RPK rear sight. On the top of the receiver cover is a fixed Picatinny rail for mounting an optical sight.

The polymer magazine has a steel reinforced rear spine and front locking lugs. The magazine is a staggered row type and it is compatible with AK74 rifles. It has the size and shape of 30 round magazines, but its capacity is 10 rounds. Inside the magazine is a limiter made from heavy steel wire. The limiter is quite easy to remove; it’s likely there to meet current European Union gun legislation and perhaps Russian gun laws, too.

TEST FIRING AND HANDLING

For test firing of the 5.45×39 Saiga TR3, the only ammunition available was Barnaul 60-grain lead core FMJBT. Shooting from a sandbag support with iron sights at an outdoor range in snowy conditions and 14°F (-10°C) temperature, produced 3.6 MOA groups while shooting seven, 5-rounds groups. That’s not the best the AK platform can produce but the TR3 produced groups typical of many AKs.

In addition to accuracy testing, the Saiga TR3 saw some faster shooting situations. The TR3 performed well in fast, close range situations. It’s easy handling and fast shooting. With double taps, it was easy to keep the sights on target. The safety selector was stiff, but the rifle was also brand new. A feature that makes the safety selector stiff is the mechanism that locks trigger and bolt when the buttstock is folded. The safety lever has a second shelf, similar to the Krebs safety. On the other hand, it makes safety manipulation easier with gloves on, but it may also catch on clothing or equipment.

As previously noted, the iron sights were far from the familiar AK-style. The rear sight has a small diameter aperture that works well on bullseye targets, but the aperture is too small for quicker shooting. But, mount a red-dot up top, and the TR3 does much better.

The included 5.45 mm plastic AK magazine is bit trickier to fill than the 7.62 mm steel magazine. The magazine fit in the receiver is tight and requires more care to insert properly than with a 7.62 mm AK magazine.

Disassembly of the Saiga TR3 follows the usual AK sequence with few exceptions. The receiver cover is mounted differently and held in place by a cross pin at the front end of the cover. The gas piston tube is fixed and cannot be removed. But, for cleaning, it has a removable end plug.

There are no muzzle threads to mount a sound suppressor. However, the muzzle brake QD lug can be used to mount a sound suppressor. B&T make suppressors that mount on TR3’s QD lug.

The Saiga TR3 comes with cleaning kit, oil bottle, sight tool and one 10-round magazine. The Saiga TR3 isn’t the cheapest AK-type rifle available. In Europe the TR3 costs about 2,100 Euros; that is more than the price tag of the average AR15 rifle. Yet the TR3 is likely one of the best AK rifles currently available.

In the 1980s, a wave of great action television shows hit the small screen. “The A-Team,” “Airwolf,” “Knight Rider,” and “MacGyver” have become iconic to audiences of all ages and have cult followings even today. But the most iconic, remembered, and well-loved is without a doubt is “Magnum P.I.” starring Tom Selleck. The show was a big hit on television and even won a number of awards. It also has a modern remake starring Jay Hernandez, though it is not as good as the original.

The show follows Thomas Magnum, a private investigator who works as a security expert at a private beach villa owned by a wealthy writer. He shares the property with a World War 2 British veteran named Jonathan Quayle Higgins the 3^rd. The two rarely get along, with Higgins’s two security dogs constantly chasing Magnum and Magnum constantly borrowing and destroying things under Higgins’s protection, as well as getting dragged into a number of cases. Magnum’s two best friends are Theodore “T.C.” Calvin, the owner of a helicopter tour company, and Orville “Rick” Wright, the manager of the King Kamehameha Club. Magnum often recruits T.C. and Rick in his cases, with T.C. flying him to spy on people and Rick using his underground contacts to get important information.

In the show, Magnum’s gun of choice is an M1911A1. The one he used throughout the series is in the NRA Museum in Fairfax, Virginia. The gun that is photographed is the second, and was also used by other actors in the show (There are always duplicate hero guns to keep from slowing the show if there’s any problem). It has the serial number just above the trigger on the right side and has the name of the factory to the upper left just above it. Above it on the slide is where the words Colt’s Government Model are engraved. On the other side, the words are Colt’s MK IV / Series ’70 Government Model 9mm Luger Caliber. (Movie 1911s are frequently 9mm, easier to blank).

The M1911A1 first entered service in 1926 and has become of the America’s favorite firearms. It was in service until the 1990’s, where it was replaced by the Beretta M9. Some elements of the armed forces still use it, including some elements of the Marine Corps. The M1911A1 and other variants have also been adopted by other nations around the world, including large numbers of Latin American countries, the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, and a few others. Today, it is popular with civilians and veterans, though it can be a bit expensive.

The M1911A1 is actually an improved version of the M1911 pistol. The original gun is good, but there were some issues on the battlefield and a number of improvements were needed. The front sight was widened and the trigger was shortened. The hammer is enlarged slightly and the spur above the grip is made longer. These improvements were small but helped the gun quite a bit. Both pistols shoot .45 ACP from a 7-round magazine. They both weigh just over three pounds.

There were other guns used in the series to include a number of pistols like the Walther PPK, Colt Detective Special, and Smith & Wesson Model 15. In one episode, Rick takes out a hitman with a Mac-10 Submachine gun. In one episode, a Mac-10 is made to look like an Uzi submachine. Why they did this the author has no idea, as in a later episode an Uzi is seen. In flashbacks to Vietnam, M-16A1 Rifles are seen being carried by US soldiers. In some flashbacks, Vietnamese soldiers are seen carrying Valmet Rifles, instead of the AK-47s, since Hollywood did not have ready access to those guns in that timeframe.

“Magnum P.I.” is one of the greatest television shows of all time. Tom Selleck is great as Thomas Magnum and will probably be remembered best for this role. John Hillerman plays Higgins and is great in the role, especially since he is not British. Roger E. Mosley and Larry Manetti are also good in their parts, as well as the guest stars like Kwan Hi Lim, Gillian Dobb, Kathleen Lloyd, and Jeff MacKay. Special praise is reserved for Eugene Roche, who does a great job playing St Louis private detective Luther H. Gillis. The action in the show is great and some of the mysteries are well done, though some stories can be a bit predictable. If you want a great show to binge watch though, “Magnum PI” is one of the best and it will have you wanting to go to Hawaii and drive a Ferrari at top speeds around those beautiful islands.

SAR would like to thank the Weapons Department of Independent Studio Services in Sundale, CA for allowing us to photograph and record the history of these Movie Guns.

“A botched development process – focused solely on manufacturing, looks, and lighter weight – caused the SOCIMI Type 821 SMG to be forever exiled to the confines of the firearms curiosa.”

It has not been ever conclusively explained what led Società Costruzioni Industriali Milano S.p.A., best known as SOCIMI – a well-respected manufacturer of train wagons, buses and other means of mass transportation – to enter the firearms business in 1983.

Devoid of any expertise or dedicated technology for firearms manufacturing, SOCIMI joined forces in 1984 with Luigi Franchi S.p.A., best known for its SPAS-12 and, later SPAS-15 shotguns, as well as its hunting shotguns and a limited escapade in military weaponry in the 1950s with the LF-57 sub-machine gun.

By 1987, SOCIMI would be the sole owner of Franchi. And this is where our story begins.

The Italian UZI: the Type 821 SMG, manufactured by SOCIMI in close collaboration with Franchi all through the 1980s, was a botched attempt to refine the legendary Israeli UZI design (photo by Franco Palamaro)

The SOCIMI Type 821 SMG was compact and lightweight, aimed at the law enforcement market with a specific attention to special task units and close protection details (photo by Franco Palamaro)

A little bit of history

All through their coexistence, SOCIMI and Franchi would engineer a family of long-stroke piston-driven military rifles that included the 7.62x51mm caliber SOCIMI AR-832 FS battle rifle, and two 5.56x45mm assault rifles, dubbed respectively the AR-831 and the AR-871 – the latter an improved, simplified version of the earlier. The AR-871 would become one of the early entrants in the long trials for the selection of a new 5.56mm NATO assault rifle for the Italian Armed Forces… and would also be one of the first to be canned.

But that’s a story for another time.

The only firearm that SOCIMI would manufacture in any quantity would be the Type 821 SMG 9mm open-bolt, blowback-operated sub-machine gun; the reason why the company would decide to refine what was already a popular and well-established design – the Israeli UZI – is simultaneously arguable and completely lost to time.

A close-up of the muzzle: the adjustable front sight block is screwed on to the machined aluminum receiver (photo by Franco Palamaro)

The rear plate hosted a sling swivel, and could be rotated and pulled away to remove the bolt and return spring when disassembling the SOCIMI Type 821 SMG (photo by Franco Palamaro)

In the early 1980s, the decline of the sub-machine gun as the go-to weapon for numerous military and law enforcement specialties was still a long way off. Light weight, compact and effective as they were, sub-machine guns still enjoyed the favor of the guys in uniform… and somehow they still do, chiefly among special task units and close protection details, but not exclusively: the American reader must keep in mind that, to this day, in many countries the sub-machine gun remains the standard police patrol firearm, while rifles and shotguns – more popular within the law enforcement community in the US – never really caught on in that role.

It would thus make sense that SOCIMI would try and get a hold on what was, back then, a very receptive market, and that they would try and do so with a refined version of a proven design: aggressively marketed in both the civilian and military-grade variants, the UZI had, in 1981, received a somewhat unwitting publicity stunt when United States Secret Service agent Robert Wanko was photographed as he deployed his UZI in the moments immediately following John Hinckley Jr.’s attempt on U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s life on March 30, 1981.

REFINING THE BATTLEHORSE

While retaining most of the key technical features of the UZI, SOCIMI and Franchi decided to focus their improvement effort on the manufacturing and materials. While the bolt group and barrel are still made of carbon steel – as they should be – both the receiver and the grip frame were machined out of lightweight aluminum alloy.

The use of aluminum in lieu of stamped sheet metal made the SOCIMI Type 821 SMG approximately 2.2 ounces lighter than the original UZI; the SOCIMI/Franchi sub-machine gun was also somewhat shorter than the UZI, given the barrel length – 7.87 inches vs. the original’s 10.2 inches – which would make it more desirable for police officers who’d have to carry it all day, and for close protection details who could conceal it more easily.

The receiver of the SOCIMI Type 821 SMG was distinctive, more streamlined than the original UZI’s, and lacked its predecessor’s prominent pressed reinforcement slots that keep dirt out of the way of the bolt. It also does without the UZI’s removable top cover: the non-reciprocating charging handle runs on two guides machined over the receiver body, reducing the amount of components involved in the field-stripping. The front and rear sight, both adjustable, were manufactured in separate blocks and then screwed on to the receiver.

The grip assembly – likewise machined out of aluminum and secured to the receiver by two retaining pins – is also distinctive in shape, in that it features a slightly different trigger guard, a set of finger grooves, and a more prominent grip safety. It was otherwise identical to its counterpart on the UZI, with a completely identical trigger group, a sliding 3-position fire selector (marked A-R-S as on the UZI) and featured an UZI-style magazine catch. SOCIMI made its own magazines, the only bent steel components on the gun: they were exact (and excellent) copies of the UZI magazines, holding 32 rounds of 9mm ammunition, and bore conspicuous SOCIMI rollmarks. The Type 821 SMG was fully compatible with original UZI mags.

The SOCIMI Type 821 SMG was an open-bolt sub-machine gun; nominal rate of fire ranged at around 600 rounds per minute – essentially the same as the original UZI’s – but the lighter weight made it harder to control (photo by Franco Palamaro)

The buttpad would be folded up when the stock rested to the right side of the gun, in order to reduce the profile and allow concealed carry (photo by Franco Palamaro)

THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY

In order to make the Type 821 SMG lighter and simpler than the original, the SOCIMI/Franchi engineers replaced the complicated underfolding sheet metal stock of the UZI with a straight single-strutt tubular steel stock, featuring an upfolding buttpad, hinged underneath the receiver and secured in the open or closed position by a push-button latch.

While the design and construction of the original UZI stock was meant to make it viable as an impromptu hand-to-hand combat weapon (or entrenching tool, if need be), the SOCIMI/Franchi engineers had no such use in mind when they designed the Type 821 SMG stock, opting instead for striking an acceptable balance between stability, low encumbrance, and concealability when folded. The final design was strikingly like that of the Beretta PM-12 sub-machine gun stock.

Both the grip panels and the handguard were two-piece components manufactured out of molded plastic, in a grey-greenish color – a stark contrast with the hard-anodized matte black finish of the aluminum parts. They are also some of the overall worst aspects of the Type 821 SMG: the polymer mix chosen for their manufacture was all wrong, and they were thus very prone to breakages – as you can see from the many cracks in the pictures illustrating this article.

A close-up of the stock hinge on the SOCIMI Type 821 SMG: a wide button would lock it in place, both when folded and unfolded (photo by Franco Palamaro)

A spring-loaded catch would hold the barrel nut in place; in order to disassemble the SOCIMI Type 821 SMG, the user would need to keep the catch depressed while unscrewing the barrel nut (photo by Franco Palamaro)

Indeed, in some of the (very few) SOCIMI Type 821 SMG samples that still survive today, these parts have since all but broken away completely.

Additionally, they were held in place with Phillips-head screws – not a great idea on a firearm, even for the 1980s – and those weren’t exactly the best available, prone as they were to rusting.

Lacking a removable top cover, the disassembly of the SOCIMI Type 821 SMG was more akin to that of a Beretta PM-12 or the Czechoslovak SA Vz.26. With the magazine out and bolt closed, the sling swivel located at the rear end of the receiver would be unscrewed out. This would in turn allow the removal of the squared rear end cap; once that was done, the user could remove the return spring and guide rod assembly and slide out the bolt, which is substantially identical to that of the Israeli UZI, with a fixed firing pin, but features a deep guide milled on top.

The barrel is removed from the front by unscrewing the barrel nut, which was kept in position by a spring-loaded latch. Once it all was done, the return spring guide rod could be used as a punch to remove the pins that keep the receiver and the grip assembly/frame together.

The disassembly was not harder than the original UZI’s, and resulted in an overall similar amount of components.

Just like the UZI, the SOCIMI Type 821 SMG would host its magazine in the pistol grip; the magazine catch is identical to the UZI’s (photo by Franco Palamaro)

The plastic buttpad on the Type 821 SMG stock, fully extended (photo by Franco Palamaro)

REASONS FOR A FAILURE

The SOCIMI Type 821 SMG was originally announced in 1984, and despite some hiccups – such as the plastic components – it seemed initially like a very good product overall. A smaller version, half-way between a Mini-UZI and a Micro-UZI, dubbed the “Type 821-5 Micro SMG”, was also announced but never got past prototype stage.

It didn’t take long for the specialized press and the market to find out the Type 821 SMG was not exactly the advertised “classic UZI meets Italian sports car high-tier design and technology.” True, the Franchi engineers – largely responsible for the project – did a good job, but something went wrong.

The charging handle on the SOCIMI Type 821 SMG was identical in form and function to that of the UZI, albeit a bit smaller (photo by Franco Palamaro)

A close-up of the Type 821 SMG trigger group; notice the feeding ramp built-in on the frame (photo by Franco Palamaro)

SOCIMI’s haste in improving the original design, making it lighter and visually distinctive through the use of different materials and manufacturing techniques had a significant side effect: the bolt, machined out of carbon steel, was the single heaviest component of the Type 821 SMG; and being a telescopic bolt – whose front portion wraps around the rear end of the barrel when it closes – it moved A LOT of mass forward when the gun was fired.

Now, in an open-bolt sub-machine gun like the UZI, the SA Vz.26 or the Beretta PM-12 – all manufactured largely out of steel and thus fairly heavy – this helps to keep recoil and muzzle climb under control. In a featherweight like the Type 821 SMG, not so much. While the UZI is known to be controllable in full-auto and fairly accurate, even in off-hand shooting, the SOCIMI/Franchi design was everything but.

The bolt of the SOCIMI Type 821 SMG: a pretty straightforward copy of the UZI bolt, albeit with a deep guide milled on the top due to the different engagement system of the charging handle (photo by Franco Palamaro)

SOCIMI made their own magazines for the Type 821 SMG: excellent copies of the original UZI magazine. The Type 821 remained fully compatible with the original Israeli mags (photo by Franco Palamaro)

At 32 feet (10-meters), in full-auto, it was almost impossible not to totally saturate a standard B-27 target, with no accuracy of sorts – and that’s at 550/600 rounds per minute, essentially the same as the UZI. Acceptable if you’re looking for a room sweeper type of gun, much less if you need precision. Things weren’t any better in semi-auto, for the same reasons.

Add the inherently higher cost of a product made in an advanced western European Country like Italy, and you’ll quickly realize why even those customers who desperately wanted UZIs but couldn’t (or wouldn’t) procure them from Israel – chiefly for political reasons – would still steer clear away from the SOCIMI/Franchi design.

SOCIMI Type 821 SMG seen from the right side, with stock unfolded (photo by Franco Palamaro)

SOCIMI Type 821 SMG, field-stripped (photo by Franco Palamaro)

Despite being popularized today as the so-called “Milano 821” sub-machine gun from Call of Duty: Black Ops – Cold War, the SOCIMI Type 821 SMG was manufactured only in very small quantities – 500 samples at least, but certainly not more than 1000 – with Italian government entities being the only recorded customers.

None would ever be fielded and very few still exist: the sample portrayed in the pictures that illustrate this article was photographed in 2008 in a Guardia di Finanza (Italian revenue service) depot in Rome and has likely since been sent to the smelter. Only a handful of samples that were transferred to the reference collections of Italian firearms and ammunition developers survive to this day.

Drawings from the original patent of the Type 821 SMG: applied for in 1983 under the name of Alessandro Marzocco – quoted as the “inventor”, actually the owner of the SOCIMI group – it would be accepted by Italian authorities in 1986 with number IT19655A/86, and in published in the US with number US4895064A in 1990. It expired in 2007 (source: United States Patent and Trademark Office)

An experimental development of the Type 821 SMG chambered for the 9mm AUPO caseless self-propelled cartridge (generally associated with the prototype Benelli CB-M2 design) was carried on in collaboration with Italy’s prime ammunition manufacturer, Fiocchi; too little too late, one may say, because the Type 821 SMG was discontinued the in 1989, and SOCIMI went bankrupt in 1992 following the Mani Pulite kickbacks scandal.

Franchi tried to market it for a couple more years as the SOCIMI-Franchi LF-821, but not one single sample appears to have ever been made or sold under that name. By 1995, Franchi had been absorbed by the Beretta Holding and dropped the tactical firearms line, focusing exclusively on hunting shotguns and, more recently, rifles.

The history of the SOCIMI Type 821 SMG is an example of how capricious the firearms market can be. A good design cannot always be improved, and trying to do so isn’t always a success. A botched development process – focused solely on manufacturing, looks, and lighter weight – caused the SOCIMI Type 821 SMG to be forever exiled to the confines of the firearms curiosa.

When the Thompson submachine guns were first produced in 1921, there were three production magazine options: the 100-round “C” drum, the 50-round “L” drum, and the 20-round “XX” box magazine. The first box magazines produced were unmarked, typically referred to today as Colt-era Blank magazines. These were quickly followed by the Colt-era Patent Date magazines, so called because stamped on the front of the magazines are the patent dates of three different patents used in their construction. These patent dates are: AUG. 24, 1920; AUG. 24, 1920; and JAN. 11, 1921. These dates are for: patent no. 1,350,619 issued to Oscar Payne on August 24, 1920; patent no. 1,350,646 issued to Theodore Eickhoff, also on August 24, 1920; and patent no. 1,365,234 issued to Theodore Eickhoff on January 11, 1921. Note that the first two patents were both issued on the same date. This becomes significant later in this discussion.

We do not have definitive documentation on who actually stamped out the Colt-era Patent Date magazines. We do know that John’s Machine and Stamping Works Company of Cleveland, Ohio, made 14 sets of XX magazine dies for Auto-Ordnance, and also produced 506 sample XX magazines by late 1920. We also know that the contract Auto-Ordnance signed with Colt’s called for Colt’s to produce 15,000 guns and 15,000 XX magazines. However, the contract does not indicate that Colt’s will actually manufacture the magazines, nor does it mention anything about whether Auto-Ordnance will supply their existing dies (made by John’s) to Colt’s. We do know that Colt’s supplied grit blasting and bluing service to Auto-Ordnance for both drum and box magazines.

So, where does that leave us? Still in unknown territory. We know that the features on the Colt-era Blank and Patent Date XX magazines are the same, including the circular lifter mark under the follower (Figure 1). This indicates that all the Colt-era XX magazines were made with the same dies and processes. These same characteristics are also present on the Shot or Shotshell magazines that were produced in the early 1920’s, which include the same Patent Date information. Therefore, the best way to refer to these Patent Date magazines is probably simply to call them Colt-era Patent Date magazines. Based on current documentation, it appears the Colt-era Patent Date magazines were produced up to 1939, but we have no information about how many were made or how many different orders occurred over the years. A Colt-era XX Patent Date magazine is shown in Figure 2. The information is on two lines, right and left justified.

There are two different versions of the Shot magazines with patent dates, both with the same two-line patent date information as the standard XX magazines, plus a third line indicating that these magazines are for Shot Cartridges (see figure 3). The stamping on these shot mags was also “whited up” at the factory to call attention to their unique character. Due to the longer shot cartridge length, these magazines are deeper front to back than a standard 45 ACP XX magazine.

Note that the first Shot magazine simply says “FOR SHOT CARTRIDGES” while the second says “FOR 18 SHOT CARTRIDGES”. Both magazines have a capacity of 20 rounds. Shortly after the first magazines were put into use, it was discovered that if the magazine was loaded to full capacity, 20 shot cartridges, the first two cartridges would not feed properly, with the paper nose being damaged during the chambering process. If the magazine was loaded to only 18 cartridges, they performed acceptably. Therefore, the maximum load of 18 shot cartridges was adopted, and the markings on the magazine were updated with this information.

THE MAGUIRE/WWII ERA

Russell Maguire acquired the Auto-Ordnance Corporation in the summer of 1939. He planned to immediately begin building Thompson Submachine Guns and sought a company that could produce the guns. He also needed companies who could produce the magazines for the guns. The first company to produce the XX box magazines for Auto-Ordnance during this period was the Mitchell Stamping Company of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. They created new dies to produce the XX magazines with the same Patent Date information on the face of the magazine. At this time, there is no known documentation indicating how many of these magazines were made.

Even though the information was the same, the Mitchell magazine lettering was much bolder and stamped more deeply. The horizontal spacing was also less consistent than the Colt-era magazines. Unique characteristics include the dash after PATENTED on the first line that is slightly upswept, and the A in AUG following the dash that is slightly canted to the right, almost as if the dash was pushing the top of the letter aside (see Figure 4).

Mitchell also had a unique way of marking the magazines they produced for Auto-Ordnance. Their company initials, MSCO, were stamped inside the bottom of the backstrap of the magazine (see Figure 5). You cannot see this unless you remove the floorplate.

So, we now have two different standard XX Patent Date magazines, one from the Colt-era and one from the Maguire or WWII era. But, as television advertising loves to tell us, “Wait, there’s more.” Auto-Ordnance needed more box magazines for the new Thompson guns, so more XX magazines were ordered from Mitchell Stamping. A new set of marking dies was used for this production run. The layout of the text was more uniform and looked closer to that of the Colt-era font layout, though the stamping is still broader and deeper. They corrected the upswept dash and canted letter A, but for some unknown reason, the August date on line one was changed from “AUG. 24” to “AUG. 20.” This of course is not correct, as no patent was granted on August 20, 1920. This magazine is shown in Figure 6, and also includes the MSCO stamp on the inside backstrap.

Over the years this second run of XX magazines with the August 20 date have been described in various ways, such as Corrected Patent Date or, more appropriately, Incorrect Patent Date. Both the Colt-era and first Maguire-era magazines have been called Repeat Patent Date, which is correct but doesn’t call out the two different eras involved.

The best way to describe the Maguire-era Patent Date magazines is calling them either Maguire- or WWII-era 24/24 and 20/24. This avoids adjectives that have been misused in the past, and points to the most obvious difference between the two production runs. The Colt-era Patent Date magazines can simply be referred to in those terms for the standard XX magazines. The Shot or Shotshell magazines are typically described as just that, but further clarification is necessary to differentiate the two versions, either FOR SHOT CARTRIDGES or FOR 18 SHOT CARTRIDGES. The latter are more common than the former.

Eventually, Auto-Ordnance switched from the Patent Date markings to a more generic three-line corporate marking, with “AUTO-ORDNANCE CORP.” on the first line, “BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT” on the second line (their new corporate address), followed on the third line with “REG. IN U.S. PATENT OFF.” This is the same manufacturer marking that Auto-Ordnance used on the drum and box magazines that were made later for Auto-Ordnance by United Specialties Company in Chicago, Illinois. Mitchell Stamping continued making magazines for Auto-Ordnance during WWII, but became a subsidiary of United Specialties.

More information on Thompson magazines can be found in the author’s new book with the current working title, “Feeding the Dragon: A Collector’s Guide to Thompson Drum and Box Magazines” due out by the spring of 2022.

Since its introduction in 2015, the Keystone Arms Model 722 repeater bolt action has become available in a wide variety of configurations. The standard carbine, compact/youth in standard or deluxe trims and varmint/match covered most shooters’ needs. The most recent addition to the lineup is the precision rimfire trainer produced in cooperation with American Built Arms (A*B Arms), a manufacturer of centerfire precision rifles. Keystone markets it as the Model 722 KPT; A*B Arms .22 Chassis Rifle.

The design mates the 722’s action and 16.5-inch or 20-inch match barrel with A*B Arms’ 6061 hard-anodized aluminum chassis and their proprietary Urban Sniper stock and P*Grip. The build bears a close resemblance to the A*B Arms chassis with a centerfire short action rifle using AICS-style magazines. Weighing 6 pounds and measuring 30.75 to 34 inches (depending on the stock adjustment), the chassis rifle is just a little lighter and shorter than its centerfire counterpart. The KPT uses an adjustable Luth-AR stock and a mil-spec, AR-15-style pistol grip. With no recoil, minimal report and greatly reduced ammunition cost, it makes an excellent trainer for precision shooting. Thanks to their threaded muzzles, these rifles also work well for quiet varmint elimination when combined with a silencer.

The A*B Arms chassis is round, with four M-LOK slots on each side. In addition, there are two threaded holes on each side and the bottom front permits the addition of extra accessory rails. The chassis uses a fixed AR-style tube to retain an extensively adjustable stock. A well-rounded, heavily sculpted pistol grip with a trapdoor for accessories completes the design. On the Keystone Arms side, they use a rectangular forend with four (for the 16.5-inch barrel) or seven (for the 20-inch barrel) M-LOK slots. Both use approximately 11/16-inch match barrels—cylindrical on the AB and slightly tapered on the KPT. The match barrel and a crisp 2.5-pound trigger add up to sub-minute-of-angle results with every brand of match ammunition I tried. Both variants have an MSRP of $599.

The 722 action uses a one-lug bolt, with the handle acting as a second lug. Retained by a spring-loaded catch on the left of the receiver, the bolt sports two extractors for more reliable cycling, as well as a fixed ejector. The right-side safety lever has two positions: safe (back) and fire (forward). The real gem of this action is the 7-round box magazine—the easiest to load of any 22 LR rimfire system. Instead of a separate catch with a release button or lever, the 722’s magazine is retained by two symmetrical leaf springs that accommodate elongated swells on the sides of the magazine body. With very positive support and retention, plus metal feed lips, these magazines proved reliable and durable. Removal is easy, with just a straight-down pull required.

The rifles arrive without sights. A Picatinny rail with a cutaway for the ejection port is used for mounting optics. Two rifles were used in testing, one with a Primary Arms 1-6x rimfire BDC scope for daylight and an ATN ThOR 4 thermal sight for darkness, the other with a Riton 3-15x parallax-adjustable scope. While the Primary Arms optic’s BDC reticle is optimized for high-velocity rather than match ammunition, even that provided groups under 2 MOA with CCI Mini-Mags. Both rifles are being used with sound suppressors, the A*B Arms with a Gemtech Outback-II, the KPT with a Hailey Ordnance Consul. After testing with a variety of high-velocity and match ammunition, to minimize noise signature, I switched to Aguila 38-grain subsonics for both rifles. This ammunition produced consistent groups under 2 MOA, with minimal launch signature. At night, only a faint, transient glow is visible on the muzzle side.

With ATN’s thermal sight zeroed for 50 yards and all the ballistic data entered into the sight, re-zeroing is done by entering the target distance. With known-size targets I found it quicker to hold-over, while unknown size targets, like varmints, benefit from the internal ballistic calculator offered by ATN’s night optics. With subsonic ammunition and a day scope like the Riton, targets around 4 inches are engaged confidently past 150 yards. With the thermal scope, the same 150 yards is feasible, but with larger, head-sized targets.

As trainers, these guns allow practicing of all marksmanship skills other than recoil control. With the steeper trajectory and greater wind drift of 22 LR bullets, shorter ranges can be used to learn skills that transfer nearly one-to-one to bigger guns at longer ranges. The feel and the ergonomics of the 722 trainers approximate full-bore precision rifles closely enough to make such skill development effective and comfortable. 

Years ago, the .45 ACP was the favorite of Target competition with the Colt 1911 pistol. It’s also highly respected as a defensive caliber. When Marlin came out with the Camp Carbine in .45 ACP many jumped at the chance to have one. It wasn’t too expensive and it was so much fun to shoot. It had excellent reliability and would function with any rounds from 230-grain jacketed bullets to 200-grain and 185-grain lead wadcutters. It was a popular choice to hunt jack rabbits out on the plains. It was highly effective on coyotes, wild boars, and turkeys too. Sadly, the Camp Carbine is no longer made by Marlin. Both calibers were discontinued in 1999. They used to have the 9 mm Luger version too. Both were fun rifles to shoot. Fortunately, there are a quite a few of them on the used market.

Making a Quieter Camp carbine

As the Suppressed Camp Carbine fired, the cycling of the action makes a significant noise, too. I came up with an idea to make a Quieter Camp Carbine. This little device slides into the action just behind the bolt and is held in place with a small, but strong, magnet. When you fire the rifle, it blocks the action and keeps the bolt from cycling. The shot is much quieter. Of course, you need to pull the blocking device out and cycle the action by hand for the next shot. It’s very quick and simple to do.

The history of Knorr-Bremse light machine gun LMG is a interesting, if a bit confusing ride through pre- and post-war European arms development. In the 1920’s Hans Lauf, a German engineer, was the director of a tool-machine factory in Magdeburg called Magdeburg Werkzeugmaschinenfabrik AG. It was founded in 1892. He was also interested in armament design and in 1923, he developed a device for a rotating turret to the benefit of Oerlikon in Switzerland.

One year later, Lauf struck a secret agreement with the Army of the Weimar Republic to develop new guns, something strictly prohibited by the Versailles Treaty after World War I.

He had a relationship with the Werkzeug Maschinenfabrik Oerlikon in Switzerland, the director of which was a former German cavalry officer named Emil Burhle, who was tasked to secretly develop a new small arms program for the German army.

In 1924, Magdeburg Werkzeugmaschinenfabrik AG bought Maschinenbau Seebach which had gone bankrupt and then both companies jointed Oerlikon. Seebach was also a firearms designer and the result of this merger greatly benefitted Oerlikon, as the company inherited all the information on small arms development from Seebach.

Emil Burhle bought, little by little, all the shares of Oerlikon, then became the main stockholder and director in 1929. During this time, Hans Lauf developed a light machine gun, designated LH 33, which was patented on November 22, 1933. But Oerlikon was not really interested in the LH 33 since its main objective was the development of automatic cannons, so the LH 33 patent was sold to Sweden. Like Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherland, Sweden had a privileged relationship with the German aircraft and arms industries.

Torsten Lindfors and Ivar Staeck, two Swedish engineers improved the LH 33 with new patents. But in 1935, the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty were denounced by Germany.

So, Hand Lauf developed a new variation of the LH 33, designated LH 35 in association with Wendelin Przykalla. As a sidenote, he was the director of the Knorr-Bremse company founded in 1905 at Bowhagen-Rummelsburg, near Berlin.

The company specialized in pneumatic braking devices for railway engines and trucks. But in the new Third Reich, all industrial enterprises were expected to take a part of the re-arming of the country.

Knorr-Bremse proposed some models of its new gun to the Wehrmacht, which had just adopted the MG 34 machine gun, but the LH 35 was also retained as the LMG 35/36 A.

The company was not successful in manufacturing the gun and decided to enlist the help of the Steyr Factory in Austria. Production began in 1939, and approximately 4,000 guns were manufactured. They were used by the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS. Since Knorr-Bremse had influenced its development, small arms historians still refer to the LMG 35/36 A as the “Knorr-Bremse.”

LMG 35/36 LAYOUT

The LMG has a long triangular wooden stock, which sets the shooter’s eye far away from the rear sight. The frame is cylindrical. It receives the barrel and a magazine on the left side. The gun has a single trigger and a large rectangular trigger guard. The controls are located on the left side, just over the trigger guard. It takes a 25-round MG 13machine gun magazine.

The gas cylinder is over the barrel and the recoil spring is in the same axis, located in the stock. The rod itself has an integral buffer. The cocking lever is on the right side of the frame. The bolt carrier is attached to a long piston.

The short barrel has no cooling device and its muzzle is fitted with a truncated flash hider that is easily changed. Along the side, there’s a handle for transportation and handling.

The front sight is protected by two ears, the rear sight is the same as found on the K98k rifle, but this one includes an anti-aircraft aiming device.

The action is gas-operated, and the bolt is locked with the carrier by a link. The bolt stays open before shooting. A bipod is mounted on the gas cylinder, with its legs folding to the rear.

The main drawback of this model is its low cyclic rate of 490 RPM.

MG 35/36 A Features

KG m/40 LAYOUT

The LH 33 was improved and adopted as the Kulsprutegevär m/40 by the Swedes, who secured new patents for its design. Its layout is the same as the German gun, but both models have no common parts.

It was built by Svenska Automatvwapen AB. 5,400 were manufactured; most were used by the Swede’s home defense force, some others by Danish and Norwegian troops stationed in Sweden during WWII.

The stock is shorter and made of wood with a particular shape. The pistol grip has asteel frame and has two wooden grip panels. The selector was removed and was replaced by a

double half-moon trigger which allows single shots or bursts, which was later discarded.

Initially, a grip safety was located at the rear of the pistol grip, but it was also discarded.

Feeding is performed by a Browning KP m/21 magazine, converted into a single stack magazine. It was necessary to improve the feeding lips and to lengthen the box to keep a 20-round capacity.

The sights are identical to those of the Browning LMG with a 200 to 1,200-meter rear sight (identical to those of the U.S. Enfield M1917 rifle.) The rear is located on the base of the gas cylinder. The barrel is easily replaced, and it has a handle.

One of the main features of the Swedish model is the gas port with two curved, metal pipes.

The gun has a particular bipod with two square legs which are front-folding.

Kg m/40 Features

DISASSEMBLY – ASSEMBLY

• The gun is made of 62 parts and is disassembled without tools. The process is the same with the German or Swedish Model.
• Remove the magazine and clear the gun.
• Extract the lock located at the rear of the frame.
• Stock and frame case are taken apart.
• Remove the recoil spring.
• Take out bolt and carrier.
• Unlock the barrel and take it off.
• Remove bipod.
• Reassemble in reverse order.

DISPLAY

The Knorr-Bremse LMG is a scarce weapon. After more than fifty years researching firearms, I saw only a few located at:

• Ordnance Army Museum in Bourges (France) ;
• National Firearms Collection, Leeds (Great-Britain);
• National Museum of the Marine Corps, Quantico (Virginia), U.S.A.
• Belgrade Military Museum in Serbia (incomplete).

Some also reside in military museums in Norway and Sweden.

Acknowledgment

The curator of Kungl. Armémuseum, Stockholm (Sweden).

Bibliography

The Machine Gun, George M. Chinn, Department of the Navy (1951).

Small Arms, Artillery and Special Weapons of the Third Reich, Terry Gander & Peter Chamberlain, Mac Donald and Jane’s (1978).

German Machineguns, Daniel Musgrave, Ironside International Publisher (1992).

MG 34-MG 42, Folke Myrvang, Collector Grade Publications (2002).

The Light Machine Guns of Sweden, O. Janson.

Part II  – Harrington and Richardson

During the early days of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, U.S. advisors were issued M1 and M2 carbines. When the first Marines arrived in 1965, they were armed with M14 rifles, as were most U.S. Army personnel. It was soon realized the 7.62mm M14 rifles were too powerful and unwieldy for the type of hit and run engagements being encountered with the enemy. The enemy was often equipped with AK rifles with 30-round magazines, a select-fire capability, and mid-range 7.62x39mm cartridges that allowed them to carry a larger ammunition load than U.S. troops. The M14 rifles had 20-round magazines, long-range 7.62x51mm ammunition, and most of the rifles were fitted with selector locks limiting their operation to semi-automatic-only. A lighter weapon with controllable automatic fire was needed to match the enemy’s AK rifles; enter the M16. Despite the M16 rifle’s controversial early problems with malfunctions, most of the shortcomings were addressed with the M16A1 model.

After the introduction of the M16A1 rifle, the conflict in Vietnam continued to escalate. The Army needed more rifles for both U.S. troops and to replace the World War II weapons being used by the South Vietnamese and Korean allies. During this period Colt was the only company producing the M16A1 rifle. The Department of Defense wanted to have a second source to manufacture the rifle. Unlike the M1 Garand and M14 rifles that were developed at the U.S. Springfield Armory and manufactured by several commercial companies, Colt owned the exclusive rights to the AR15/M16 design and were reluctant to release them to the government. Finally, in June of 1967, after years of negotiations an agreement was reached allowing the government to seek bids for second source production. The two manufacturers awarded contracts were the Hydra-Matic Division of General Motors and Harrington and Richardson (H&R). Estimated ceiling prices with non-reoccurring startup costs were: first year production of 60,000 rifles at $250.00 each, second-year production 180,000 rifles at $150.00 each. The prices did not include the reoccurring cost of $8.68 for seven magazines, or the $4,500,000 and 5.5% royalty paid to Colt for the rights to establish a second source production. The establishment of second source for M16 production was not considered to be economically justified unless H&R was at least 33% below the established ceiling price. Colt’s 1963 M16 contract was priced at $126.37 per rifle, the price was reduced to $104.39, each, by September 1967.

H&R’s contract was DAF03-68-C-0045 dated 19 April 1968 for 240,000 rifles at a cost of $170.43 each. The first delivery was made in December of 1968, the final delivery was made March 1971. All H&R M16A1 rifles were assigned serial numbers in the 2,000,000 range.

Harrington & Richardson Inc. was a well-established U.S. firearms manufacturer. It had previously manufactured weapons under contract for the U.S. Government, that included the M1 Garand during the Korean War and M14 rifles during the 1960s, as well as the Reising submachine gun that saw limited use in World War II. Harrington and Richardson operated three factories located in Gardner, Worcester, and Rochdale, Massachusetts, and a fourth plant in Elm Grove, West Virginia. After H&R’s 1968 M16A1 contract ended in 1971, all the facilities were closed except the Gardner factory at 60 Industrial Rowe. Phillips Metallurgical, Inc. was a subsidiary of Harrington and Richardson, located in Swanton, Vermont. The company was a foundry which supplied H&R and other companies.    

“Is that a handle?”

Today, the AR15 type rifles are unrecognizable from those made in the 1960-80 era. Gone from the rifles are the carry handle upper receivers, fixed buttstocks, and triangle handguards; replaced by multiple rails for attaching optics, lasers, red-dot optics and flashlights. Many younger AR enthusiasts are not familiar with the rifles in the original configuration. Often when seeing an early manufacture AR15/M16 they will ask “What is that a handle?” referring to the upper receiver. The AR15/M16 was designed to keep the recoiling parts in-line with the buttstock to reduce muzzle rise in full-automatic fire. As a result, the sights of the rifle had to be elevated. The original carry handle of the M16’s upper receiver was used to mount the rear sight, keeping it in line with the raised front sight. Today’s AR15/M16 rifle has come a long way since it first appeared in the jungles of Vietnam.

After a controversial and dubious start, the AR type rifle is now one of the most popular semi-automatic civilian firearms in the U.S. With the widespread use of modern optics, the carry handle was removed from the design and replaced with a rail. There was a period where no commercial manufacturer offered an AR model with a carry handle, and soon the existence of the handle was forgotten or unknown.

The upper receivers on most H&R M16A1 rifles have forging flash seams on both the front and rear of the carry handle.

Retro M16A1 Rifles

Despite the modernization of the AR15/M16 rifles since its introduction more than 60 years ago, there is a growing interest in the original “old school” configuration. Many retro aficionados are building clones, albeit semi-automatic, of the Vietnam era M16 rifles. Many purists seek original parts to assemble their guns, although most must settle for a modern lower receiver. Original style receiver markings are available from several companies that offer laser engraving, yet another offers markings applied by the original roll-marking method. Most available lower receivers offered today are the reinforced M16A2 pattern, introduced during the 1980s, while all the Vietnam era receivers were the M16 or M16A1 type. Since M16A1 forgings aren’t produced any longer, reinforced A2 style forgings must be carefully machined to the original A1 specs.

Identifying Harrington and Richardson Parts

Note: There are certain features that are common to most H&R manufactured M16A1 rifles; with the small fraction of the weapons available for examination, it is not possible to make definitive statements regarding component identification. Arsenal rebuilding and repair of weapons in the field by armorers, and the large number of subcontractors supplying parts make positive identification impossible.

It is quite likely that many subcontractors were used by H&R during the production of their M16A1 rifles, for example H&R in their M14 production subcontracted out 89 of the 110 parts used in an M14 rifle using 37 different companies.

There are several ways to ID most H&R parts from those from GM / Hydra-Matic and the far more common Colt parts. Many H&R parts were marked with a number, most likely to identify the subcontractor. It’s quite possible they may have used a few of the same subcontractors as GM/Hydra-Matic for some M16A1 parts, as similar markings have been noted on parts on rifles from both manufacturers.

Lower Receiver

The color of the anodizing on H&R contract M16A1 rifles varies; many are darker in color than Colt’s 1960s era gray. The left side of the magazine well is roll marked with H&R’s Lion trademark enclosed in a circle and Property of U.S. Gov’t markings. The right side of the magazine well has a full “fence” around the magazine release. Often the right side was marked with a white Department of Defense eagle acceptance stamp. The acceptance stamp most often seen on H&R rifles is 0.5-inch and similar to those found on Colt rifles of the same era.

Upper Receiver

There are variations of the upper receivers documented, one common sign is the lack of markings in the concave area on the right side under the rear sight. Post 1970 Colt contract upper receivers will have two letters in that area. H&R upper receivers will generally have a forging flash, or “seam” on the front or rear of the carry handle. GM/Hydra-Matic upper receivers typically have the forging flash on the rear portion of the handle. The forward assist may or may not have a number on the back side of the teardrop handle. The ejection port door had a small pad with rounded corners.

Charging Handle

The profile is usually thicker than those fitted on GM and Colt M16A1 rifles, but there have been no distinguishing marks noted.

Fire Control Group

The fire control components, hammer, trigger, and the fire selector lever will have a number and/or a letter H on them. The disconnector was not marked. The mode of fire selector lever will have a number on the back surface. Keep in mind that using M16A1 fire control group parts in a semi-automatic AR rifle can cause legal problems. It is strongly suggested that any M16 internal parts be altered to a semi-automatic configuration.

Barrel

H&R barrels will generally have the letters MP upside down on the left side between the legs of the front sight base. There will be a letter C on the top of their barrels, just aft of the muzzle, indicating a chrome chamber. Barrels are the 0.625-inch outside diameter “pencil” type with a 1:12 twist, and a birdcage flash hider. Original barrels are probably the most difficult component to find, as many M16 rifles had to be re-barreled due to excessive use, and / or corrosion of the non-chromed bores. Colt and other contractors made thousands of replacement barrels during the Vietnam War.  

Front Sight Base

There are several front sight base variations. Some have forging flash on the front and/or rear, and on the bayonet lug. Some bases observed had a letter or number on the sides.  

Furniture

Most were fitted with type D buttstocks with a rubber buttplate without a trapdoor, and have an articulating sling swivel. The furniture will often have an aged, mottled appearance. The pistol grips were slightly larger in circumference than those on Colt M16A1 rifles.

H&R pistol grips, handguards and buttstocks will be marked with letters and/or numbers observed in various locations.  

Bolt Carrier and Bolt

H&R bolt carriers do not have any manufacturer’s markings; the finish machining appears rougher than on Colt carriers. H&R bolts were marked MP to indicate that they were magnetic particle inspected. The marking placement is different than Colt/GM and runs front to back.  

Bolt Stop

H&R bolt stops have a subcontractor ID number on the bottom. Numbers 1 through 7 have been noted.

On December 3, 1984, Harrington and Richardson of Gardner Massachusetts filed for Chapter 11 reorganization under federal bankruptcy laws. In a press release, C. Edward Rowe Jr., the company president, said the company was forced to seek reorganization because of declining business and a major product liability claim in Pennsylvania. In addition to the Pennsylvania claim, Mr. Rowe estimated there were 12 additional product liability cases pending against the company. In November 1985, it was revealed that there were several parties interested in purchasing Harrington and Richardson and its subsidiary Philips Metallurgical Inc.

During December Harrington and Richardson was granted permission by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Worcester, Mass. to continue operating under a current plan of asset reduction until a new hearing was scheduled. The asset reduction plan was estimated to generate one-million dollars. H&R’s attorney John Sigel said the asset reduction plan generated more funds than the company had expected.

Despite the smaller numbers produced, H&R M16A1 rifles are more commonly encountered than those made by GM / Hydra-Matic. There were a number of small arms sold during H&R’s asset reduction sale (despite popular belief, there was not a bankruptcy auction). A large lot of the weapons, which included 29 M14s, 65 H&R M16A1 rifles and 1 Colt M16A1, were purchased by “John K” a somewhat mysterious individual from eastern Pennsylvania. The M14 and M16 rifles were transferable and sold at, what seems like today, bargain basement prices.   

By the fall of 1986, a new buyer was found for the Harrington and Richardson company, Vincent Sheil Incorporated. Paul A. Senecal, an investor in Vincent Sheil Inc, and former Director of sales and marketing at Harrington and Richardson, said the new company would continue to manufacture firearms. A $1.5 million offer was made for H&R’s assets including equipment and machinery, and the assets of the Phillips Metallurgical Inc. foundry. The new company was to operate under the name New England Arms. The agreement allowed the new firm to lease the 60 Industrial Rowe property. On December 20, 1986, the sale was approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The sale of Harrington and Richardson to Vincent Sheil Inc. saved jobs, kept the company’s assets from being liquidated at auction, and the factory sitting vacant.

H&R M16A1 Rifles examined

• 2243700
• 2074531
• 2339159
• 2081621
• 2080362
• 2122678

Resources

• AR-15.com
• Government Documents (Declassified)
• Procurement, Production and Distribution of the AR15, M16 and M16A1 Weapon System (1 June 1968)  
• Procurement History and Analysis of the M16 Rifle AMSWE-PPE-72-01 (printed 2 August 1971)
• M16A1 Initial Production and Comparison Test; GM. H&R, Colt. (9 Jan 69)

Books

• The Black Rifle-M16 Retrospective R. Blake Stevens and Edward C. Ezell
• The Great Rifle Controversy Edward Clinton Ezell
• The Last Steel Warrior, the U.S. M14 Rifle F. Iannamico

Special thanks to: Eve Eisenbise, Anthony Ciravolo, and Jeff Bodell. (ATF FATD), John Scott, David Gilmore, Alex McKenzie, Springfield Armory Historical Site

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V25N10 (December 2021)

In my previous article, I introduced an ongoing case in Florida that has garnered considerable attention throughout the firearms industry. Rare Breed Triggers, LLC, and its owner are challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) classification of the model FRT-15 trigger as a machinegun and the subsequent cease-and-desist letter from the Tampa field division. In this article, I will dive deeper into the heart of the matter – how ATF interprets the phrase “single function of the trigger” contained in the statutory definition of “machinegun” and how much deference the courts may (or may not) grant ATF.

I – Machinegun Prohibition

Since 1986, when Congress enacted the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act, transfer and possession of “machineguns” has been strictly prohibited except when such transfer or possession involves the federal, state, or local government, or a machinegun registered as of May 19, 1986. 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). The term “machinegun” is defined in the National Firearms Act (NFA) as:

[A]ny weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) (emphasis added); see also 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(23) (cross-referencing the definition of machinegun with section 5845(b) of the NFA). As I discussed in my previous article, the statute does not define the terms “automatically” and “single function of the trigger,” although in 2018 ATF revised its regulations to define both. These critical terms and ATF’s interpretation lie at the heart of the Rare Breed Triggers case.

II – ATF’s Interpretation of Single Function of the Trigger

There are two approaches to the phrase “single function of the trigger.” One approach focuses on the actions of the shooter while the other focuses on the mechanical movement of the trigger. Since 2006 with the Akins Accelerator, ATF has followed the former approach, interpreting “single function of the trigger” to mean the shooter’s single act to initiate a firing sequence (a pull, push or other activation of the trigger). ATF codified this interpretation in the bump stock rule in 2018 (83 Fed. Reg. 66517 (Dec. 26, 2018)).

                  1.  The Staples Footnote

To justify its interpretation of “single function of the trigger”, ATF relies heavily on the 1994 Supreme Court opinion in Staples v. U.S., in particular a footnote in the very beginning of the opinion in which the Court explained what is meant by a fully automatic weapon. The footnote reads: “As used here, the terms “automatic” and “fully automatic” refer to a weapon that fires repeatedly with a single pull of the trigger. That is, once the trigger is depressed, the weapon will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released, or the ammunition is exhausted. Such weapons are “machineguns” within the meaning of the Act.” 511 U.S. at 602, n.1.

                  2.  The Akins Accelerator Case

In 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida agreed with ATF’s interpretation of “single function of the trigger.” The case, Akins v. U.S., No. 8:08-cv-988-T-26TGW, 2008 WL 11455059 (M.D. FL 2008), arose out of ATF’s reclassification of the Akins Accelerator and the inventor’s subsequent action claiming ATF’s actions were arbitrary and capricious and a violation of due process. Looking to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “single function of the trigger” in Staples and the legislative history of the NFA, the district court found ATF’s interpretation of the statute and the definition of “machinegun” to “be necessary to protect the public from dangerous firearms.” Id. at 5. The court deferred to ATF and found against the plaintiff, noting “in the face of technological innovation of the Akins Accelerator and similar devices, ATF’s change in position is appropriate.” Id. at 6.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit, in a per curiam opinion (by the court; no individual author), affirmed the District Court’s decision that ATF acted within its discretion when it reclassified the Akins Accelerator as a machinegun and that its interpretation of “single function of the trigger” is consistent with the statute and its legislative history. Akins v. U.S., 312 F. App’x 197, 200 (11^th Cir. 2009). The court also held that the NFA’s definition of “machinegun” was not unconstitutionally vague. “The plain language of the statute defines a machinegun as any part or device that allows a gunman to pull the trigger once and thereby discharge the firearm repeatedly. Use of the word “function” instead of “pull” to reference the action taken by a gunman to commence the firing process is not so confusing that a man of common intelligence would have to guess at its meaning.” Id. at 201.

                  3.  The Bump Stock Rule

In the 2018 final rule governing bump-stock devices, 83 Fed. Reg. 66518 (Dec. 26, 2018), ATF once again cited the Staples note as justification for its interpretation “single function of the trigger.”

The Department proposed to interpret the phrase “single function of the trigger” to mean “a single pull of the trigger,” as it considered it the best interpretation of the statute and because it reflected ATF’s position since 2006. The Supreme Court in Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 602 n.1 (1994), indicated that a machinegun within the NFA “fires repeatedly with a single pull of the trigger.” This interpretation is also consistent with how the phrase “single function of the trigger” was understood at the time of the NFA’s enactment in 1934.

The final rule revised the regulations governing machineguns to add definitions for “automatically,” to mean “functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger,” and “single function of the trigger,” defined as “a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions.” 83 Fed. Reg. at 66,553-66,554 (codified at 27 C.F.R. §§ 447.11, 478.11 and 479.11). The rule also specified that “machine gun” “includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.”

The bump stock rule has since been the target of three notable cases in the Tenth Circuit (Aposhian v. Wilkinson), the District of Columbia Circuit (Guedes v. BATFE), and the Sixth Circuit (Gun Owners of America v. Garland). In each of these cases, the respective courts examined whether ATF’s interpretation of the statutory definition of “machinegun” should be accorded deference. These cases are important because at least one will likely reach the Supreme Court. I will examine in greater detail in my next article. For now, I will return to the Rare Breed Triggers case percolating in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 6:21-cv-01245-CEM-GJK) and the recent excitement caused by a decision coming out of the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals.

III- The Rare Breed Triggers’ Amended Complaint and Notice of Supplemental Authority

On August 27, 2021, the plaintiffs in the Rare Breed Triggers case filed with the court an amended complaint adding two additional defendants, Earl Griffith, chief of the ATF Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), and David Smith, a firearms enforcement officer in FATD who examined the FRT-15 trigger and authored the technical examination report. The amended complaint alleges the ATF, before examining the FRT-15 in person, nevertheless expected the FRT-15 to be classified as a machinegun based on internet videos of persons using the FRT-15 trigger. When ATF did obtain an FRT-15, the plaintiffs allege the tests that FEO Smith conducted “were faulty and intentionally misleading for the purpose of conforming the tests to the predetermined outcome of the ATF.” Am. Complaint ¶¶ 63-66. Further, the plaintiffs contend FEO Smith’s use of a zip-tie constituted adding a part and thereby manufacturing a machinegun. “The zip-tie acts as a spring that repeatedly causes the pulling of the trigger, i.e., SMITH is adding an additional part to the gun, that does not exist on the FRT-15 to try and make the FRT-15 meet the definition of machinegun.” Am. Complaint ¶ 68.

In their opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, the defendants argue that the use of a zip-tie did not create a machinegun because a zip-tie does not meet the statutory definition of “any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun.” The defendants also explain that “a zip-tie illustrates that once the trigger is depressed, the firearm continues to fire, without the need to pull and release and pull again,” as stated in Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, 16 (filed Sept. 10, 2021).

The defendants argue the court should deny the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction because they are unlikely to succeed on the merits of any of their claims. Arguing that the FRT-15 is a machinegun, the defendants state that all the opinion letters in support of the plaintiffs’ argument “are based on the erroneous premise that the phrase “single pull of the trigger” refers to the mechanical movement of the trigger, rather than the pull of the trigger by the human shooter.” Opp. 10-11. The defendants cite to the Staples note as well as common interpretations of the phrase “single pull of the trigger” at the time of the NFA’s enactment in 1934. The defendants also cite the Akins case (see above), which was decided in the same jurisdiction as the present case. The fact that the lower district court and the Court of Appeals in Akins found the ATF’s interpretation of “single function of the trigger” as encompassing any “single pull of the trigger,” reasonable has not deterred the plaintiffs. On September 10, 2021, just hours before the defendants filed their Opposition to the Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, plaintiffs put forth a supplemental filing noting a recent decision of the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, U.S. v. Alkazahg, No. 202000087, 2021 WL 4058360 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 7, 2021). In that case, the court found that although the statute is ambiguous on what constitutes a machinegun

and the meaning of “single pull of the trigger,” a bump stock was not a machine gun because the phrase “single pull of the trigger” depends on the mechanical actions, makeup, design, and attributes of the firearm itself.

It is incorrect to equate the holding of the trigger in an automatic weapon with the holding of the trigger and the forward motion in a semi-automatic weapon equipped with a bump stock. That is because the former is shooting automatically by a single function of the trigger, while the latter is relying on an additional human action beyond the mechanical self-acting and impersonal trigger function.

Alkazahg at 15.

We will revisit the Alkazahg in the next “Legally Armed” column when we examine the arguments swirling about in the several bump stock cases. For now, though, we must acknowledge the fact that the Alkazahg case is at odds with precedent set forth in the Eleventh Circuit, namely the Akins case, in which the courts have found reasonable ATF’s interpretation of “single function of the trigger” as encompassing any “single pull of the trigger.” Exactly how the plaintiffs will overcome this high hurdle remains to be seen.

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

About the Author

Johanna Reeves is the founding partner of the law firm Reeves & Dola, LLP in Washington, DC (www.reevesdola.com). For more than 17 years she has dedicated her practice to advising and representing U.S. companies on compliance matters arising under the federal firearms laws and U.S. export controls. Since 2016, Johanna has served as a member of the U.S. Department of State’s Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG).  From 2011 through 2020, Johanna served as Executive Director for the Firearms and Ammunition Import/Export Roundtable (F.A.I.R.) Trade Group. Johanna can be reached at jreeves@reevesdola.com or 202-715-9941.