“John Paul” founded JP Enterprises in 1991 after 13 years of running a specialty store and gunsmithing business. Since then, he, and later his son, have created progressively more refined variants of AR-15 and AR-10 designs. Since 1955, these two Stoner rifles have undergone numerous refinements. The most visible of these is the relocation of the charging handle from inside the “carry handle” to the back of the receiver. That change enabled easier installation of optics and also kept the charging handle cool during sustained fire. Other improvements included free-floating forends, better triggers, and more robust stocks. It took JP’s genius to get the AR-10/15 platform to where it performs accurately and comfortably with sound suppressors. 

As a military weapon designed to work in stock configuration, M16s and AR-10s perform quite well. However, JP modifications resulted in significantly more useful rifles for individuals interested in suppression without over gassing, extreme accuracy, or effectively functioning with unconventional ammunition. The JP LRI-20 features the time-proven LRP-07 (Long Range Precision) lower, with LRI (Long Range Integral) upper. The word “Integral” in the LRI-20 name refers to the improved forend mounting system that promotes precise, rigid alignment with the receiver. 

The most obvious difference between a JP rifle and a standard AR-15 is the large, folding side charging handle. The standard AR-15 is difficult to use in the event of a stuck casing, providing insufficient surface area for the fingers to grasp. The JP handle, which is much wider than those of other side-chargers, provides a whole-hand grip and allows charging without breaking the cheek-weld. Its forward location makes for a more natural motion than the rear-placed standard part. From this change comes another advantage: the back of the receiver is completely enclosed. Any smoke or gas that ends up in the receiver comes out through the ejection port, not through the charging handle opening right by the shooter’s eyes. Any gas that might try to escape from the side-charging handle slot is thoughtfully blocked with a sliding cover.

Fortunately, over-gassing due to back-pressure from a sound suppressor or an aggressive muzzle brake is not a problem for JP rifles. The LRI-20 upper has an adjustable gas block that is operable with a simple hex wrench. While it doesn’t have markings for repeatable positions, an indicator line is easy to add, and the port is accessible without dismounting the forend. John Paul recommends using gas adjustments for small-scale tuning, especially for target shooting. For major changes or rough field use, he advises swapping the bolt and buffer weights.

This is where another useful feature comes in. The rifles are available with low, standard, and variable mass bolt carriers. The mass of variable carriers can be fine-tuned with steel or tungsten weights. The heaviest configuration slows down the bolt opening just enough to drop the gas pressure in suppressed configurations to ensure a clean cycle. The lightest aluminum carriers are paired up with low-mass titanium firing pins to reduce the amount of reciprocating weight in competition rifles. My sample rifle had a variable-weight carrier configured with two tungsten weights, and one steel weight for suppressed use. It also included the JP Silent Captured Spring, a required replacement of the standard AR spring and buffer. Precision-centered and polished, this combo also permits fine-tuning with steel and tungsten weights. The same part can be configured with weights and a spacer to work in an AR-10, AR-15, or a 9mm blowback rifle. Unlike Stoner’s original buffer with its characteristic “boing”, JP rifle buffers remain silent during the cycle.

This isn’t the first time I’ve used JP rifles. I’ve shot the .308 LRP-07 in 2010, and the .223 SCR-11 Rifle the following year. Setting up the LRI-20 was very straightforward: the gas required no adjustment, and zeroing with the 6-24 Meopta scope took only eight rounds of 168gr Federal Gold Medal Match. While any quality ammunition can be used to good effect, that is the recommended load. With the standard two-port muzzle brake and compensator, the .308 rifle’s recoil was reduced to sub-.223 level and muzzle rise eliminated, permitting spotting of shots through the scope at one hundred yards.

Unlike dedicated sporting guns, this rifle retains the forward assist and the dust cover. The extensively ventilated 17.5-inch forend is coupled with the nut integrated into the receiver for best stability. With the front rail attachment very near the muzzle, it gives the best possible stability on an Atlas bipod. The distance between the buttstock and the bipod is maximized, translating any rear movement into a smaller angular change for more precise aiming. For a higher volume of fire, a finned aluminum radiator can be added to the barrel. The standard JP MK III Handguard System uses 10-32 screws for adding rails and other accessories where needed, leaving the surface streamlined for easy handling.

The JP LRI-20 features a 20-inch barrel that is air-gauged and cryogenically treated for utmost consistency even when hot. 0.5 MOA is guaranteed: and I’ve seen results in the one-third MOA range with factory match ammunition. Its trigger weighs in at 3.6 lbs., but it feels significantly lighter thanks to the crisp break. Felt recoil is mild, the break is not concussive, and muzzle-rise is minimal as to permit spotting your own shots at 100 yards. In other words, I had almost the same experience with the LRI-20 as I did with the .223 SCR-11 Rifle, just while making bigger splashes on steel downrange.

A thread-on Thunder Beast  Arms Corporation titanium sound suppressor reduced the noise considerably while keeping the recoil about the same as with the brake. My point of impact shifted about 2MOA between the brake and the muffler, but accuracy was unchanged. Blowback while shooting suppressed was minimal, and no blowback at all was perceived once the gas port was closed by half of a turn. The enclosed back of the receiver is perfect for use with silencers.

My experiences with all four JP Rifles so far have proven them to be 100% reliable with or without the can; and I did not experience a single failure of any kind. With Federal Gold Match 168gr open tip bullets, the spread was around 0.5 MOA, as advertised. The same results were obtained with Hornady 168gr match and PRIME 175gr match. Plain 150gr plinking FMJ shot 1.5 MOA. Magtech 168gr match achieved 1.3MOA, same as Federal Fusion Soft Point.

The LRI-20 is also available in 6mm and 6.5mmCreedmoor, as well as 260 Remington calibers. In my experience, 6.5 Creedmoor edged out the .308 for accuracy at 0.3 MOA with factory Hornady and Federal Match ammunition. John Paul recommends handloading to the specific rifle for consistent groups at 0.5 MOA, and he has produced several informative videos on turning the gas system and the handloads to each other (see them at youtube.com/user/JPRifles). At my shooting skill level, I will take the 0.5MOA dispersion with the comfortable ergonomics and mild recoil and apply my time to learning how to calculate dope and wind better.

The JP LRI-20 rifle with PRS stock, the scope, a sling, a full magazine, and the Atlas bipod weighs around 14.5 pounds. For more on the JP LRI-20, please visit JP Enterprises.

As we patiently wait for the newest book by highly respected author Dolf Goldsmith to be released, I feel a look back at his previous series of books on the Browning family of belt-fed machine guns is in order. (The Vickers Machine Gun: Pride of the Emma Gees is an update of his classic title, The Grand Old Lady of No Man’s Land. Released in 1994, Grand Old Lady is long sold out and is very expensive on the used market. As I write this, I see asking prices of $690 to $920 on Amazon.)

The Browning Machine Gun series of books was originally planned to be a set of three books covering the .30-caliber guns. Volume I explores the early development phase of John M. Browning’s machine guns, their use in the latter days of WWI, further refinement between the Wars and their huge influence in WWII in U.S. service. Volume II covers the use of rifle-caliber Brownings in foreign use prior to and during WWII. Volume III covers mounts and all the various accessories and tools, etc. Later, a fourth volume covering the mighty .50-caliber M2 family joined the set. In 2016 this was followed by Volume V: Dolf’s Notebook, containing hints and tips for working on Browning machine guns. The first four volumes are published by Collector Grade Publications, while the fifth is published by Chipotle Publishing, LLC.

The first two volumes will be reviewed this issue. I hope to review the others in due time.

Collector Grade Publications has earned a well-deserved reputation for producing quality, in-depth reference books about military firearms, and these two books certainly meet the standard. These two books follow the established Collector Grade format of dividing the subject into parts, then into chapters, with each chapter further divided into many short segments. Often these segments are only a paragraph long.

Volume I

Volume I, “Part I: Gas Operation,” looks back at John Browning’s first experiments with full-auto guns. He first converted a Winchester Model 1873 lever action to fire full-auto by harnessing the muzzle blast to cycle the lever back and forth via a linkage rod and cup arrangement. He referred to this device as an “Automatic Magazine Gun.” He then designed a belt-fed gun he called the “Apparatus.” Although extremely crude looking, this worked well enough to prove the concept. In 1892, he (along with his brother Matt) obtained patents for both devices.

Soon, Browning was able to interest Colt’s Patent Fire Arms Manufacturing Company in his design. It matured into the gas-operated Model 1895 “Potato Digger” gun and became the first true automatic gun in U.S. service, used first by the Navy. Volume I also covers foreign sales of the M1895 and the improved Model 1914 in the period leading up to and including WWI. The book features numerous, fascinating, old photos from the mid-1890s to the WWI era.

Part I, Chapter Two deals with the M1914 guns built under license by the Marlin Firearms Company. Several variants such as the Tank Gun, the Model 1917 and Model 1918 Aeroplane Gun are profiled.

“Part II: The Switch to Recoil Operation” details John Browning’s move to design a recoil-operated machine gun. In fact, Browning had already designed and patented a recoil-powered shotgun for the civilian market. This was the FN-produced Browning A-5. Having acquainted himself with the recoil principle, he then applied this to a machine gun, the Model 1901. This led to the Model 1917, as covered in “Part III: The Browning in World War I.”

“Part IV: The Interwar Brownings, Chapter Seven, The M1917 Becomes the M1917A1” is a long, detailed look at the water-cooled gun. “Chapter Eight, Early Aircraft Machine Guns” follows the Model 1918 air-cooled gun. There are many intriguing variants and mounts featured here. Part V studies the M2 Aircraft gun (not to be confused with the .50-caliber M2HB).

“Part VI: Manufacturing Brownings for WWII” is where we are introduced to the iconic M1919A4 and M1919A6 of WWII fame. The massive War effort is dealt with here, including sections on production by Rock Island Arsenal and Saginaw Steering Gear (SSG, once a division of General Motors Corp.). I found the SSG segment very interesting. At first, there was some concern that as SSG had never built any type of firearms before, they would not be able to build a complex machine gun. SSG eventually built nearly 368,000 M1919A4 guns by June 1945. More amazing, the cost per gun dropped from $657.75 per gun for the first small batch, to an astonishing $54.72 per gun! Also, the total man-hours per gun dropped from 76 to 12 man-hours per gun.

“Part VII: Brownings in WWII” uses many personal recollections of the M1919A4 and A6 in combat. Likewise, “Part VIII: The Latter Days” looks at post-WWII use, including personal recollections from Korea. The book closes with a rather uncomplimentary look at the gun that replaced the Browning series of guns, the M60.

Volume II

While Volume I covers the development of the early prototypes in great detail and the adoption by U.S. services, Volume II deals with Browning machine guns in foreign service. As the guns were highly refined at this point (Pre-WWII era), Volume II does not cover the earliest days all over again. Rather, it briefly touches on guns from the interwar years (1920s and 1930s), then goes right into WWII service. Initially, this meant aircraft guns mostly, but later included ground guns as well.

Again, as is the Collector Grade way, Volume II is divided into parts and chapters. Part I is “The Browning in Britain.” This deals with the air-cooled, aircraft guns primarily. Interestingly, these aircraft guns were chambered for the .303 British cartridge. The Hawker Hurricane and the Supermarine Spitfire each were armed with eight Brownings, four in each wing. Many historians believe this decision, made several years before the start of the War, helped to win the Battle of Britain.

“Part II: British Commonwealth Brownings” looks at the gun’s use in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. The chapter covering Canada is the longest and deals with WWII production by two Canadian firms, later Browning use in Korea and conversion to 7.62×51 NATO. The two Canadian producers were the John Inglis and Co. Ltd. and Border Cities Industries Ltd., a division of GM, Canada.

“Part III: European Brownings” starts with Belgian FN licensing and royalties agreements with Colt, and then division of territories. Other European countries covered in Part III are the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Sweden. The last three each produced their own versions of aircraft, vehicle and ground guns.

Part IV deals with South American use, specifically Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay. These were supplied by Colt. The Bolivian and Paraguayan guns faced off against each other in the Chaco War of 1932–1935. A brief history of this war is given.

“Part V: Other Users” looks at pre-WWII Chinese manufacture and use. Also, Israeli and Japanese uses are very briefly dealt with.

These books are a fantastic resource for all aspects of Browning MG knowledge. From early photos from the Rock Island Arsenal Museum, John M. Browning Firearms Museum, the National Museum of the Marine Corps, the U.S. Naval Historical Center, MoD Pattern Room, Springfield Armory National Historic Site, U.S. National Archives, etc., to getting access to many public and private collections worldwide, this series is a monumental effort. Many of these photos feature unique views of seldom-seen tank, vehicle and aircraft mounts.

Often, long blocks of conversation from the development and early use phases are quoted. This text is presented in italics to differentiate it from the author’s text. Mr. Goldsmith used his connections in the collecting community to connect with other notable authors such as noted gun writer Peter Kokalis and former Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) Armourer Peter Laidler to offer additional insights. Several guest authors also provide information on specific countries.

This series is clearly a labor of love. I expect no less from Volumes III and IV as well.

Details

The Browning Machine Gun: Volume I
Rifle Caliber Brownings in U.S. Service
Author: Dolf L. Goldsmith
ISBN: 0-88935-370-0
Copyright: 2005
Binding: Hardcover and dust jacket
Size: 8.75×11.25 inches
Pages: 552 pages; 568 illustrations
Publisher: Collector Grade Publications
Available through: collectorgrade.com and SAR Bookstore

The Browning Machine Gun: Volume II
Rifle Caliber Brownings Abroad
Author: Dolf L. Goldsmith
ISBN: 0-88935-380-8
Copyright: 2006
Binding: Hardcover and dust jacket for both volumes
Size: 8.75×11.25 inches
Pages: 392 pages; 486 illustrations
Publisher: Collector Grade Publications
Available through: collectorgrade.com and SAR Bookstore

What comes to mind if a hunting or sporting rifle is mentioned? This author would venture to say an image of an exquisite wood stock and high blue finish bolt action appears. An alternate image that may come to mind is the popular Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR); i.e., an AR. AR rifles are versatile, easily accessorized and suitable for a wide variety of recreational, sport shooting and professional applications. While ARs were quickly embraced for varmint hunting, caliber expansion has steadily grown in popularity with hunters for larger-sized game as well. However, each thought would be wrong.

A manufacturer that is developing into a noteworthy force in the United States for multiple firearm types is Benelli. The recent introduction of the LUPO (Italian for wolf) bolt-action rifle surely served notice to existing hunting rifle providers. That’s right: Benelli, the noteworthy shotgun maker, is now offering a bolt-action rifle. To be clear the LUPO is not Benelli’s first foray into the centerfire cartridge rifle genre; the Benelli R1 semi-automatic rifle holds this distinction. The R1 was definitely influenced by Benelli shotgun ergonomics in its design. Frankly, the R1 did not take hold in the AR-dominated U.S. market; however, the Benelli LUPO is a different animal.

The Benelli LUPO is not intended for the tactical/sniper role—hunting is its realm. The Benelli LUPO is a well-balanced, 7-pound bolt action. The LUPO tested herein was chambered in .270 Win. with a 22-inch barrel. Other current chamberings are .30-06 and .300WinMag, with 6.5 Creedmoor, .308 Win. and .243 Win. also planned. Benelli invested 4 years into the LUPO’s birth. While graceful, stylish Italian lines are clearly present on the LUPO, Benelli’s design elements require an in-depth exploration to appreciate what the LUPO offers.

Design Elements

The LUPO’s two-piece stock puts you on notice something is different with the Benelli bolt action. The buttstock is attached behind the trigger guard à la shotgun. No surprise here considering Benelli’s background. The LUPO utilizes a vibration-absorbing, slightly compressible, rubber insert for the comb. Benelli labels this a Combtech System cheek pad. A bit of give in the Combtech cheekpiece mitigates the recoil’s slap against the shooter’s cheek and jawbone. Different height inserts are available as an accessory for the cheekpiece.

Benelli’s Progressive Comfort® recoil reduction system is found within the buttstock. This is a series of recoil-slowing baffles, in addition to the rubber pad on the butt. All are very effective at minimizing perceived recoil. The Progressive Comfort recoil reduction system incorporates three sets of patented, interlocking, flexible buffers that absorb recoil at different stages. If you cut away away the outside of the stock, you would see the three sets of polymer interwoven fingers that interact during recoil cycle. Lastly, the LUPO’s stock can be adjusted for drop, cast and trigger reach via included shims. Spacers are also available for different length of pull requirements. Shooters can achieve a customized fit out-of-the-box with the LUPO without requiring expensive gunsmithing.

The LUPO’s stock is a blend of machined-aluminum chassis and composite furniture. A mini-chassis serves as an anchor for the upper receiver containing the action and extending out the forend, securing the free-floated barrel. With its Italian flare for design, the LUPO does not come off as a blocky, unwieldy affair as most chassis-based designs do. The trigger guard is set at a distinctive angle compared to other more traditional bolt actions. Benelli feels this positions the shooting hand and wrist at an angle more conducive to accurate field shooting.

The LUPO three-lug bolt requires a 60-degree bolt throw. Several important nuances surround LUPO’s bolt. It is chrome-lined for easy maintenance. The sleek profile of the bolt narrows in the center giving the detachable magazine more space underneath. This allows for a five-round capacity versus the more typical four rounds. The detachable magazine fits neatly inside the chassis, not protruding out the bottom. This decision was made to maximize the ergonomics of the LUPO. How many times afield do you carry your rifle with your hand under the action? A lot. The LUPO’s detachable magazine can be loaded while still being in place inside the rifle. This is a nice touch. The curvy bolt handle adds to the LUPO’s graceful lines while maintaining functionality of scope clearance and fast functioning.

 LUPO barrels are cold-hammer forged and then subjected to Benelli’s proprietary Crio® System deep-freeze treatment that makes the steel’s surface structure more uniform. The barrel interfaces with the action via an oversized 1.205-inch-diameter barrel extension found on the receiver. The barrel tapers down to 0.655 inch at the threaded 5/8×24 muzzle.

This is where the .270 Winchester (.270 Win.) comes into the story. The .270 Win. has been around since 1925 and has generated a dedicated following. What is not to love about a 130-grain bullet at 3,100+ feet per second? While the 6.5 Creedmoor is certainly the hottest-selling center-fire going currently, in my opinion the 6.5 Creedmoor does not equal the soon-to-be, 100-year-old .270 Win. as a pure hunting cartridge. The difference lies in case dimensions which allows for higher velocities to be obtained with .270 Win. 130- or 140-grain bullets. Simply put the 6.5 Creedmoor cannot equal velocity or downrange energy yields of the .270 Win. at typical game engagement distances thanks to the .270 Win.’s larger case dimension.

The Benelli LUPO was put through its paces in a triumvirate testing format: square-range accuracy; fluid, interactive jungle-walk scenarios; and in-the-field hunting. While each provides useful data, the ability to use the LUPO for an extended amount of time in the field is what solidified its high standing for this T&E.

Optically Speaking

An important part of the accuracy equation is a quality optic to go along with the cartridge and rifle. A Leupold Mark 5HD™ 3.6-18x44mm was chosen for use with Benelli LUPO. While, certainly not inexpensive with a $2,300–$2,700 MSRP, comparative searches with other manufacturers with similarly featured front focal plane (FFP) optics show the Mark 5HD coming in about $800–$1,000 lower in cost. The Mark 5HD is designed for the multi-discipline shooter, not just tactical applications. Let us get into the details of what distinguishes the Mark 5HD from other optics. First off, the size and weight of the 35mm tubed Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44mm stands out in a positive way. The Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44mm weighs in at 26 ounces. This is 20 ounces lighter than many competitors’ offerings with the same features. The Leupold Mark 5HD measures 12.6 inches long.

Another important optic feature that is hard to quantify is “eye box.” Without getting into the minutia of technical definitions researched, eye box is a scope’s tolerance to side-to-side, up-and-down and eye-relief misalignment. This is a very important consideration for real world applications when an optic mounted on a rifle is taken afield, and the sterile range atmosphere disappears into more chaotic scenarios. Leupold has created an eye box with the Mark 5HD allowing for superior edge-to-edge clarity and showcasing details at longer ranges in the widest spectrum of weather and lighting conditions. Eye relief and generous allowance for head position eye box is a top Leupold priority when it comes to user/optic interface with the Leupold Mark 5HD.

LUPO to the Test

Good marksmanship in the field starts with confidence. Confidence is built through firing a rifle that is not overly punishing and is inherently accurate as demonstrated from the bench. A rifle that shoots well off the bench offers the shooter no excuses or alibis when serious practice includes using field shooting positions or shooting in the woods. LUPO accuracy testing was conducted using Black Hills Gold 130-grain TSX, SIG SAUER® Elite 140-grain Controlled Expansion Tip, Sierra 140-grain TGK and Hornady® 130-grain SST® Superformance® and GMX® Superformance loads. Bench testing was done off of a Caldwell® tripod front rest and rear sandbag. All of the various ammunition loads produced groups no larger than 1 inch with most in the ¾-inch range. This is impressive and reflective of LUPO quality. The accuracy figures are based on firing five, three-round groups and averaging group sizes. 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 LUPO’s 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 Benelli LUPO proved potent on the EVTC “Jungle Walk” range at Echo Valley Training Center (EVTC) with targets placed at 30 yards and out to 240 yards. The ability to move through its varied terrain and engage randomly placed targets hidden within cover suited the Benelli LUPO perfectly. Multiple shots were fired at most of the targets. The emphasis was on accurate shot placement and how the LUPO’s smooth recoil impulse facilitated follow-up shots. If lucky, the hunter will be able to adopt a kneeling or sitting position in lieu of shooting purely offhand. A BOG™ DeathGrip tripod proved invaluable for this part of the evaluation. It was eye-opening how stable this author could make a sitting or standing position using the BOG tripod.

The 7-pound, 22-inch barrel LUPO proved easy to handle with no searching for a target required when the rifle was brought up to the shoulder. A spare magazine on the belt or pocket allowed for efficient reloads by simply releasing the empty LUPO magazine and swapping a loaded detachable magazine. Another option was to insert rounds directly into the empty magazine after exposing it via opening the bolt. The LUPO proved to be at home on EVTC’s Known Distance Range #2. Steel targets out to 520 yards were engaged with the LUPO from the prone position.

The timing worked out for using the Benelli LUPO during the recent whitetail hunting season along the West Virginia/Virginia border. The rugged/steep terrain is ideal for the lightweight, yet accurate LUPO bolt-action rifle. The rifle is highly accurate for hunting from stands or ground blinds with shots across wide open clearings, yet handy 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 find a shooting lane. A month in the field with the LUPO served notice that it is worthy.

The Benelli LUPO is the cutting edge of bolt-action rifle technology, combining many innovative features with time-proven, accuracy-producing enhancements. The LUPO’s distinctive aesthetics immediately puts one on notice that this is not an ordinary rifle.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Benelli: benelliusa.com
Leupold: leupold.com
SIG SAUER: sigsauer.com
Hornady: hornady.com
Black Hills Ammunition: black-hills.com

Sitting here in relative isolation watching the snow fall, my mind drifts to pondering over two of many gifts from China, the most recent being the novel coronavirus with its social distancing. The other, a number of centuries ago, was gunpowder which permitted engaging targets at relatively great distances with the disadvantage of significantly more noise than that of the bow and arrow. A little over 100 years ago, Hiram Percy Maxim applied some of his automotive muffler concepts to firearms, thereby starting the modern firearm silencer (or, more correctly, suppressor) industry. Initially popular for backyard shooting, silencer technology and interest languished with passage of the original National Firearms Act of 1934. The imposed tax of $200 (over 7 ounces of gold) for a $7 silencer was prohibitive during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

World War II saw military development of silencers primarily for clandestine operations by the British SAS and our OSS. Weapons included the De Lisle carbine, STEN MK IIS, Welrod, OSS High Standard HDM-S Military and a number of other similar designs built experimentally for various platforms. Our involvement in Vietnam spurred development of newer, silenced weapons by small companies (such as Military Armament Corporation and Knight’s Armament) for the military market. In the same time frame, a young entrepreneur with a class 2 Federal Firearms License, Jonathan Arthur Ciener, started modifying mostly Ruger .22LR weapons into silenced versions and advertising widely with small, one-inch-column ads in periodicals aimed at the sportsman, collector and shooter. These ads mostly sold his catalogs, but they did spark interest in the general public.

It was only a few years until the number of civilian-oriented, small manufacturers grew in size and quantity to what we have today, where silencers are pretty much mainstream. The technology has also blossomed over the past half century from dimpled washers in a piece of tube or glass-pack muffler designs to more complex machined baffles, monocores and now 3D-printed exotic designs. Each has its advantages and drawbacks. In a similar vein, user-serviceability has also run a cyclic gamut from the sealed units of Maxim’s suppressor, to user-maintainable in the post-Vietnam era, back to sealed units around the start of the 21^st century, and again back to user-serviceable today (especially in the dirty rimfire calibers).

Prices have increased also. Where Maxim sold his rimfire silencers for $7, today’s rimfire units run in the vicinity of about $200 dollars. His $15 .30-caliber rifle silencers have morphed into today’s retailing in the vicinity of $1,000. However, if one considers the price of gold that rose from $35/ounce to the vicinity of $1,800/ounce (12/1/20), the cost is comparable. The difference is that the tax has not changed since 1934, meaning that instead of the tax being 10 to 20 times the value, it is now about a tenth or fifth the value depending on caliber. And the technology, durability, performance and lifespan have increased significantly.

Today’s consumers have changed also. I have been legitimately involved in the industry for nearly half a century, first as a hobbyist and later as a businessman. In days gone by, the primary concern was sound level. The designs were relatively large and often heavy. Reputation and marketing were primarily spread using word of mouth, print advertisements and reviews published in gun magazines. The design approach was often simplistic and based on WWII experience. The Department of the Army’s Frankford Arsenal Report—Silencers: Principles and Evaluations, Report R-1896 (Leonard W. Skochko and Harry A. Greveris,

 August 1968) was one of the early scientific discussions of silencer technology, and a number of the discussed principles and analyses are still valid today. The report’s early attempts at sound level measurement seriously missed the mark, but at least it was an attempt to quantify the degree of sound reduction. In the 1970s and for many years to follow, the standard instrument for measuring firearm sound levels was the Bruel & Kjaer (B&K) 2209 (with a ¼-inch pressure microphone) to be joined by the Larson Davis 800B in the 1980s. Both measured peak levels reasonably accurately. Today, we have the B&K Pulse system which is probably the most accurate-to-date instrument for measuring the short duration peaks of gunshots.

While initially the emphasis was on quieting the muzzle blast for near-silent shooting, hearing damage issues have assumed greater concern. Many of us older shooters, especially veterans, can trace significant hearing loss due to gunfire. Today’s shooters often have similar hearing loss, but the main etiology has been painful rock concerts and headphones used with the Sony Walkman cassette player and subsequent MP3 music players, not firearms where they have used hearing protectors.

In my opinion, the purpose of a silencer is to decrease the sound level generated by the sudden release of high-pressure propelling gases. So doing makes shooting more fun. Sound decreases according to the inverse square law wherein the pressure drops in a linear manner with each doubling of the distance from the source. Additionally, significant sound is generated by supersonic bullets in flight, but the shock wave is not perceived by the shooter until it reflects off a downrange object. This sound also decreases by the inverse square law, and because it is a reflection, the origin of the sound cannot be determined by an observer. As a result, the ballistic crack is never a source of hearing damage to the shooter. Silencers do an admirable job in concealing the origin of the shot, and in hunting scenarios the target will either be blissfully ignorant of the danger, be simply confused or run toward the hunter.

Do I think silencers should not be regulated? Most definitely. It is a shame that the Hearing Protection Act iterations have failed, but deregulating silencers is not politically correct. Further, it would involve Congress forfeiting a tax source, albeit small.

Today’s silencers are definitely smaller and lighter than the ones from 30 to 40 years ago and are usually more efficient. However, there are limits to the degree of suppression for a given size unit governed by the laws of physics. There are wide choices of manufacturers and models. The majority of promotion today relies on the internet with manufacturers’ websites, digital magazine reviews and discussion forums (which are too often a source of intense misinformation). While military users weigh flash/dust signature, length and weight issues above sound concealment, in the civilian market cosmetics and cool factors seem to be the dominant driving force rather than sound. I have heard more than one silencer marketing director state that he can’t sell round pieces of pipe (regardless of performance) and that new cosmetics are needed every 6 months to remain competitive—kind of like Detroit cars. Exterior-enhancing cosmetic cuts and swirls are too often necessary to sell a proven interior design. Monocores are the current rage, and while many are effective, many are marginal in sound reduction, and virtually all have a significant first-round pop. They do make service simpler (if user disassembly is desired), and they are less expensive to produce, considering parts count and today’s robotic manufacturing machines.

What I have real difficulty in understanding is the love affair with so-called “micro silencers”—tiny, short silencers that don’t appreciably reduce sound levels but that are expensive and command a $200 tax stamp. We have measured several for 5.56 NATO weapons that reduce the sound level by less than 10 db. In my opinion, when one wants something Hollywood-quiet and Hollywood-sized, a suppressor in .22LR is really hard to beat. Most are in the 1×5- or 1×6-inch platforms, fairly inexpensive, have a classic appearance and perform slightly better than Maxim’s suppressor from a century ago. I also have difficulty in understanding the mindset behind investing several cubic dollars plus a tax stamp in a silencer just to see how many rounds it takes to destroy the unit in a machine gun. Guess I am just getting old. Beware of symbolism over substance.

The snow has stopped, and the sun came out. I think I’ll bundle up, go outside in the back yard and hone my skills with my suppressed .22 pistol while shooting pigeons off my roof.

In 1918, Fokker, a Dutch aircraft manufacturer, placed full-page ads in industry engineering magazines that not only touted its aircraft but its armament featuring Maxim and Parabellum machine guns.

Hussmann & Co. was one of the companies that manufactured machine gun mounts for German aircraft in World War I. This full-page ad for Hus-smann’s MG Normal Ringe was placed in the September/October 1918 issue of Motor, a German engineering magazine. Further copy below the central image states, “Tried and tested by the air force inspection and intended for use.” This ring-mount unit was fitted to several multi-seat aircraft in late 1917 and early 1918 for aerial defense and was similar in construction to the English Scarf mount. The air gunner artwork is done by Fr. Winklemann.

After a series of tests and minor modifications, the Swedish Armed Forces (Svenska armén) found the weapon suitable and adopted it in 1942 under the designation Pansarvärnsgevär Modell 1942 or, in short, pvg m/42.

A two-man team, one operator and one loader, handled the breech-loading, single-shot weapon. The loader swings the tail section of the barrel, which is designed as a nozzle based on the Venturi Principle, to the side. Then he pushes a cartridge in and swings the tail section back in place. The weapon is now ready to fire. The nozzle allows a well-dosed amount of gas pressure to escape to the rear so that there is hardly any recoil.

Special ammunition had to be developed for this mode of operation, because a closed cartridge base would not have worked. The case of the 20x180R cartridges therefore has a slightly fragile base with a primer located in the middle. When the round is fired, the gas pressure works in both directions. To the front, it drives the projectile through the barrel. To the rear, when a specific pressure is reached, it blows out two pieces of the base. That way a part of the gas pressure can leave the weapon through the nozzle to provide reactive force and countering recoil. A major disadvantage of recoilless and low-recoil weapons is the loss of gas pressure for propulsion of the projectile. The cartridge case is therefore extremely voluminous and contains a large propellant charge to compensate for the loss of gas pressure.

Unlike most other anti-tank rifles of that time, the pvg m/42 was designed to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, it has a specially shaped shoulder rest and pistol grip. A bipod could be attached for the prone position. The sight was adjusted to 980 feet (300m) as standard, but there was also a telescopic sight to slide on a rail.

The armor-piercing projectile achieved a muzzle velocity of about 2,950 ft/s (900 m/s) and penetrated 1.6 inches (40mm) of armor at a distance of 330 feet (100m) when hitting at an optimal angle of 90°. These performance values could hardly be increased with such a weapon, so it was clear that in case of war against modern, armored combat vehicles, only some lucky hits would promise success.

Nevertheless, the Swedish Armed Forces ordered 3,219 pieces of the pvg m/42, which were to be delivered between August 1942 and July 1944. There is controversy over the number of weapons that were actually received by the Army before the end of World War II. The Carl Gustafs factory was already working on more advanced anti-tank weapons at that time. A few years later, the efforts resulted in the 84mm recoilless rifle m/48 (Granatgevär m/48). Its hollow-charge grenades penetrate more than 16 inches (400mm) of armor steel.

TECHNICAL DATA

• Caliber                           20x180R
• Length                           57in             145cm
• Weight                            24.2lb          11kg

After successfully evolving from the XM16E1, the Colt M16A1 rifle, adopted during 1967, continued in service until 1983. Despite the rifle’s problematic beginning during the Vietnam War, it evolved into a world-class military weapon, and its 5.56mm cartridge has become the NATO standard. 

The origins of the M16A2 rifle began with a request from the U.S. Marine Corps, who pride themselves on marksmanship and a tradition of “Every Marine a Rifleman.” During September of 1979, Marine Corps representatives met with Colt to discuss their ideas on how to improve the M16A1 rifle. They wanted a rear sight adjustable out to a range of 800 meters, a more accurate cartridge, and one that could penetrate military helmets and body armor at 800 meters. The Marines wanted a 3-round burst feature in place of the full-automatic function. During training, the Marines were hard on their weapons, particularly during bayonet drills. In order to have their rifles stand up to rough use, they requested a heavier barrel, and more durable plastic stocks and forearms.

The Joint Services Small Arms Program approved a rifle evaluation program and ordered fifty Product Improvement Program (PIP) M16s. The updated rifles were assembled on M16A1 lower receivers and designated as M16A1E1 rifles. These modified weapons were tested by U.S. Army and Marine Corps personnel. The Marines were enthusiastic about the M16A1E1’s enhanced performance, and it was type classified as the M16A2 rifle during September of 1982. It was adopted as the Standard A rifle in November 1983. The Marine’s initial order was for 76,000 M16A2 rifles, and the first delivery went to their Marksmanship Training Unit in January 1984. The U.S. Army, whose marksmanship training was different than that of the Marine Corps, was less interested in the new rifle and had plenty of serviceable M16A1 rifles in their inventory. That said, the Army ordered their first lot of M16A2 rifles in 1986.      

As adopted, the M16A2 rifle had several new features, some of which proved to be controversial. The features implemented into the PIP M16A2 included:

• A three-round burst, replacing the full-auto function
• Case deflector for left-handed shooters
• A new flash-hider / muzzle brake
• Barrel with 1:7 twist to stabilize the M855 and M856 cartridges with the longer, heavier bullets
• The diameter of the barrel was increased from the rear sight base to the muzzle
• Rear sight adjustable for elevation and windage
• Square front sight post
• Interchangeable handguards
• Longer buttstock with new buttplate
• Pistol grip with finger rest
• Tapered slip ring
• Round forward assist plunger
• Receiver reinforced at the rear area and the front pivot pinhole

Critics

Not everyone was happy with the updated M16A2 rifle. Complaints were that the 3-round burst was not resetting. In other words, if one shot was fired, the next trigger pull would only fire two shots; if two shots were fired, the next trigger pull would fire one shot.

Older M16A1 rifles with their barrel’s 1:12 twist rate could not stabilize the new M855 round and the M856 tracer round with their heavier and longer bullets

The new adjustable rear sight was considered overly complex for a combat weapon. The Marines, who requested the new rear sight for the M16A2 trained differently than the other services, particularly the Army whose evaluators were not as receptive to this change. Canada adopted the M16A2 as the C7 but retained the M16A1 upper receiver with the less complicated rear sight.

The M16A2 rifle has a loaded weight of 8.8 pounds, which is nearly a pound heavier than the M16A1 at 7.9-pounds loaded. Most of the weight increase is due to the M16A2’s heavier barrel.

In 1989, kits were made available to upgrade M16A1 rifles remaining in inventories to the M16A2 configuration. Handstamps were used to mark the receivers signifying the upgrade. The kits included: the M16A2 rifle’s barreled upper receiver, burst trigger group, buttstock, pistol grip, and handguards. These kits were supplied to the U.S. Military by several contractors.

The M16A3 Rifle

The M16A3 variant was simply an M16A2 that had a full-automatic feature in place of the 3-round burst. Very few were manufactured and issued.

The M16A4 Rifle

From the very beginning, the AR-15/M16 series of rifles featured an integral carry handle. This was a necessary design feature because the buttstock was in line with the longitudinal axis of the barrel’s bore, increasing controllability during automatic fire. However, the height and placement of the carry handle required the rear sight to be elevated. Additionally, this handle design made it difficult to adapt any type of newly developed, modern optics to the rifle. To solve this problem, the M16A4 was introduced in 1997. The M16A4 model had a flat-top upper receiver with a Mil-Std-1913 rail. Initially, the upper receiver had a detachable M16A2 carry handle that was secured with thumbscrews to the rail. The handle could be easily removed, and the rail used for mounting optics and other ancillary devices.

The 3-round burst feature of the M16A2 was retained in the M16A4 design. Eventually, the original round handguards fitted to the M16A4 rifle were replaced by the M5 Rail Adapter System from Knights Armament, providing a solid platform for the attachment of additional equipment. In 1997 the M16A4 rifle began replacing the M16A2 as the standard rifle of the U.S. military. Both rifle models were manufactured by Colt and FN.   

The M4 Carbine

The M4 and M4A1 carbines, initially adopted in 1994, became the U.S. standard issue weapon replacing the M16A2 and M16A4 rifles. These compact carbines feature a 14.5 inch barrel and a collapsible buttstock. In 2012, the Army began procuring the M4A1 variant and issued a Modification Work Order (MWO) to upgrade existing M4 carbines to the M4A1 configuration. The M4 has a 3-round burst feature, while the M4A1 has gone back to having a full-automatic function. The M4A1 also has an ambidextrous selector and a heavier barrel.      

The Colt Factory Strike

Colt employees were Members of United Auto Workers Local 376, they walked off the job on January 24, 1986, after working 10 months without a contract. The strike officially ended four years later, on March 22, 1990, with the announcement of a buyout agreement that made Colt employees co-owners of the plant, along with managers, the state of Connecticut, and private investors. During 1988, while the Colt employees were on strike, Colt lost their M16 contract to FN.

FN M16A2 Rifles

In 1988 the U.S. Government awarded a $112.1 million contract to a Belgian firm to produce 266,961 M16A2 rifles over five years. Under the new contract, the M16A2 and M16A4 rifles would be made at Fabrique Nationale Herstal’s (FN) manufacturing facility in Columbia, South Carolina. FN Manufacturing confirmed that their bid of $420.00 for each rifle (compared to Colt’s bid of $477.50) would save the government approximately $15.3 million over the life of the contract. Many of Colt’s patents on the rifle expired in 1983, but a licensing agreement with the United States Government permitted the Army to give technical data on the weapon to other manufacturers. Both the U.S. Army and Colt Industries, inc., announced the change had resulted solely from Colt’s being underbid by FN, and that it was not related to the quality of Colt rifles, or the strike by Colt workers in Hartford.

Other M16A2 and M16A4 Rifles

In addition to FN and Colt, M16A2 and M16A4 receivers and rifles were manufactured in small numbers by other companies.

Sabre Defense LLC

During July of 2008, Sabre Defence of Nashville, Tennessee was awarded a U.S. Government Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for 4,952 M16A3 and 702 M16A4 rifles to support the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and foreign military customers. Sabre joined Colt and FN as the third company chosen to manufacture M16 rifles for the government since the weapon was adopted.

In February of 2010, federal agents raided Sabre Defence’s Nashville, Tennessee facility. Several company executives were charged with illegally exporting firearm components and other defense items. The accused admitted to concealing Sabre’s illegal exports from 2003 until 2009, using falsified shipping documents and shipping crates with false bottoms. Sabre maintained a fictitious set of business records to conceal its unlawful shipments of firearm parts. Unable to recover from the incident, Sabre Defence declared bankruptcy and went out of business in 2013. Very few Sabre M16 rifles were delivered to the U.S. military.

Balimoy Manufacturing

The Balimoy Manufacturing Company of Venice, Florida manufactured replacement receivers for M16 rifles. Most were originally marked as M16A1 with an AUTO selector position. The A1 model was over stamped A2 and the word AUTO milled out and re-stamped BURST. The receivers were marked: MFR 2U894, Property of U.S. Govt’ BALIMOY MFG CO
VENICE, FL. During a program to rebuild and update M16A1 rifles to a M16A2 configuration, the U.S. Anniston Army Depot used Balimoy M16 receivers to replace original receivers that were rendered unserviceable.  

Transferable M16A2 Rifles in the NFA Registry

Fortunately for the NFA world of enthusiasts, a small number of Colt manufactured M16A2 rifles made it into the registry before the 19 May 1986 cut-off date, which ended the registration of transferable machine guns. Most of the available M16A2 rifles were those made for the export and police market, the serial numbers documented were in the 8,000,000 range. However, there were a few U.S. Gov’t Property marked M16A2 rifles that made it into the system, allegedly registered by John “K”, a somewhat mysterious individual from Pennsylvania.  To date, there have been 35 documented serial numbers of transferable U.S. marked Colt M16A2 rifles in the NFA registry. Manufactured during 1983-1986 these serial numbers are in the six-million range. John “K” was reportedly also involved in procuring a number of H&R M14 rifles, and US Gov’t Property marked M16A1 rifles from Harrington and Richardson’s asset reduction sale in 1985.

Most of the transferable Colt M16A2 rifles manufactured for the commercial market which made it into the NFA system were assembled with full-auto capability, and the selector position marked AUTO. Meanwhile, most of the U.S. Property marked M16A2 rifles were fitted with the U.S. military designated 3-round burst feature; the selector position marked BURST. However, the 3- round burst can easily be converted to a full auto function by simply replacing the trigger group, the same applies if a 3-round burst feature is desired. Due to their smaller numbers, M16A2 rifles generally sell for a higher price than the more common M16A1 model.   

RECOMMENDED READING

Black Rifle M16 – Vol. 1 & 2 by Christopher R. Bartocci, R. Blake Stevens, Edward C. Ezell
Vickers Guide: AR-15 by Larry Vickers, James Rupley

At the beginning of the 20th century, Mexico was a country without any tradition in arms manufacturing. Interestingly enough a domestic development from Manuel Mondragón became one of the first semi-automatic rifles officially adopted by a national military.

Under the authoritarian ruling of president Porfirio Díaz from 1876 to 1911 in a period known as the Porfiriato, slow but steady industrialization of Mexico began. The country’s military was given more support, and new developments were pushed forward. Thanks to this, the officer and amateur weapons designer Manuel Mondragón experimented with improved bolt action rifles to increase their rate of fire; a path that would eventually lead him to a semi-automatic rifle. One of his early models from 1893, a straight bolt action rifle in caliber 6.5x53mm, had an unusual fire mode selector: it could be used to deactivate the trigger function so that the bolt was no longer caught by the sear. The operator then pulled the bolt back and when released, it rushed forward, feeding a cartridge from the magazine into the chamber and igniting it immediately after locking. Pressing the trigger was no longer necessary, and the operator could fire as fast as he operated the bolt.

The Mexican army took a liking to the weapon and ordered 50 pieces for a troop trial. Due to a lack of national production capacity, the weapons were manufactured at the Schweizerische Industrie-Gesellschaft SIG (Swiss Industrial Company) in Neuhausen in Switzerland, then delivered to Mexico. The first tests were successful, and in 1894 the army ordered another 200 units, this time in 5.2x68mm. This high-pressure cartridge was developed by Mondragón in collaboration with the well-known Swiss ballistics expert Colonel Eduard Rubin. Its high-speed bullet weighed only six grams and needed a small sabot (hollowed-out form) inside the cartridge case to catch the energy of the powder charge. However, the caliber did not prove itself, and Mondragón returned to working with larger calibers.

At the beginning of 1904 Mondragón finished his first semi-automatic rifle, and immediately applied for a design patent. This weapon is gas-operated with a rotating bolt. Its gas pressure escapes through a hole in the barrel into a gas tube located below the barrel and pushes a gas piston back, which in turn sets the breech in motion. A special spring-loaded coupling is integrated into the cocking handle. When the operator presses it, the bolt is released from the gas system and the weapon can be used as a straight-pull bolt action rifle. A foldable bipod was available as an additional option.

After several improvements and military demonstrations, Mondragón’s rifle in caliber 7x57mm Mauser was officially adopted in 1908 as the Fusil Porfirio Díaz Sistema Mondragón Modelo 1908. A production order for 4,000 pieces was again placed with SIG in Switzerland. According to the contract, the unit price was 160 Swiss francs, almost three times the price of a bolt-action rifle at that time.

When the first 400 weapons arrived in Mexico in 1911, an earlier prophesy from SIG proved true: the weapons showed little tolerance for contamination and reacted sensitively to fluctuating ammunition quality. This was particularly concerning as Mexico’s army could well have used good armament with the dark clouds of the Mexican Revolution gathering on the horizon. In view of the Fusil Porfirio Díaz Sistema Mondragón Modelo 1908’s unreliable function, as well as its high unit price, the government unceremoniously canceled the entire remaining order, leaving SIG with about 1,000 un-paid rifles ready for delivery.

Attempts to sell the weapons to other countries were unsuccessful, and the surplus Mondragón rifles remained in storage for the next few years. It was not until World War I that SIG was finally able to sell its old stock, namely to the German Reich. The artillery depot in Spandau near Berlin converted the Mondragón rifles to the German military standard caliber 7.92x57mm and added a detachable drum magazine, from the principle of operation similar to the one used with the pistol P08, increasing its capacity to 30 cartridges. The converted weapons were all used by the German Air Force as the “Flieger-Selbstlade-Karabiner 15” (aviator semi-automatic carbine). Only in the sky was the use of such a dirt-sensitive weapon possible at all. Nevertheless, as a precaution, each gunner was given two rifles, so as not to be defenseless in the case of a malfunction.

The Swiss had kept some of the Fusil Porfirio Díaz Sistema Mondragón Modelo 1908 rifles, converting them to their military caliber 7.5x55mm. They also added a 12-round box magazine, as well as an optional brass catcher. In the early years of the war, these rifles were used to equip reconnaissance aircraft such as the Häfeli DH-1 until enough light machine guns were available.

Technical data of the Mondragón Modelo 1908:
 
Caliber:                                                  7x57mm Mauser
Length:                                                  43.5in                                 1,105 mm
Length of barrel:                                     22.7in                                 577 mm
Weight (empty):                                      9.2lb                                   4.18 kg
Magazine capacity:                                 10 rounds

Manuel Mondragón (1859 – 1922)

The Mexican Manuel Mondragón is considered one of the pioneers in the field of semi-automatic rifles. During his eventful career in the military, he was mainly involved with artillery armament, but he became known worldwide through his Fusil Porfirio Díaz Sistema Mondragón Modelo 1908. Mon-dragón was born in 1859 in the Municipio Ixtlahuaca in the Mexican state of Méx-ico. After school, he attended the military academy in Chapultepec and left it as an artillery officer in 1880. He had always been very interested in the technology of weapons and so he designed the 75mm field gun model Saint-Chamond-Mon-dragón together with Émile Rimailho. It was manufactured by the French com-pany Compagnie des Forges et Aciéries de la Marine et d’Homécourt (FAMH) in Saint-Chamond in France. Apart from Mexico, the gun was also adopted by other countries and was even installed in tanks in France during World War I. Mondragón also wrote military instructions and training books. In 1907, under President Porfirio Díaz, he was appointed Chief of the Artillery Division.

The following year, the army introduced his 7x57mm Mauser caliber semi-automatic rifle and had it manufactured in Switzerland by SIG. He also wrote an important work on coastal defense and many South American defense installations are based on his findings. Mon-dragón did not remain inactive politically either. He actively supported the military coup in February 1913 to overthrow President Francisco I. Madero and was subsequently appointed Minister of War under the new ruler José Victoriano Huerta in gratitude. However, he retained the post only a few months before he had to resign under pressure from prominent politicians who accused him of incompetence and poor planning during the revolution. After these accusations, Huerta dropped the general and exiled him from Mexico. Mondragón traveled to Spain. In recognition of his services, he was awarded, among other things, the highest deco-oration in France, the Legion of Honor. General Manuel Mondragón died in San Sebastián in Spain in 1922. Incidentally, one of his eight children was the nude model, painter and poet María del Car-men Mondragón Valseca, better known by her artistic name Nahui Olín

The Colt AR-15 rifle has become one of the most popular, and copied, civilian firearms ever produced. The original Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle made specifically for the civilian market first appeared in 1963–1964, a few years prior to its select-fire counterpart, the M16, being issued to the U.S. military in any substantial numbers. During the 1960s, the AR-15 rifle, primarily made of aluminum and plastic, was unique and almost space-age in appearance when compared to traditional rifles like its predecessor the M14, which is made of steel with a wood stock.

The AR-15/M16 rifles became well known to many Americans because of their extensive use in the Vietnam war. Further attention was brought to the weapon due to early problems the rifle encountered in the tropical climate of Southeast Asia, which brought about much negative publicity. During the 1960s, no one could have predicted that it would be the longest-serving primary rifle of the U.S. military (currently in the form of the M4 carbine), or the ever-increasingly popular choice with civilian enthusiasts today.

The small caliber 5.56mm AR-15/M16 rifle was adopted to replace the U.S. M14 rifle that was not well suited to the jungle climate and close combat conditions often being encountered by U.S. forces in Vietnam. Due to its powerful 7.62mm cartridge, it was very difficult to control during full-automatic operation. As a result, most M14s were issued with selector locks, limiting their operation to semi-automatic only. Another problem encountered with the M14 was the size and weight of its 7.62x51mm round, limiting the ammunition load carried by an infantryman. The enemy was primarily armed with an AK rifle, which had full-automatic capability, a 30-round magazine, and due to its smaller midrange 7.62x39mm cartridge, a larger ammunition load could be carried. This gave the enemy a distinct firepower advantage over the U.S. troops armed with an M14 rifle.

Today’s civilian AR-15 rifle, and its many clones, have evolved far from the original design. Although the operation is basically the same, the rifle barely resembles the original issued during the Vietnam era. Gone is the original carry handle built onto the upper receiver, replaced by flat-top upper receivers to accommodate accessory rails, optics, flashlights, and lasers. A large number of adjustable buttstock designs have largely replaced the fixed stocks. The original “lightweight” AR-15/M16 is gone; when fitted with all the modern gizmos and gadgets its weight and girth is similar to the M14 rifle that preceded it.

What’s Old is New Again

If you are a fan of muscle cars from the 1960-1970 era, you will have noticed that the trend is to restore them to their original factory condition. Back in the day when those cars were new, the first thing that the owner did was replace the factory wheels, install an aftermarket stereo system, cut the door panels to mount speakers, and modify the engine with aftermarket accessories. In automotive circles, this is known as “day two modifications.” Currently, there is a market for reproduction of original type wheels, air cleaners, and other parts to restore the cars to “factory original.”

In recent years, Colt’s Military Classic Series, along with Smith and Wesson’s Classic Series, and Brownell’s Retro Series, have reintroduced limited runs of firearm models long out of production. Examples include the 1917 revolver (as the S&W Model 22), the 1911A1 pistol, and original configurations of AR-15/M16 rifles made during the Vietnam war.

Colt’s original semi-automatic AR-15 SP1 model for the civilian market lacked a few features present on its military counterpart. These missing features include lack of a forward assist, no protective “fence” around the magazine release button, no “eyebrows” to restrict travel of the selector, the selector markings, and last but certainly not least, was the large hole and screw in place of a front pushpin. Although seemingly trivial to some, the missing M16-type features were important to many more. Other early manufacturers that made AR-15 copies included such features making their products more attractive to buyers.

The exclusive owner of the “AR-15” designation belongs to Colt and cannot be used by other manufacturers. However, the term AR-15 is commonly used by the firearms community to describe the rifles irrespective of who manufactured them. There are a large number of AR-15 “type” rifle manufacturers, and that number is growing. Currently, there are over 300 companies offering clones of the AR-15.

AR-15/M16A1 Retro Series Vietnam War Collection

Today a prospective buyer would be hard-pressed to find a newly manufactured AR-15 rifle, or clone, with a fixed carry handle, triangle handguards and other early features. This brings us to the subject of this article: Colt’s Retro AR-15/M16A1 rifle.

Introduced in 2017, Colt’s limited edition, semi-automatic AR-15/M16A1 Retro Series Vietnam War Collection Rifles made their debut at Shot Show. This series offered a replica of a Vietnam Era M16A1 standard issue rifle, and a replica of the XM177E2 Colt model 629 carbine. The 11.5-inch barrel of the XM177E2 retro carbine has an extended moderator designed to both simulate the original and extend the barrel to a legal 16-inch length. The two-position buttstock is the same vinyl-acetate-coated aluminum fitted to the original carbines.

What is appealing to collectors are the features and markings on the rifles replicating those issued to military personnel during the Vietnam War. The rifle has the M16A1 style upper with the fixed carry handle, teardrop forward assist, and A1 type front and rear sights. The ejection port door is period correct. Handguards are the era triangle style with the proper slip ring; the buttstock lacks a trap door and has a moveable sling swivel. The gray anodizing on the upper and lower receivers is period correct.

One of the more desirable features of the Retro AR-15/M16A1 rifles is the lower receiver markings. The left side of the receivers are roll-marked like 1967-1968 military issue M16A1 rifles with the Colt trademark, AR-15, under that is PROPERTY OF U.S. GOVT. M16A1; CAL 5.56MM, and a serial number that is similar to those rifles issued during the Vietnam war with the exception of a letter “V” suffix representing Vietnam. The selector markings are SAFE SEMI and AUTO, although there is no actual auto feature, and the selector cannot be rotated to the AUTO position. Above the selector is Colt’s factory information marked the same as it appeared on the weapons during the 1960s. The rifle featured for this article came fitted with a “birdcage” flash hider, an earlier “prong” type flash hider is included if that style is desired.

The production of the AR-15/M16 Reissue series was limited to 2500 rifles. Despite their obvious collector interest; there have been a few Internet criticisms of the rifles, primarily because of their suggested retail price of $2499.00, which admittedly is rather steep for a semi-automatic AR-15. Other negative remarks include: the black carry sling(a correct Vietnam issue sling would be OD cotton, or the later issue OD mildew-resistant nylon sling); and the included 20-round magazine, which would be correct for the period except that the reproduction has a modern plastic follower. Other negative comments were directed at the lack of typical Colt proof/inspection markings on many parts, such as the barrel, bolt and bolt carrier, and the finish color of a few small parts like the flash hider, slip ring, and ejection port door.

An internet search of some popular websites revealed that new, in-the-box Colt M16A1 Retro Reissue rifles can still be found, although the XM177E2 carbine version is more difficult to locate. While pricey, these rifles are accurate representations of their Vietnam-era predecessors, and are very likely to increase in value.

Sales Restrictions include: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and Hawaii

         The United States was home to the bolt action military rifle from 1903 until the end of World War II in 1945, when they still dominated the hunting market. At that time, most bolt action (or “turn bolt”) rifles required four separate movements – rotate the bolt up, pull it to the rear, push it forward, and rotate it down. However, on two separate occasions our troops were issued straight-pull bolt action rifles – pull the bolt straight back and push it straight forward. One was a main battle rifle, the other was for training only.

         Straight-pull rifles were an offshoot of turn bolt rifles around the turn of the the19^th century. They were adopted by several European countries, with their longest term in service being with the Swiss, who used the M1899 (and other variants) into the 1970s. A major benefit was that the straight-pull rifles were faster to shoot for partially trained troops. One can still see the occasional Swiss rifles and carbines for sale, desirable for their accuracy at long range.

Army vs. Navy

         As always, there has been a rivalry between the U.S. Army and Navy. In the late 1800s this rivalry extended as far as their choice of rifle. The Army considered various contenders for the United States’ first magazine-fed bolt action rifle, ultimately settling in 1892 on a Norwegian design, the Krag. Its cartridge was our first small-bore jacketed bullet design. The 30-40-220 – 30 caliber was loaded with 40 grains of black powder, and topped with a 220 grain, round-nosed, jacketed bullet. Its commonly called the 30-40 or 30-40 Krag.

Of course, the Ordnance Department had to “improve” the rifle’s action by adding a magazine cutoff and changing the opening of the magazine from folding toward the front to folding down. This neatly prevented the use of stripper clips for loading, and became important in the Navy adoption of the Magazine Lee-Enfield (or MLE) Rifle. The Krag’s magazine cutoff design dealt with the usual Ordnance concern that the troops would “waste ammo by shooting too quickly”! It originally required an Officer to allow fire from the magazine, otherwise, it was used as a single loading rifle. Magazines were loaded with single rounds drawn from a cartridge belt or box carried on the belt. This design lasted through the 1903 rifles until the M1 semi-automatic completely replaced the 1903 after World War II. After all, if the troops fired too fast, Ordnance would have to have more wagons to bring more ammo to those on the sharp end. In fact, until World War I, the troops had to turn-in and account for every fired cartridge case!

 With the adoption of every service rifle since, including the M16/M4, the exact same arguments were heard: “The new rifle lets the troops shoot too fast!”, and “The new rifle is not as accurate as the old rifle! It was good enough for me 30 years ago, we don’t need any new, fast shoot’n, inaccurate rifle!”

The Navy chooses a different course

The Navy decided to go its own way, looking for and finding “something different”. James Paris Lee was a small arms inventor whose ideas for rifling were adopted by the British. Different models and marks of Lee-Enfield served the British in both World Wars. Lee’s magazine design was adopted by most everyone. He had come up with a clever rifle where the bolt was pulled straight to the rear and shoved straight forward. The bolt was locked into the receiver by a lug and cammed out of the lock by angles that caused the back of the bolt to tilt upward on the rearward stroke. These same cam surfaces cammed the rear of the bolt back down on the forward stroke.

The Lee M1895 was adopted in 6mm (a concept we seem to be revisiting) and fed via a two-piece En Bloc five-round clip. The entire assembly was entered into the magazine, and when the last round was loaded, the clip and a separate spring fell out an opening in the bottom of the rifle. This introduced two problems: dirt entering the action via the large hole in the bottom; and the little spring of twisted wire getting lost, preventing clips from being reloaded with loose rounds in the field. The Navy had specified these clips were for one-time use, which was a problem for Marines who practiced working the action with dummy rounds and needed to reload their clips.

Of course, the biggest problem was ammunition supply. The Army made its own ammunition, while the Navy contracted-out its ammo. The 1892 Navy Caliber Reduction Board concluded that there was no need for using the same ammo as the Army. As to landing parties, “These would be only Naval actions of limited extent and duration, so there was no need for interchangeability of ammunition as joint operations with the Army were highly unlikely.” This quickly proved wrong, as the Spanish-American War of 1898 had both Army and Marines landing, and neither group could use the other’s ammo!  Interestingly, it was not an issue for the Marines and Navy in the Legation Siege in Peking China in 1900, as no Army troops were present until the end. But this was the last combat action of the 6mm Lee Navy, and the start of interoperability between the services. The Navy was already re-arming with 30-40 Krag rifles, they had just not yet reached China.

Enter the ROSS

Our entry into World War I meant a massive increase in the number of troops, far beyond the output of the Springfield Armory Model 1903 rifles. And such production was not easily ramped up, so volunteers were literally training with brooms! There simply were not enough rifles for training, even after all the war reserve 30-40 Krags were issued.

Canada, as a member of the Empire, was already involved in the war and learned some harsh lessons of their own. Sir Charles Ross had come to Canada from Scotland and opened the country’s first rifle factory. He designed and made a straight-pull rifle in .303 British, the MKII Model 1905, which established a fine record for accuracy. Of course, national pride required that Canada adopt this rifle for its small army. It evolved into the MK III Model 1910 by using a rotating bolt head to lock the action. When the call came, the Ross Rifle went to the trenches and it was there that two major defects came to light.

The rifle’s sensitivity to mud was the lesser of the two faults. It is one thing to wander about the countryside with your hunting rifle, but quite another to be, as one famous text calls it, “Eye Deep in Hell!”. The trenches of WWI were deep, and the weather was wet. The mud was deep enough to swallow rifles, men, and even artillery pieces. The Ross, while still very accurate, could not be kept clean enough to fire by the troops. A limited number were retained for snipers, and the rest were replaced by the #1 Mk III Enfield, also in .303 British.

The greater fault with the Ross was a design flaw, and it was a killer. A poorly trained soldier could, and did, reassemble the bolt incorrectly. Should he then fire a round, the bolt would blow back out of the receiver, killing the soldier instantly. Legend has it that a senior Sergeant Major declared this was not true. Before an assembly of senior officers, he intentionally misassembled a Ross, shouldered the rifle, and upon firing a round, was killed.

One country’s trash is another country’s treasure

This left Canada with a surplus of rifles suitable for drill purposes, but not for firing. Meanwhile, the US had a surplus of green troops to drill, but no rifles for them to drill with. Some unsung soldier put 2+2 together, and the US bought 20,000 .303 Ross MkIII M1910 rifles for drill with no intention of firing them. One of the oddities of the day was these rifles did not bear a serial number, and they had to be marked as US property. The markings were stamped into the stock and even onto the bayonets, and our troops learned the drill requirements.

The Ross stays stateside

As far as is known, none of the Ross rifles went overseas with US troops, due to another smart move by some unsung ordnance officer. The British had been producing their new rifle, the Pattern 1914 (or P14), originally in a smaller .276 bore. When they entered the war, they moved production to the US and contracted with Winchester and Eddystone Arsenal to make the rifles in .303 caliber. Some Ordnance officer got his hands on one and realized that with a different chambering reamer, the same rifle could be made in 30-06, our standard round. A deal was struck, and more American troops went “Over There” with the Model 1917 or ‘U.S. Enfield’, then with the Model 1903. As a side note: due to dimensional differences in the rounds, this is the only US service rifle with a six-round magazine, and it does not appear in the issue manual.

Both the Lee M1895 Navy and the Ross Mk III M1910 are rare collector’s items today as the only straight-pull rifles adopted by the US!

Sources:

• Small Arms of the World         
• Sir Charles Ross and his Rifles
• The Military Arms of Canada  
• The Winchester-Lee Rifle