In the course of time different methods of mine clearance were developed and tested. A quick clearing of larger areas was to be achieved by machines. For example, armored vehicles specially converted for this purpose pushed massive cylindrical clearing devices in front of them, which detonated the mines without causing any damage to the vehicle itself. In impassable terrain or areas with heavy vegetation, however, this method was usually ruled out. In these cases, portable mine detectors had to be used. The mines were marked with a warning flag after detection until the time was found to dig them out by hand. During an attack, possibly still under enemy fire, this kind of search was hardly feasible.

In early 1940, the idea therefore arose to detonate laid mines by means of a so-called “Knallteppich” (literally translated as “bang carpet”). Sometimes it is also referred to as a “blasting carpet” or “blasting net”). This net was made of explosive igniter cord and could be laid over a detected minefield. When ignited by a fuse, it detonated, and the blast wave was sufficient to detonate the mines below it.

The Waffen-SS also showed great interest in this development and on 4 September 1941 a meeting took place between representatives of the Heeres-Waffenamt and the SS-Waffenamt. SS-Gruppenführer Hans Jüttner, as head of the SS-Führungshaupt- und Kommandoamt, received a protocol of this meeting that shows the technical details and the still unsolved problems.

Due to the positive assessment by the Pi.Lehr-Btl.2 in Dessau-Roßlau, 3,200 “Knallzündschnurteppiche” (blasting cord nets) were ordered and delivered to the troops. However, at this point in time there was no feedback. The carpets delivered had a length of 10 meters, a width of 7.5 meters and a mesh size of 10 to 15 centimeters. The weight was about 0.5 kilograms per square meter. The nets could be laid next to each other to cover areas of any size. It was not necessary to connect them, but they should overlap by about 10 cm to ensure a proper activation. If necessary, such carpets could also be made provisionally by stretching igniter cords over a slatted frame. When laid out, the carpets were insensitive to rifle ammunition (including tracer ammunition), but extremely sensitive to shrapnel, which caused an immediate detonation.

According to a leaflet of June 1942, the easiest way to unroll the rolled net was by two men using a rod inserted into the roll and, to the surprise of the opponent, preferably at dusk or in the dark. The loud bang of the exploding nets was to be camouflaged by simultaneous fire of the artillery. So far so good, but from this we can already see the disadvantages: to roll out the net, the two soldiers had to walk through the minefield themselves. And this, as far as possible, in the dark! Furthermore, it turned out that the nets worked very well with anti-tank mines, but almost not at all with anti-personnel mines. Trials with treated, meshless fabric (nitrated cotton cloths) brought no success.

As an alternative to the dangerous rolling out by hand, the use of line-throwing devices was tested and found to be useful. A rope was attached to an anchor, with which the net could then be pulled over the minefield. However, the method only worked in unobstructed terrain, otherwise the carpet tore when pulled over rocks or vegetation. Another idea was laying the nets from the air and so together with the Luftwaffe, they tested dropping the nets from airplanes. The success was moderate. A helicopter was a better option, but this would not have made much sense due to the danger of getting shot down while hoovering so close to the front line.

Another development called automatic net-layer did not get beyond the planning phase. A light vehicle, steered from a safe distance by cables, would have rolled out carpets 3-meters-wide over the minefield. It was controlled from a PzKpfw II, which protected the operating crew from spall. The Talbot wagon factory in Aachen had produced a prototype, but shortly afterwards the order was cancelled as “not decisive for the war”.

Although the idea with the blasting nets was well-intentioned, it failed due to the rigors of reality. No type of net or laying device was actually introduced by the Heer or Waffen-SS.

During the war, the Red Army used the ROKS-2 for the first time in the fight against the Finns. Later it was also used on the other fronts. This flamethrower was disguised as a rifle, the lance embedded in the converted wooden stock of a Mosin-Nagant rifle, with original sling and with ignition by pulling the trigger. For the firing method, the Soviets used special primers made from standard 7.62x25mm cartridge cases. The two incendiary tanks on the back carrier were boxed with sheet metal to simulate a rucksack. The bottle with the propellant hung crosswise under the box.

When filled, the ROKS-2 weighed about 23kg (50lb) and required two men to operate. Towards the end of the war, smaller quantities of the simplified ROKS-3, on which the tanks were no longer covered, were sent to the front. Although both models had proven to be quite reliable in action, after the war the military leadership demanded an easier-to-operate model with a longer range.

After testing and introduction as the LPO-50, the new model went into series production in the spring of 1955. LPO is the abbreviation of Lyogkiy Pyekhotnyy Ognyemyot (Легкий Пехотный Огнемет), i.e. a light infantry flamethrower. The weight itself, however, was not lightened, because the LPO-50 weighed 23kg (50lb) just like its predecessor.

Instead, the construction had changed completely. The backpack now consists of three cylindrical tanks arranged next to each other, each with a capacity of 3.5 liters (0.76 gallons). Each tank has a filler neck. A powder chamber is then inserted and screwed into each filler neck. An additional pressure relief valve per tank, non-return valves on each hose connection and a grip safety device on the front of the grip provide the necessary safety.

To make the LPO-50 ready for use, first insert one powder charge per tank into the powder chamber and one PP9-RO primer cartridge into the socket above each. At the bottom of each chamber there are six holes through which the gases flow into the tank after ignition and push the incendiary mixture through the hose to the lance. Underneath all three tanks is a common manifold to the hose.

The lance resembles a rifle with a stock, pistol grip and folding bipod. At 85cm (34in), it is rather long and unwieldy. On both sides and below the muzzle are three chambers for one incendiary cartridge each with PP9-RO primer. Each chamber is connected to a specific tank. The battery for the electrical control and ignition system is located in the butt. It lasts for about 600 ignitions.

The shot is activated by pressing the trigger, which sends an electric impulse to the glow igniters of the two primers. A switch allows the operator to select the desired tank. It was thus possible to fill the tanks with different mixtures and fire them as required. The incendiary mixture ignites on the incendiary cartridge when it leaves the muzzle.

Without reloading, the flamethrower could fire three shots – one from each tank. The duration of a shot was 2-3 seconds and the range 50 to 70m (55 to 77yd), depending on the viscosity of the mixture. If there was a tailwind, even a little more. This was a very short firing time and in reports of the East German Army (NVA) this was also criticized by soldiers. They also felt that the effect on the target was insufficient.

In a combined arms engagement, the platoons and squads of flamethrower units were to be linked up with motorized rifle units. The flamethrowers then accompanied the rifle platoon or squad but had to move hidden behind it. Experience had shown that if they were discovered, they quickly drew the enemy’s fire. Only when a target could not be eliminated with the other infantry weapons were flamethrowers used. In this case, using camouflage and covering fire, they had to advance up to a distance of about 40 to 50m (44 to 55yd) from the target.

For all its advantages, the LPO-50 also had the characteristic disadvantages of a flamethrower. In a real battle, such weapons were not only dangerous for the enemy, but also for the own operating crew and the surrounding comrades. For this reason, the military was also looking for alternative ways to increase the infantry’s firepower.

And so, at the beginning of 1975, they introduced the new type of infantry rocket launcher, the RPO “Rys”. It could be carried and operated by one man, weighed only 3.5kg (7,7lb) empty, fired rockets filled with 4 liters (0.9 gallons) of napalm up to 200 meters (220 yards) away and could be reloaded. The LPO-50 thus became obsolete and was gradually taken out of service, stored and in some cases passed on to friendly countries.

In the 1950s, the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China intensified their cooperation in military and weapons technology. China showed great interest in the new flamethrower and even acquired the rights to manufacture it under license in their own country. They only changed a few minor details in the production process, otherwise their Type 58 corresponded to the Russian model. A longer series of tests was carried out with different incendiary mixtures.

Based on the experience gained, China developed a modernized version in the 1970s. This Type 74 had an improved lance with only two incendiary cartridge chambers, as well as only two tanks. Overall, the flamethrower became somewhat lighter, although the capacity of the two tanks was increased to 4 liters (0.9 gallons) each. The Type 74 is still in active service today and is regularly and impressively staged for the press photographers during various exercises and demonstrations.

Apart from China, only one independent production in Romania is known to date. All other Warsaw Pact countries received their LPO-50s from Russian production. Some of the decommissioned ROK old stocks were also passed on to friendly states. The German Democratic Republic acquired larger quantities and used them in the NVA forces as the ‘Light Flamethrower LPO-50’. The earliest known service record dates back to 1966. Flamethrowers from Soviet and Chinese production were also used in Vietnam. However, their active use was limited because the required quantities of flammable liquids were often not available at the front.

Of course, the worldwide distribution also led to devices disappearing into dark channels time and again. When the Irish Republican Army (IRA) attacked the Derryard vehicle checkpoint on 13 December 1989, an LPO-50 flamethrower was also present. British units subsequently recovered at least six Russian-made units. How and where they came from is still unknown.

As long as you keep water in the water jacket and keep the loaded belts coming, it will keep on working as steadily as a sewing machine, only requiring a new barrel every 15,000 rounds; a change that can easily be done in 15 seconds. If a part does break, the Maxim is a modular design that allows the swapping out of the bolt or feed block with a spare to keep on firing. When faced with swarming infantry, this is a life-or-death matter. When the Russians attacked the Ukrainian Bakhmut meat grinder in waves, reminiscent of a WWI-style assault, the Maxim really came into its own, cutting down lines of attackers like wheat before a McCormac reaper.

There have been other ingenious applications of the Maxim, such as mounting telescopic sights and grouping four or six guns together in one mount. This enables 2000 to 3000 rounds per minute to be fired at attacking aircraft. When a modern jet comes in low with all the electronic warfare devices to hide it from sophisticated ground-to-air missiles, it’s still quite vulnerable to a low-tech anti-aircraft position that can raise a curtain of lead with a row of linked Maxims.

As the war drags on, the costs keep mounting and the Ukrainians are hard pressed to get enough ammunition, as they have drained the NATO stockpiles. Only Russia has kept all its WWII production lines intact and modernized and, while they are well-supplied, the cost of artillery shells necessary to deny continuous passage through an area is astronomical. A steady rain of indirect machine gun fire does the same job for a fraction of the cost. This requires a water-cooled gun that does not wear out quickly.

This is a job for a Maxim. Its toggle action spreads out the shock of operation so there is less wear and breakage of parts. When it does wear out, the bearing surfaces on the receiver are riveted on and can simply be changed for new ones while the modular parts are sent back to the ordnance depot for rebuilding. Being recoil operated, it does not have a gas system to foul and jam as the number of rounds fired adds up. The Germans were well aware of this issue with gas operated guns and stated that the gas operated systems had inherent problems. They kept designing recoil operated guns as a result.

TACTICAL USE OF THE MAXIM IN 2024

To get the best use of the Maxim today, you would want the WWI German 08-15 version with the optional Lafitte 34 mount. No one today seems to remember that the 08-15 with its shoulder stock and bipod was just intended as a more mobile heavy machine gun that storm troopers could emplace as they infiltrated the enemy lines and then dominate that sector with sustained machine gun fire. The mobility of the 08-15 eliminated the weakness of the emplaced heavy machine gun under artillery fire as the 08-15 machine gunner could move about like a rifleman, changing firing positions. Even though the weight was 50 pounds with a full water jacket and a 100-round belt in a drum magazine, the weight was so well distributed that many men could fire it from the shoulder like a rifle. This was something almost no one could do with the barrel-heavy Lewis gun, which was a true light machine gun and weighed considerably less. The ability to use a heavy, sustained-fire, water-cooled machine gun in the light machine gun role was a testament to the Maxim’s versatility.

For accurate fire in the heavy machine gun role, many of the remaining 08-15 Maxims were mounted in the Lafette 34 mount in the 1930’s. This ultimate machine gun mount features recoil absorption, telescopic sight, automatic traverse (if desired), and enabled accurate fire out to 3500 meters converting any machine gun mounted in it to a miniature artillery piece. We see these today with MG34’s and MG42’s primarily mounted on them, but they cannot deliver the sustained fire of a water-cooled gun in the Lafette 34.

HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE

The abandonment of the sustained fire machine gun and its replacement with air cooled guns had disastrous consequences. The air-cooled machine gun is a wonderful weapon in its place, but it can never do the job of a sustained fire machine gun. In WWII, the Germans found that the Russian human wave assaults kept coming until the air-cooled guns overheated allowing the Russians to overrun them. The Normandy invasion was admittedly a close-run affair and water-cooled Maxims fully deployed for both direct and indirect fire would have been more than enough to dip the balance in the German defender’s favor.

During WWII, in Burma, the British managed to sucker the Japanese into Banzai charges against WWI-style barbed wire backed by their Vickers machine guns (a Maxim variation) resulting in the annihilation of the attacking Japanese troops.

No machine gun is as reliable or able to fire as long as a Maxim. When John Basilone got his medal of honor defending Henderson Airfield at Guadalcanal with the two machine gun sections he commanded, his commendation stated, “he went from machine gun to machine gun repairing them and keeping them firing.” They weren’t supposed to need repairing! If they had Maxim guns, there would not have been any stopping for repairs. And if there was a problem, the gunner could have swapped out the modular part in a few seconds and kept firing without needing his commander’s help. It seems clear that water-cooled guns would have been a powerful help against Japanese Banzai attacks throughout the war as they could keep on coming long after an air-cooled gun overheated.

In the Korean War, the Chicom human wave assaults pushed back the American troops just as the Russian human wave assaults had done against the Germans in the preceding war. Water-cooled guns properly employed for direct and indirect fire would have foiled these assaults, but they were scarce, and the U.S. military has never wanted to invest the training time and equipment needed for effective indirect machine gun fire.

During the Vietnam War, American fire bases were overrun largely because of inadequate machine guns of modern design and the improper use of them. No one wants to learn the lessons of history if it involves using old ways. Newer is always supposed to be better and anything from the past tends to be dismissed out of hand if not ridiculed as anachronistic and obsolete. What could be more obsolete than the world’s first machine gun? A weapon designed back in 1884! The problem with that line of reasoning is that the inventor got it right and the design was perfected. Once you get to the top of the mountain of machine gun design, all roads go downhill… and the Maxim is the pinnacle. No gun made since has come near its longevity and reliability.

MORE THAN GUNS

Maxim was one of the great geniuses of all time. He patented the electric light bulb and Edison was only able to steal the design when Maxim went out of town and told his plant director to renew the patents… which he failed to do. The patents lapsed and Edison was able to grab the invention and run with it.

Maxim also flew the first airplane in front of England’s elite and the English press. When investors were not forthcoming, he wisely dropped the project. The airplane industry didn’t take off until many years later in WWI. When the Wright brothers wanted to build an airplane, they went to Maxim, and he gave them his notes, enabling them to build an airplane, as well.

When you look up and see an automatic fire sprinkler system in a building you are looking at another of Maxim’s inventions that has remained unchanged, defying improvement.

When you look more closely at the man behind the Maxim machine gun you realize why it has also defied improvement and still reigns supreme as the all-time greatest in its field.

The U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS) used flechettes in mini crossbows and handgun spigot launchers. Spigot launchers were a device that went on the muzzle of the M1911A1 pistol, rather like a rifle grenade launcher. A rod acted as the firing pin extension to transfer the blow to the primer in the device. The cartridge was self-contained, as ignition drove a piston which did not leave the cartridge case, thereby containing the expanding powder gasses so that the cartridge produced little noise. The piston drove a big flechette ahead of it, which shot from the launcher as a projectile dragging the cartridge case with it.

The big flechette had enormous killing power due to its size, which was important when only one shot can be made. The large flechette was more deadly than a small caliber handgun but produced similar or audible less report. This made the spigot launcher a single-shot weapon of great value for covert assassinations where the sound of a gun firing could alert the enemy forces and hinder escape.

This system was used in Vietnam with Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum revolvers bored out to accept this sort of cartridge except that in these, the piston drove a conventional bullet out ahead of it. In these, the case stayed in the gun. These were well appreciated by the “tunnel rats” who had to fire in tightly confined spaces where the noise of a normal gun was greatly magnified to a permanently deafening level. A silent weapon was a necessity if you wanted to avoid deafness. The U.S. Navy also had a revolver firing one large flechette on this principle for underwater use. The Russians copied this design to work with smaller cartridges in a compact automatic pistol also adapted the design for use in an underwater gun.

The need for an improved cannister round for tank guns led to research in flechettes loaded in artillery shells as an alternative. This research bore much fruit during the Vietnam War when flechettes were used in 12-gauge shotguns, 40 mm grenade launchers, 2.75-inch and 5-inch aircraft rockets, 81 mm riverine mortars, 90 mm and 106 mm recoilless rifles, 105 mm howitzers, 120 mm cannon, and in 90 mm, 105 mm, and 152 mm tank guns.

Anti-war protestors, championing the communist side in the Vietnam War, attacked the use of flechettes vehemently as these munitions were devastating to the communist forces attacking American soldiers. The political pressure they brought to bear resulted in a decline in the fielding of flechette systems, which left American forces more vulnerable to communist human wave assaults.

Today, Israel makes a copy of the U.S. 105 mm tank flechette round and both Russia and China reportedly maintaining large inventories of flechette ammunition for their major caliber artillery.

Current U.S. fielded flechette munitions include the 70 mm Hydra rocket (a modernized version of the 2.75-inch rocket), 84 mm Carl Gustov recoilless rifle munitions, and classified defense systems. Both the 70 mm Hydra rocket and the 84 mm Carl Gustov recoilless rifle flechette loads have been used in the Global War on Terror that began in 2001.

FLECHETTE SHOTGUN SHELLS

The use of flechettes in shotgun shells is the most common small arms employment of flechettes and the application of most interest to civilians. Credit for being the first to apply this concept to small arms goes to Irwin R. Barr of Aircraft Armament Co. in the early 1950’s. Originally, the idea was for one flechette per round and this led to the Army’s SPIW program. The first shotgun shells were loaded in 1953. These 32 flechettes-per-round loads were of a smaller size than those of today.

During the Vietnam War, flechette-loaded shotgun shells made kills out to 100 yards, proving their worth as a military weapon. Whirlpool Corporation had done development work on them, also loading many shells. Federal Ammunition made them, loading 25 flechettes per round while Western Cartridge Company’s load held 20 flechettes per round. Both of these rounds had their flechettes in a plastic cup buffered with granulated white polyurethane powder to maintain bore alignment. There was a metal disk at the rear of the cup the prevented the wad from being driven through the sharp tail fins of the flechettes. The tips of the flechettes were exposed and were visible at the mouth of the cartridge case These rounds would ruin a choke if fired through one, and they were only used in cylinder bore riot guns.

SPECIFICATIONS

Sometimes at gun shows, I have seen shotgun shells loaded with surplus artillery flechettes. Typically, some are loaded forwards and some backwards. Do not fire these in anything. They will tear up the inside of a shotgun barrel, as the hard steel of the flechettes will plow furrows in the bore and destroy any choke that gets in their way.

Properly loaded flechette shotgun shells are available from Sabot Designs LLC. The current loads are safe to use in any shotgun and will not hurt even a full choke, as the bore and choke are protected from the hard steel flechettes by a patented sabot that prevents any metal-on-metal contact. This was the invention of the firm’s oner, John Flannigan, and enables them to be used in any shotgun, not just cylinder bored riot guns.

Considered by many to be the greatest expert in flechette design and manufacture, much of Flannigan’s work remains classified, but what we can divulge is impressive. He made experimental tantalum flechettes for the Naval Surface Warfare Center’s Cargo Round. He designed and manufactured tungsten flechettes for the NSWC EMRG electro-magnetic rail gun sub-munition. His collaboration with General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems on the development and testing of the “High Density Packing” (HDP) cannister for the M1 Abrams tank resulted in his patent for the HDP Cannister round. Lockheed-Martin engaged him as a consultant for the fin design of the flechette projectiles for the Hydra-7 mine clearing system. The Marines Corps had him develop a flechette round for shooting down drones. That’s about all that we are free to talk about though.

FLECHETTES COMPARED TO BUCKSHOT

Comparing flechettes to the old standard, buckshot, reveals the strengths and weaknesses of both. Buckshot depends on its size, weight, and momentum to produce casualties. Of all projectiles, buckshot’s round ball deflects the least when hitting foliage and twigs. For this reason, it was often favored in jungle encounters.

Flechettes have 211% more projectiles per shell than buckshot which greatly increases the chance of a hit at longer ranges. They have 19 projectiles compared to just nine in the military buckshot load. Flechettes are a near perfect aerodynamic shape, whereas the round ball is the least aerodynamic. Furthermore, lead balls tend to deform when fired so they are not even perfectly round anymore. At longer ranges this becomes more of a factor. Additionally, flechette loads weigh about half as much as an equivalent buckshot load, so combatants can carry more ammo into the fight.

The stopping power of flechettes is a result of their velocity, penetration, and energy. Each flechette has the same energy signature as a 9 mm Parabellum round. It will shoot through a car door and produce a casualty on the other side, or it will go through over 20 inches of ballistic gelatin. Its energy is transmitted to a casualty by creating a supersonic cavitation wound channel. It will yaw off course as it penetrates, creating a wound channel approximately 800% larger than the flechette. This averages about .58 caliber for each flechette. Flechettes may also bend or break, creating secondary wound channels. They also typically shatter bones on contact.

ENGAGEMENT RANGES

* This being the longest range that a single flechette will produce a casualty.

CIVILIAN USE

12-gauge shotgun flechette loads are extremely useful to civilians. I’ve heard of a person taking out the heart and lungs of a wild hog at seven yards that was chasing and about to overtake his friend. Flechettes will penetrate the thick skull of an enraged bull or a 1000-pound hog when buckshot may fail. Flechettes have proven effective on deer, turkey, wild hog, and bear and are earning a devoted following among hunters. People depending on a shotgun for home defense are looking to flechette rounds for increased effectiveness.

Ever since the American Derringer Co. first invented the pistol chambering both the .45 Colt and the 2.5-inch .410 shotgun shell in 1980, there have been more companies making pistols that chamber these rounds interchangeably. Sabot designs makes a 2.5-inch .410 flechette load with seven flechettes for these.

Standard flechette rounds may not function reliably in automatic shotguns. Rounds that will reliably function a semi-auto are available under special order from Sabot Designs LLC.

Like birdshot, slugs, and buckshot, the flechette shotgun load has taken its place among the standard loads available for shotguns today.

In the UK there are several “Cadet” forces. These comprise the Army Cadet Force, the (RAF) Air Training Corps, the (Royal Navy) Sea Cadet Corps and the (RN and Royal Marines-affiliated) Volunteer Cadet Corps, collectively known as the “Community Cadet Forces;” all forces are open to children from age 12. The Combined Cadet Force provides the same service but does so from an embedded position within select civilian schools. These all exist as a parallel or alternative to purely civilian youth organisations such as the Scout Association. None are actually part of the military, but they are sponsored by the Ministry of Defence and run along military lines (many staff and officers are also Reservists, and training is also provided by regular soldiers). These organisations exist as a personal development opportunity and to encourage young people to join the military when they are old enough (not everyone who joins the Cadets goes on to join the military). 

The Cadets’ Rifle 

For this reason, Cadet forces have traditionally made use of both .22 LR caliber training rifles, such as the Lee-Enfield No.8, and “full-bore” military rifles like the .303 No.4. These teenage civilians had been permitted to shoot the self-loading 7.62x51mm SLR (FN Herstal FAL), but a decision was made in the 1980s to adopt a manually operated 5.56x45mm rifle for Cadet use. It should be noted that the subsequent UK legal restrictions on self-loading, center-fire rifled firearms—introduced in 1988—are purely coincidental. Semiautomatic firearms were legal to own in the UK when this decision was made and when the L98A1 was conceived, produced and issued. Therefore, although Enfield had an eye on exports and civilian sales, the brunt of this effort could have been borne by the self-loading-only “Super Ensign” L85A1 variant. This was designed as a semiautomatic stablemate for the manually operated Ensign (L98A1), reworked from the L85A1 as per typical civilian-legal designs sold around the world, in order to prevent ready conversion to automatic fire. 

With a lack of a viable market, the technical issues with the SA80 A1 family in general and ongoing issues at the factory, only a few examples seem to have been produced, and unlike other “vaporware” British firearm designs of the period, no advertisements seem to have been produced either. However, persistent, unconfirmed rumors exist of a few examples that remain in the hands of UK shooters prior to the 1988 ban and even of examples remaining in the U.S. 

L98A1 Trials 

Trials were carried out to determine the new Cadet rifle and included a modified straight-pull German Heckler & Koch (HK) SL6 (the only non-British entrant), the Interarms EX2 (also straight-pull) and bolt-action offerings from BSA and Parker-Hale. A prototype bolt-action designed and built by British engineer John Cross (with an extremely short bolt “throw”) was also submitted. Perhaps inevitably, RSAF Enfield was selected to provide the new rifle, which was titled, “L98A1 Cadet General Purpose Rifle” (“GP” to distinguish it from the 

inert “DP” or “Drill Purpose” model). This was known in-house by Enfield as the “Ensign.” The straight-pull SA80 was built using L85A1 components but critically without any “gas parts.” This necessitated a large external operating rod assembly to provide the leverage necessary to extract a fired case without disturbing the shooter’s position and hold more than necessary (although, of course, a manually operated rifle does this nonetheless). 

This operating mechanism ran on a large external track screwed to the outside of the body (upper receiver) forward of the bolt carrier assembly. On the prototype example, a thick steel rod ran from the handle assembly back to the real bolt handle, which was tapped to receive the rear end of the rod. On production guns, the same rod was curved in and downward and inserted into the cocking handle aperture in the bolt carrier. The replacement bolt handle on the new assembly was made much larger and consisted of a polymer knob rotating on a central steel spindle. This in turn was attached to a short lever. When the handle is pulled back, the lever pivots against a welded-on stop on the receiver, providing leverage while the bolt is withdrawn and rotated to unlock. The unlocked bolt carrier group is then carried to the rear by the remainder of the rearward straight-pull stroke. 

Minimal Changes 

Other changes were minimal. With no need to conceal muzzle flash, attach a bayonet or fit a rifle grenade, the SA80 flash suppressor was eliminated, creating (arguably) a needless difference between the service rifle and the Cadet equivalent. The void inside the handguard left by the gas parts was filled by an oil bottle and mounting clips. The pistol grip is of a unique pattern, with crescent-shaped cut-outs at the bottom to allow easy removal of the pistol grip plug to access the storage compartment inside. The purpose of this is unclear, and it does not appear to have ever seen use. The same compartment exists on the standard L85/86/22 grip also, where it is a relic of the original XL60 series’ stowed, emergency backup, rear sight concept. In that case, too, the plug is not typically removed; although rumor has it that soldiers have used it as cigarette storage. It seems that some specific purpose was envisaged for the L98A1’s compartment—perhaps storage for the oil bottle that ultimately was placed under the upper handguard. 

Sighting Arrangement 

Although superficially identical to the backup iron sights of other SA80 weapons, the L98A1 again diverged from the family in its sighting arrangement. The front sight is a thinner blade and lacks the Tritium element of the L85A1. Rather than the simple two-position battle aperture sight of the standard carrying handle, the L98A1 version contains a rotating disc with apertures for 100m to 500m. It can be folded down to present a single 100m aperture. In actual use, however, and as units were made available, the weapon was often fitted with the standard 4x SUSAT optical sight. 

A sub-variant of the L98A1 was the SA80 Competition Rifle, essentially an LSW built as per the Cadet GP rifle without gas parts and with the crank handle. In this case the intent was to provide the post-ban UK shooting community with a compliant straight-pull SA80 and one with superior accuracy. A great deal of effort was made (see Steve Raw’s, The Last Enfield, pp.213–215) to combine the LSW with the Cadet rifle, which proved more difficult than it might appear. Despite this, the product never reached market, perhaps caught up in the chaos of the Enfield factory closure. It is thought that some parts made it into the hands of firearms dealers, but the only complete weapon observed “in the wild” was that used for a time by the Royal Ordnance Rifle Club. 

With the advent of the HK A2 program, a new Cadet rifle was produced from A2 upgraded parts with a new semiautomatic-only trigger mechanism (the change lever is still omitted). The pistol grip is standard L85/L86 and not the Cadet pattern. Either the standard L85 carry handle (with field sights) or the SUSAT sight is fitted. From 2009, the L98A1 was phased out 

of use in favor of the L98A2; although examples no doubt still exist in Cadet armouries. It should be noted that neither variant has ever seen use in the UK military. They are strictly weapons for the Cadet forces listed above. 

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 

L98A1 Cadet GP Rifle 

• Caliber 5.56x45mm 
• Overall length 758mm 
• Barrel length 519mm (20.4in) 
• Weight 4.18kg (9.2lb) (unloaded with SUSAT)
• Feed device 30-round detachable magazine

• • • 

Special thanks to the National Firearms Centre at the Royal Armouries, who graciously allowed us access to their world-class collection. Thanks are also due to Mike Sterry for his assistance with some of the finer technical details. 

This is Part 7 in a series of articles examining the developmental history of the United Kingdom’s SA80 family of firearms. Part 6 appeared in Small Arms Review, Vol. 23, No. 8. 

See armamentresearch.com for further original content. 

(This article is adapted from a chapter in Mr. Ferguson’s forthcoming book on British bullpup rifles, which will be published by Headstamp Publishing in 2019. HeadstampPublishing.com). 

As other installments in this series show, there were already significant issues with the first few iterations of the new prototype “Small Arms of the 1980s” (SA80) family of weapons. From an initial concept in 1971, these had seen 8 years of development by the time they emerged from NATO ammunition trials in 1979. At this time, the initial emphasis on building these weapons in a new British caliber, the 4.85x49mm cartridge, shifted, and the 5.56x45mm chambering came to be accepted. The internal project name became “Enfield Weapon System,” rather than the earlier “485 Weapon System,” in a tacit recognition that 4.85mm was effectively dead. The caliber was not the only casualty, however, as the weapon itself was about to be radically redesigned. RSAF Enfield lacked experience in the design and especially the manufacture of contemporary firearms, and the definitive XL64E5 IW (rifle) and XL65E4 LSW (LMG) had shown serious problems with functioning and excessive barrel wear. They had been expected to achieve a mean rounds between failure (MRBF) rate of 2500 MRBF for the IW and 8000 for the LSW. The early figure after the NATO trial was exceptionally low, at just 97—indicating weapons unfit for military service.

Tackling the Issues

The issues which resulted in this poor performance could no doubt have been resolved; these were, after all, prototype designs that had yet to pass through Ordnance Board, “user” and troop trials. The coincidence of the NATO ammunition trials was unfortunate timing in that it interrupted development, but at the same time it was an opportunity to spot serious issues early on and rectify them before formal British trials began. The design was promising enough, and the need for a new British rifle and machine gun urgent enough, that it was decided to move ahead with the next developmental iteration. Unfortunately, before any individual issues with the original design could be tackled, the cost of production was deemed to be too high and a second round of “value engineering” (VE) was demanded. This was supposed to be a refining of an already proven and functional design to make it more economical to produce. The first VE study had changed minor details like the shape of controls or individual contours of the receiver. Yet only 4 years after the original weapon system had been launched, the findings of this new study resulted in a substantial and visually obvious redesign; practically a new gun (the subject of this piece). This “reset button” approach only compounded the factory’s existing difficulties, with the original targeted in-service date (ISD) of 1983 just a few years away.

Embracing Feedback

Embodying the value engineering feedback, another short run of prototypes was produced; this time just three rifles with serials prefixed “PR” for “Production Rifle.” The new design was much bulkier and more wedge-shaped compared to the svelte XL60 (superficially it is very close to the final SA80 design). As a result, weight increased; unfortunately, due to the VE focus on cost-saving, quality did not. In fact, with limited experience of pressing and weld-ing, and morale increasingly an issue, quality control was variable from this point until the closure of the Enfield factory in 1988.

Nonetheless, the design itself had issues beyond this. The new pressings were thin and easily distorted, despite the new rifle weigh-ing a full kilogram more than the XL64E5. The new trigger mechanism housing (TMH) was also found to be insufficiently strong to support a loaded magazine. The TMH mag-azine well was a short, lipped design just a few millimeters tall. The trigger mechanism was also substantially redesigned, and the safety reverted to a cross-bolt type in an effort to minimize inadvertent operation by left-handed users. This allegedly became critical much later on when the final L85A1 was in service, as the polymer catch—chosen on cost-saving grounds—swelled with envi-ronmental changes and became difficult to operate. The SUSAT, still in prototype stage, was given a new mount, operated by a single throw lever. For now, these guns carried over the existing mechanical design of the XL60 series, with the exception of a new bolt design incorporating double ejectors and a more conventional (longer and narrower) AR-style extractor, no doubt both attempts to improve the weapon’s reliability. More changes were to come in the definitive XL70 series, however.

Design Changes

The most obvious change in this next, much longer production run of prototypes was the incorporation of a longer, separate external magazine well assembly. This was seam-welded onto the bottom of the existing TMH. A thick and heavy piece of sheet metal was introduced to contain the trigger group as a drop-in assembly. This had a vertically ribbed reinforcement at its front which served as a guide for the rear aspect of an inserted magazine (i.e., it formed the back of the magazine well). A sheet metal hammer stop was welded to this new trigger group assembly. The bolt carrier was of yet another new pattern, being substantially wider and sporting simplified lightening cuts on both sides. Apparently bolt bounce had been addressed in some way, because the inertia pellet was eliminated; its channel being enlarged and bored clear through in order to accommodate the new guide rod. Contrary to claims in Steve Raw’s The Last Enfield, the dual ejectors on the “PR” bolt were deleted and never seen again.

The slender twin guide rods and springs taken from the AR-18 were replaced by a stronger (and therefore heavier) triple rod design. This replaced the twin springs with a single spring fitted to the larger central rod, leaving the two outer rods to function simply as bolt carrier guides. This allowed the internal guide channel in the body (upper receiver) to be reduced to a simple ledge—serving only to keep the cam pin in the down and unlocked position until the bolt was in battery—and the corresponding guide peg on the bolt carrier to be eliminated, simplifying the design. The cocking handle was slightly altered into what would become the standard A1 pattern. In an example of detailed value engineering, the machined orienting/locating lug on the handle was replaced with a simple roll-pin (a simple and effective arrangement that persisted into service).

The gas system components were slightly redesigned to reduce the complexity of machining operations. The spigot formerly machined into the gas cylinder was eliminated, as was the hollowed nose of the operating rod. Instead, the gas cylinder was hollowed at both ends to accept the piston/gas plug at the front and the rod to the rear. This raises another interesting divergence from the AR-18. The XL60 had already simplified the ArmaLite four-piece gas system to three components, without a connecting link (still to be found in other derivatives, including the German Heckler & Koch G36 design). This link was deemed superfluous, having apparently been included simply to ease disassembly. The XL70 took the design another step further from the original, employing a simple tubular gas cylinder. Finally, the design also returned to a rear sling loop mounted on the rear of the body. The flash-hider was now standardized on both variants but altered to use radial lines of circular ports (three in each row) rather than slots.

A wholly new set of dark green polymer furniture was designed, of essentially the same pattern as would eventually enter service. The handguard was fully developed with a polymer cover over the sheet metal upper guard and a metal heat-shield liner in the lower. The buttplate was now polymer, with a steel sling loop inserted. The plate wrapped around the toe of the butt as per the A1, but here it was of hard polymer rather than rubber. The pistol grip shape changed slightly, retaining a storage compartment. A new cheekpiece was, as before, simply glued directly onto the receiver. The new bolt release catch and the action dust cover were in matching green polymer (and are as per the A1 in design), but strangely the hold-open catch is black.

The SUSAT was also redesigned by this time and had received the designation XL9E1. This version eliminated the auxiliary grenade sight bracket from the body casting, no doubt to reduce the weight of this hefty optic design. Another new mount, operated by means of two wing bolts and a spring catch, was carried through onto the in-service rifle.

Common Traits

As before, the LSW shared much in common with the IW aside from its heavy barrel and bipod. It retained open-bolt operation but, in another attempt to simplify things, the engineering team did away with the Stoner 63-style main and auxiliary sears, and the gun now operated in open-bolt fashion regardless of semi-au-tomatic or automatic mode. This slam-fire, fixed firing pin design required that a safe position be added to the change lever (fire selector) to prevent accidental discharge if dropped with the bolt carrier locked to the rear ready to fire (regardless of the trigger safety). There being no closed-bolt mode of operation, the safety (auto) sear was deleted from the trigger group. This decision ran counter to the idea of maximum commonality of parts, since this version therefore required a unique carrier design not interchangeable with the rifle variant. The hold-open catch was also flipped around.

Early examples in the XL70 series, like the XL73E2 LSW (pictured), feature a set of black polymer furniture, including an XL60 pistol grip, an unusual cheekpiece that conforms to the shape of the receiver (rather than being smooth) and a buttplate of a unique oval pattern not found on either the XL60 series or the later XL80. Early IW handguards were as per the XL70E3 shown here, but in black. The equivalent XL73E2 handguard is roughly the same shape as the service version, being shorter and with a hand-stop moulded in at the front. It also has a heat shield; however, the prototype form shown here is roughly made and lacks the thin finger-stop of the rifle equivalent. The bipod is non-adjustable and, as currently installed, no longer unfolds. These early guns look and feel more like prototypes than those in the green furniture. Inside, parts of the trigger mechanism look hand-finished, and the trigger pull on this open-bolt-only gun is abysmal.

And Then There Were Three

At this stage, the requirement for a left-handed LSW was dropped, reducing the number of variants in the family to three. The three PR weapons (all IWs) were chambered in 4.85x49mm, but the decision had already been made to move to 5.56x45mm, and the first of the true XL70 guns were fitted with 1/12 twist barrels and chambered for US M193 ammunition. Nonetheless, the need to move to 1/7 to suit the SS109 cartridge was already anticipated. Whereas the PR guns had been left without “XL” designations, these new weapons were named as follows:

XL70E3—Individual Weapon
XL78E1—Individual Weapon (left-handed) XL73E2—Light Support Weapon
NB, in terms of nomenclature, “rifle” and

“machine gun” persisted in use alongside “IW” and “LSW.” The term “PW” (personal weapon) was also used, in place of IW.

Trials of the XL70 series began in earnest the following year (1981), in an effort to keep the project on schedule. Enfield had suspected in 1972 that it might take until 1984 for full-rate production to be achieved, yet in 1975 they agreed to an ISD of 1983. In an effort to meet this, it is alleged that corners were cut and standards kept artificially low during the trials process. In particular, it is claimed that chicanery played a part in the weapons being seen to meet the required MRBF. Certainly, the new design had inherited some existing issues, along with all-new problems (such as failure to lock open on an empty magazine). The XL60 series had suffered from excessive barrel wear due to a combination of poor metallurgy and a lack of chrome lining (incidentally, this marked the first time that the German firm of Heckler & Koch would be consulted, more than 20 years before the A2 programme). However, metallurgy and inadequate heat-treating continued to plague the weapon, with cracked bolt carriers and even a split barrel revealing serious defects in the manufacturing processes. These catastrophic issues were resolved following Phase A of the User Trials but were a worrying sign at this advanced stage. Prior problems with feed, ejection and trigger reset that had been experienced with the XL60 series remained evident, as did the LSW-specific problem of split groups. This was specific to automatic fire with the LSW, wherein the weapon would produce two discrete groups—the first shot exhibiting a distinctly different point of impact than the remaining shots in a string. This would be the subject of significant work in future iterations of the LSW (stay tuned for more on this issue—Ed.).

As User and Ordnance Board trials continued in parallel, the weapon was able to reach the target 2500 MRBF figure despite these problems. If this seems low by today’s standards, it is important to note that at this period, U.S. military rifles might only be expected to reach 500 rounds more (i.e., 3000 MRBF) than the SA80 IW target for the equivalent failure category. It is essential to point out that, in the British trials, the only categories of failure included were those that involved a malfunction requiring user replacement of parts. Other commonly tested failure modes, namely malfunctions that could be solved with more intensive user intervention (but not parts replacement) and those remedied by immediate action alone (sometimes referred to as “mean rounds between stoppages,” or MRBS) were—according to Steve Raw—ignored. On the other hand, the contemporary U.S. military demanded an MRBS figure of 500, whereas the XL70 SA80 achieved only 95 MRBS. In other words, the weapon on average would malfunction after only three full magazines. Even if the weapon achieved its set MRBF target, an MRBS rate such as this could not possibly be acceptable in service. This worrying situation led to yet another build standard and yet another designation, which we will deal with in the next installment of this series.

Special thanks to the National Firearms Centre at the Royal Armouries, who graciously allowed us access to their world-class collection.
This is Part 3 in a series of articles examining the developmental history of the United Kingdom’s SA80 family of firearms. Part 2 appeared without designation in Small Arms Review, Vol. 23, No. 3.
See armamentresearch.com for further original content.
(This article is adapted from a chapter in Mr. Ferguson’s forthcoming book on British bullpup rifles, which will be published by Headstamp Publishing in 2019. HeadstampPublishing.com)

After designing the M1941 semi-automatic rifle, Melvin Johnson set his sights on a light machine gun version of his design. While making it accept the already issued M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle magazines seemed a logical choice, that was not an option due to Johnson’s prior experience submitting his M1941 rifle to the Army. When the U.S. Army Ordnance Department first tested the Johnson rifle, it had a detachable box magazine. According to Bruce Canfield in his authoritative work on Johnson’s firearms, “Johnson Rifles and Machine Guns: The Story of Melvin Maynard Johnson, Jr. and His Guns”, soldiers testing the rifle loaded the cartridges in the detachable BAR magazine used in the M1941 backwards. This had the effect of bending the feed lips, rendering the magazine’s operation unreliable. Johnson saw this and demanded new magazines before the test started. Ordnance refused and, adding insult to injury, counted each of the resulting magazine-induced stoppages as “malfunctions”, tanking the gun’s performance in testing on paper. Years later, Johnson’s son, Edward Johnson, suggested to me in a conversation that this was a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of the test in favor of the competing incumbent M1 Garand rifle.

Faced with such brazen dishonesty, Johnson responded by developing a rotary magazine that could not be sabotaged in this way and that offered the benefit of being able to be topped off in use with stripper clips so that soldiers would never be caught changing magazines when an enemy suddenly appeared wanting to shoot you. For his light machine gun, Johnson added a detachable magazine to one side. He could not use a double column magazine for fear Ordnance would sabotage them and count the resulting failure of the magazines to work as the gun malfunctioning, so he developed a 20-round single-column feed magazine that was immune to such tampering. That, plus the five rounds held in the rotary magazine, gave the soldier 25 rounds at their disposal.

Johnson was well aware of the Browning Automatic Rifle’s faults. The M1918A2 was a heavy, 21 pounds and very clumsy to handle. It was gas operated with all the attendant powder fouling and jamming that goes with that kind of system. It lacked a quick-change barrel, so sustained full-auto fire was out of the question. The exposed barrel would burn you sooner or later, disassembly and reassembly was a nightmare, and most damning of all, the gun wore heavily under heavy usage, necessitating constant Ordnance rebuilds. These rebuilds, while straightforward, were often poorly done by Ordnance resulting in the troops getting weapons that did not work reliably.

Johnson set out to make a light machine gun that had none of these faults… and he succeeded. At 12.5 pounds, the weapon was still within the upper limits of what a rifle could weigh. It handled fast and sure with no hint of clumsiness. There was a ventilated barrel shroud and a quick-change barrel just like the Johnson M1941 rifle had. This was a light machine gun that could maintain sustained fire like any other air-cooled machine gun with a quick-change barrel The short recoil system of the Johnson rifle eliminated all the problems inherent in a gas-operated machine gun. It was extremely rugged and didn’t fall apart under heavy use like the BAR did. Like the Johnson rifle, it was totally reliable. Accuracy in full-auto was superior to the BAR, but unlike other weapons, the M1941 LMG fired open-bolt when in full-auto (benefitting from the 50% recoil reduction that offers) but it fired from a closed bolt when the selector was set on semi-auto for sniper rifle accuracy.

The M1941 LMG shared many components of the M1941 Johnson rifle and was actually a rifle designed to fill the LMG role. As such, it and its successor, the M1944 Johnson, remain the only rifles in history to succeed in this role. The increased speed of mobility that a lighter LMG delivers was amply demonstrated by one of Johnson’s favorite tricks, firing the M1941 LMG one-handed with his arm fully extended, as shown in the photograph. I’ve never seen or heard of anyone firing an M1918A2 BAR with one hand like that. The speed of deployment of a weapon in combat is the difference between hitting the enemy and being hit by the enemy. As a LMG is supposed to be part of a mobile squad, its mobility is a decisive factor in its effectiveness in many situations.

Since the M1941 didn’t come from Army Ordnance’s tight little clique, they immediately hated the Johnson guns — even going so far as to deny export licenses for the M1941 LMG to America’s WWII ally, Holland, in the early days of the war. However, the Marine paratroopers liked the way the quick-change barrel of the Johnson rifle and the Johnson LMG could be removed and stowed alongside the rest of the weapon making for a more compact package during parachute jumps, and they were able to get a quantity. Both the rifle and the LMG were already in production for a Dutch order. When Holland fell, these guns became available to both the Army and the Marines where they were widely loved by their users.

U.S. troops weren’t the only ones impressed with the Johnson. In Germany, Louis Stanga took it as his inspiration for the famous FG42 which was intended to replace the 98 Mauser when production permitted. Not having a hostile Ordnance Board to deal with Louis used a conventional 20-round, double column box magazine. The action was based on an improved version of the WWI Lewis Light Machine Gun and a muzzle brake was fitted. It lacked a quick-change barrel and for all its virtues, it was still inferior to the M1941 Johnson.

There were also six light carbine versions made as semi-auto rifles with a standard 10-shot rotary magazine and no bipod. Dubbed “Daisy Mae”, one of these was carried into WWII by U.S. Marine officer Harry Torgerson.

Always trying to improve his guns, Melvin Johnson determined to make the most controllable light machine gun of all time and he succeeded with his M1944 Johnson LMG. The weight went up to 14.7 pounds and the bipod and wood forend were replaced with a 1.7-pound folding monopod that served as either a vertical or a horizontal fore grip, depending on its position. This monopod proved much faster to engage and more effective than the traditional bipod. The wooden buttstock was replaced with two tubes. The top tube enabled the mainspring to have more room while the bottom tube could store a cleaning kit. There was a substantial metal buttplate that was hinged and could be flipped up to access the two tubes for maintenance. Depending on the ammunition type, the cyclic rate was anywhere from 450 -750 rounds per minute. This could also be adjusted by changing the recoil spring.

As previously stated, the M1944 Johnson LMG is totally controllable in full auto fire. By the time the 22-inch barrel has moved back a half-inch and the bolt has been cammed back 20 degrees to allow unlocking, the bullet is four or five feet from the muzzle. This also reduces the amount of powder and gas left in the barrel that typically fouls the action once the breech is unlocked. The bolt has a long throw and a long recoil spring to spread out and absorb the recoil, this is in addition to the weight of the gun doing its part to absorb recoil. The weight of the bolt and the barrel for the half-inch of unlocking travel also counts as bolt weight during that time. The result is a steady straight rearward push instead of the normal jack hammer effect of recoil in a full-auto gun that jerks the muzzle up with each shot. Fired from the prone in full-auto with the monopod deployed, the recoil from each shot is just 1.33 pounds. By way of comparison, the M16 has seven pounds of recoil per shot. Fired from the shoulder, the M1944 is still controllable. Plus, it achieves this controllability without the use of a muzzle brake that would likely cause permanent damage to the shooter’s hearing. Combining its controllable nature, its ability to fire semi-auto from a closed bolt for precise shots, and its unsurpassed reliability, Johnson may have produced the most effective one-person operated firearm of all time in his M1944 LMG.

With the selector set at semi-auto, the cycling of the action begins when the cartridge is fired. The bolt and barrel remain locked together as the barrel recoils a half-inch back into the receiver. During this travel time, the multi-lugged bolt is rotated 20 degrees to unlock by the camming arm of the bolt sliding against the camming face of the receiver. Once the bolt is unlocked, the rearward travel of the barrel is halted while the bolt continues to the rear, compressing the long recoil spring, cocking the hammer, extracting, and then ejecting the spent cartridge case. The recoil spring now drives the bolt forward, where it locks into the barrel, and the gun is ready to fire semi-auto again. This action is just like the M1941 rifle.

When the selector is set for full-auto, the cycle begins with the bolt catch holding the bolt in the open position until it’s released by pulling the trigger. It then chambers a cartridge, closes, and locks into the barrel. At this point the automatic sear is tripped, firing the round. The gun continues to fire full-auto until it is out of ammo or the trigger is released (catching the bolt in the open position.) When the last round is fired, the bolt remains closed in either the semi-auto or full-auto setting.

While the Marine Corps wanted to replace the BAR with the M1944 Johnson, this was not approved as the Marine Corps was considered a client of the Army in weapons procurement.

After the war, Johnson continued trying to get his guns adopted, even going so far as to add gas assisted operation to the guns to please Ordnance, even though this negated one of the principal advantages of his design. These efforts were unsuccessful, and it appears Ordnance was just stringing him along to offset the criticism of their scandalous behavior on this matter. The M1944 remains the high-water mark of the Johnson LMG. There has never been another non-crew-operated firearm approaching its effectiveness.

By During the late 19^th century, the main armament of most country’s militaries at the time was a single shot rifle, often in inferior calibers from a ballistic perspective. Sweden, during this time, went from a simple-but-sturdy single-shot rolling block rifle in a weak caliber to one of the best repeating rifles of the 20th century in a caliber that, to this day, still has the upper hand on many modern calibers.

The history of the Swedish Mauser began in 1866 when a joint commission was formed between Sweden and Norway to review existing rifle designs with the specific goal of finding a future army rifle for the two countries. The king of Sweden was also the king of Norway, so a joint effort was natural.

Several repeating rifles such as the Henry rifle and the Spencer rifle were considered, but the weapon that was finally recommended by the commission in 1867 was Remington’s rolling block. The armed forces adopted this rifle as the m/1867 in the same year and ordered 10,000 copies from Remington. The weapon was a solid construction in 12.17x42R caliber with a barrel length of 37.2 inches (94.8 cm) and a total length of 53.8 inches (136.6 cm) and a weight of 2.2 pounds (4.3 kg). The weapon, including some carbine variants, were initially ordered from Remington, but in the latter part of the 19th century both carbines and rifles were manufactured on the rifle factor in Eskilstuna and in Husqvarna.

However, 12.17x42R caliber was not optimal with less than good ballistic properties with a velocity of 1266 fps (386 m/s) for a 370-grain (24-gram) projectile. In 1889, 100,000 of the Rolling Block weapons were refitted with new barrels to use the new Danish 8×58R Danish Krag cartridge and the rifle was renamed the m/1867–89.

ENTRY OF THE REPEATING RIFLES

In the late 1800s, repeating rifles were developed, and most weapon designers worked with different solutions. The Norwegian Jacob Smith Jarmann designed a single-shot shotgun that was manufactured as a test model at the rifle factory in Eskilstuna and further developed by the weapon designer Ole Hermann Johannes Krag with a tube magazine in the 10.15×61 caliber.

This weapon was advocated in competition with other rifles by a new commission between Norway and Sweden, and the weapon was adopted in Norway in 1881. Further tests were carried out in Sweden and the weapon was adopted in 1883 as a test model fm/1883. In total, 1,500 of these Jarmann rifles were manufactured in Eskilstuna and were tested by the armed forces. But even though they worked well, the trial model was never adopted and the weapons were sold off to civil hunters and sport shooters in Sweden.

However, Sweden did not rest in its quest for a new, well-functioning repeating rifle and took an interest in Paul Mauser’s designs and the rifles that were manufactured for, among others, Spain and Belgium. In April 1892, Sweden tested model 92 and 88 Mauser rifles and in September 1892, three Swedish officers, including Captain Carl Hyltén-Cavallius, head of Carl Gustaf’s rifle factory in Eskilstuna, travelled to the Mauser factory in Oberndorf to get acquainted with and test the latest weapons from Mauser.

THE 6.5×55 mm CARTRIDGE

The discussion in Sweden and Norway for a new caliber was ongoing and the goal was to find a caliber with the best ballistic properties. In November 1893, a Swedish-Norwegian commission stated that the caliber would be 6.5 mm and the bullet should have a weight of 10.1 grams or 156 grain. The Norwegians wanted a rimmed case, but Sweden objected, desiring a regular case. In the end, the Swedes won, and the final case became 55 mm in length, non-rimmed with a 156-grain bullet with an initial speed of about 2297 fps (700 m/s). King Oscar II approved the cartridge on January 18, 1894, and it was named the m/94 cartridge.

The bullet in the m/94 cartridge was initially a round nose but this was not optimal from a ballistic pointy of view. So in 1925, Norway developed the cartridge further and replaced the round nose ball with a pointed ball (spitzer) with boat tail called “torpedo”. The new bullet had better accuracy than the old round nosed bullet, weighed 139 grains with an initial velocity of 2625 fps (800 m/s). Sweden adopted this cartridge in 1941, retaining the name m/94 but redesignating the bullet name to m/41. Special batches of this cartridge that were found to have a very good precision were selected and got the additional designation “prickskytte” (that is not meant to be offensive, it means “bullseye shooting” in Swedish.) There was also an armor-piercing cartridge, tracers, a blank cartridge with a wooden tip, and a smaller bullet in a regular case with reduced velocity that was meant for indoor practice called “kammar”.

SWEDISH TRIALS AND DECISION

The debate was still ongoing about the rifle and the Norwegians preferred the Krag-Jorgensen. Politics came into play and the Norwegian commission had persuaded King Oscar II to use Krag-Jorgensen’s rifle in Norway. In August 1893, three rifles competed for the contracts, the Mauser rifle, the Krag-Jorgensen, and the Austrian Mannlicher rifle. During the latter part of 1893 and at the beginning of 1894, the main troop trials were carried out primarily at the shooting school in Rosersberg north of Stockholm and at the local Stockholm regiment called Livgardet.

Advantages and disadvantages of each of the three rifles were noted during the tests and compiled. Krag-Jörgensen’s advantages were that the mechanism was very good, and it handled bad primers very well. The magazine was separate from the mechanism and cartridges could be inserted one at a time without the need to open the mechanism. The magazine could also be emptied without feeding the cartridges through the mechanism. The drawbacks for Krag-Jörgensen were that the design was old and no longer used by any other country. The feeding of cartridges from the magazine was unreliable and unless the repeating handle was firmly at the end of its travel during reloading of a cartridge, the rifle would not fire.

The Mannlicher’s advantage was a good mechanism which was easy to manufacture. The drawbacks were mainly linked to the magazine which, when filled with cartridges, is completely inserted into the mechanism. Cartridges cannot be loaded one at a time and half-filled magazines worked poorly and if the mag had the slightest dent, would not work. The bolt head of the Mannlicher was a small part, easy to lose and if the weapon was fired without it installed, it might result in an out of battery detonation of the cartridge, potentially damaging the shooter.   

The shining star of this trial was the Mauser rifle. The mechanism was very smooth and very resistant to corrosion. The risk of firing the weapon out of battery is non-existent, which could be an issue with the other two rifles. The magazine and stripper clip were robust and easy to manufacture and maintain, and the magazine could easily be topped up by single cartridges without the stripper clip. The magazine is completely inside the weapon and does not protrude in any way, and after the last round, the mechanism is locked open on the magazine follower, so there is little risk that the soldier thinks he is reloading another round but ends up with a “click” as the magazine is empty.

The only real disadvantages of the Mauser that was identified was that the action had to be pulled all the way to the rear of its travel for the shooter to be able to refill the magazine and the cartridges can’t be removed from the magazine without feeding them through the chamber and extracted by working the action. This is not entirely true as you are able to, with a bit of finger dexterity, get the cartridges out by hand from a Mauser m/96 without the need to feed them through the chamber.
 
The advantages listed for the Mauser rifle far exceeded its disadvantages and it was considered better than the Krag-Jorgensen and the Mannlicher. It was therefore chosen as the new standard rifle for the Swedish military. However, the Swedes came very close to choosing the Krag rifle, which was chosen for the Norwegians, and had the favor of the king. It is rumored, even if the author cannot verify this, that the king acted on the advice from several officers who at the time had shares in the Krag company. The first rifle to be adopted was the carbine, intended for the cavalry on August 7^th 1894 and it was called 6.5mm Carbine m/94.

To facilitate the manufacture of Swedish rifles in Oberndorf, Germany at the Mauser factory, Paul Mauser constructed a new part of the factory called “Schwedenbau.” This building stands to this day and it’s here that the Mauser Museum is located.

MANUFACTURE OF THE m/94 CARBINE AND THE m/96 RIFLE

On March 3, 1895, Captain Carl Hyltén-Cavalius went down again to Oberndorf and on July 24, 1895, there were a total of 11 Swedish officers and gun manufacturers who supervised the production of the Swedish carbines on “Schwedenbau.” When the first carbines were manufactured, they were tested and measured in detail, and the carbine with serial number 06 was chosen to be “working model” after which all other carbines were manufactured. 7,000 carbines were ordered in the first batch and then another 5,000. Manufacturing of the first carbines began in September 1895 and by February 1896 all 12,000 had been manufactured and delivered. In December 1895, the Swedish officers returned to Sweden with all the notes and measurements they needed to move the production of carbines to Sweden. Machines were ordered in April 1896 and from 1898 to 1913 about 113,000 carbines were produced on the rifle factory in Eskilstuna.

Several different variants were made of the m/1894 carbine, including one named the m/94-96 carbine for fortification troops with sling attachments on the underside of the weapon instead of on the side. Several lighter training rifles for indoor shooting with reduced charges were also produced. An odd carbine was the one that was made in small quantities for the Swedish Navy called the m/1894-14-87 which had a bracket on the side for mounting the very long saber bayonet m/1887. Most m/94 carbines were made in 1914 to be able to take the m/94 bayonet and were then called m/94-14. This model is still present and used by the Swedish high guard for ceremonial purposes.

Carbine number 06 is today held in the Eskilstuna arms museum collection, where the author gained access to it. This copy is really a piece of Swedish weapon history! The rifle is marked with “6” and the side of the box is engraved with “WAFFENFBK MAUSER OBERNDORF A/N” and there is no control stamp from any weapons inspector.

In addition to the carbine, Sweden needed a longer army rifle, and Mauser was to deliver on this as well. The experimental model m/92 developed into the trial model fm/1895 which was adopted as the 6.5mm rifle m/96 on March 20, 1896. Serial production of this weapon started at the rifle factory in Eskilstuna in 1898 with production of about 3,200 rifles. In total, 532,000 rifles were manufactured in Sweden between 1898 and 1925, of which approximately 18,000 were made in another factory in the city of Husqvarna. The Mauser factory in Oberndorf also produced about 38,600 m/96 rifles between 1899 and 1900 due to delays in delivery of manufacturing equipment to Sweden.

ENGRAVINGS AND OTHER INSIGNIAS ON THE WEAPONS

The engraving and stampings on these weapons provide informative details such as the manufacturing site and year. Using the serial number, you can find even more information about manufacturing time using the right literature. Stamps are also available from the weapons inspector who inspected the weapon. The m/96 rifle that the author has been shooting was made in Eskilstuna in 1918 and was stamped “HK” next to the serial number. This stands for Helge Kolthoff, who was a lieutenant at an artillery regiment and was an inspection officer at the rifle factory between 1912 and 1923. On the weapon’s metal parts, for example on the bolt, there is also a stamped crown, which indicates that this weapon is inspected and test fired. On the underside of the weapon, just behind the trigger guard, there are two crowns and one crown with a “S” under. These are inspection stamps noting the weapon has been serviced by an official army gunsmith. “S” means it has been with Stockholm’s “Tygstation”, which is Swedish for an armory.

A very interesting aspect of many weapons is the small brass counter that was attached to the buttstock of most m/94 carbines and m/96 rifles up until the Second World War. These disks, attached with two small screws, provide information on which unit and regiment used a particular weapon. For example, if it says, “I 3”, it indicates that the weapon has been field with infantry regiment number 3. The letter indicates the branch within the force where, for example, K = cavalry, A = artillery, T = supply troops, and L stands for “Landstormen”, which was the home guard or territorial defense of this time. Furthermore, there can be a number above “I 3”, for example 5, to indicate the company of the regiment in question. Finally, you can also see for instance “No 2136”, which indicates the number of the weapon, i.e., rifle number 2136, of the company, 3 of the infantry branch.  

The Navy had its own disks where the letter “M” means the Navy and “MDN” means the North Coast Marine District. Some funny letter combinations on rifles could indicate “VO” which stands for “velociped ordonnans”, which means bicycle orderly or “BF” which was of the military police in the town of Boden and “KKS” which was the Royal Military school. More recently, the disks were put upside down on the stock and provided information to the soldier on how much he would adjust the point of aim with different cartridges and at different distances. The reason why they are upside down is that it would be easy for the shooter to be able to quickly tilt the rifle and read how much he should adjust. There is a plethora of information to be had about these disks and there is a lot of material to read. The interesting thing is that together with all the stamps and engravings on the weapon, you may be able to tell the entire military history of a certain rifle.

OWNING AND HANDLING A MAUSER RIFLE OR CARBINE

The Mausers are a piece of living Swedish military history and the possibility of owning one of these venerable rifles or carbines is very real. The author’s rifle is a Mauser m/96 rifle, manufactured by the factory in Eskilstuna in 1918, so the rifle is reaching an age of 105 years, but the rifle’s accuracy is still solid, and the action is still very good. The rifle was won by a relative of the author in a shooting competition in 1955. An even older one is a carbine m/94 with serial number 147 from Mauser’s manufacturing year 1895, a 123-year-old rifle that has been handled and controlled by the very Captain Hyltén-Cavalius himself. The stock on the carbine had however seen better days and the owner of it replaced it with a newly made one.

These rifles are a dream to handle and shoot. The actions are still as smooth as ever and the accuracy with proper 6.5x55mm ammunition is still very good. With good concentration and support, there is no problem to keep a group of 5 rounds inside 4 inches (10 cm) with the open sights at 109 yards (100 m). The stripper clip is placed in the holder on the rifle, the cartridges are pushed down, and as you close the action, the clip is sent flying. With good practice, you can reload and fire this rifle quite fast, and the obvious advantage to the one-shot rolling block rifle is evident. If it comes down to a close standoff between soldiers, the bayonets of these rifles are sturdy, and the long w/1994 bayonet of the carbine is more of a sword. The trigger of these rifles is crisp, but heavy.

The sights are graded out to 1,000 meters and the accuracy has been tested by Henry and Josh of the well-known 9-holereview YouTube channel. They took the rifle to 600 yards and managed to acquire two hits each on a total of eight steel targets at 100-yard increments with a record-breaking total of 19 rounds, thus beating the Finnish m/39 Mosin-Nagant by two rounds. They pushed it to 1,000 yards using only iron sights and managed a hit after 4 rounds, thus proving the very good accuracy of the rifle and cartridge combination.

MAUSERS IN THE FINNISH WINTER WAR OF 1939

An interesting story about the Swedish Mausers is their involvement in the Finnish Winter War. In 1939, the Swedish voluntary corps was formed, which consisted of Swedish soldiers and officers who fought on Finland’s side against the Soviets during World War II. The weapons they used were, for the most part, self-bought Swedish m/96 rifles and some m/94 carbines. At the same time, the Finnish government bought a large amount of m/96 rifles and ammunition from Sweden for their own soldiers. Altogether there were over 50,000 Swedish Mauser rifles in the Finnish Army around 1944, including about 900 m/94 carbines, all of which probably came from the Swedish volunteer corps. A Swedish “Finnish gun” can easily be recognized by the fact that it is stamped “SA” on the box, which stands for “Suomen Armeija” which means “Finnish Army”.

CONCLUSION

The Swedish Mausers, in all their forms, were, for a long time, the main weapon of the Swedish armed forces for the individual soldier. In 1942, the AG m/42 semi-automatic rifle was adopted and in 1964 the AK4 or HK G3 in 7.62×51 was adopted by the Swedish Armed Forces and the Mauser was phased out. Mausers remained with the home guard and were used in the voluntary shooting community for a long time for target shooting out to 300 m and remains to this day, a somewhat popular hunting rifle.

In 1990, the Soviet Ministry of Defense was facing considerable economic strain. It nonetheless was confronted with the fact that its mainline sidearm, the Makarov PM pistol, was an aging, heavy hunk of steel that looked more at home in a 1960’s spy movie, than a pistol of the upcoming new century. The ministry put out a request to replace the Makarov PM, but before substantial development could get underway, the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of failed political and social policy and a heavy military spending burden.

The ministry’s successor, the Ministry of Defense of the newly formed Russian Federation, was in no better economic position and was left with an even worse geopolitical and regional security disaster. The idea of a modern pistol to replace the PM design was one of the few projects not to be placed on the economic chopping block, and so a competition was put forth to bring Russia’s main sidearm into the new millennium.

The Russian Army trial program for the pistol, codenamed “Grach,” attracted the attention of the design team at the well-established цнииточмаш (aka “TsNIITOChMASh” in English, the Russian Central Research Institute for Precision Machine Building) which developed the “snub nosed viper”—the Gyurza. This dramatic name was visually fitting for the 1990s-designed SPS (Serdyukov self-loading pistol), which was created at the initial Soviet request in the years prior and was an early contender in the ill-fated attempt to unseat the prolific PM. In 1993, Piotr Serdyukov’s design would eventually be renamed the “Vektor,” as part of Russia’s introduction to the attractive naming conventions in a capitalistic state.

Yet, in the sunset of the Soviet Union, when the Gyurza round was not yet in the Vektor days, two men and one woman went to work on the future cartridge with which all Soviet soldiers (at least those outfitted with a pistol) were intended to be equipped. E.S. Kornilova, A.B. Yuryev and I.P. Kasyanov at TsNIITOCh-MASh had to create a bespoke and enhanced cartridge to meet the initial state requirements. The pistol would have to be more powerful than the PM, with an effective range no less than 50 meters, with the ability to defeat body armor at 100 meters. This was a tall order. Their answer was the 9×21. However, when the cartridge was modernized after the state’s collapse and thousands of former Soviet citizens found themselves without work, only Yuryev remained on the design team.

The cartridge was intended to be standard issue, but in practice the 9×21 cartridge was built from the ground up to be special purpose ammunition. As a result, it was and remains comparatively expensive compared to standard 9×19 and 9×18 cartridges. Immediately, this created a shortage in availability, precluding intensive training from anyone apart from special forces units and spooky agencies. The round had an armor piercing variant, the SP-10, a full metal jacket ball round, the SP-11, a reduced ricochet variant, the SP-12, and a tracer, the SP-13. The SP-10 armor-piercing round is a 103-grain projectile with a muzzle velocity of 1,300 feet per second. It carries 563 Joules or 415 foot pounds of muzzle energy. Per the state requirement, the SP-10 armor-piercing round is capable of defeating class IIIA at 50 meters.

Despite the new and improved cartridge and the slick name “Vektor,” the pistol was rejected by the Russian Army. Instead, the Izh-mash entry won the competition, called the MP-443 “Grach” (named for the competition itself) in 9×19, designed by Vladimir Yarygin. Soldiers called it the “PYa,” an abbreviation of “P,” for “pistol” and “Ya,” for “Yarygin.” Their Grach pistol entered production in 2003. While the Russian army was against the Vektor design, it attracted the attention of other Russian authorities and saw a second chance at life in the hands of Russian law enforcement and intelligence services. It was expeditiously put into production in 1996 and adopted by the FSB in the same year. The name “Vektor” was dropped in favor of the stoic SR-1, the “SR” meaning “special development” in Russian. Russian armament authorities, the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate, designate it with the less slick name “GRAU 6P53.”

In function, the Vektor is a short, recoil-operated, locked-breech pistol, with an 18-round, double-stack magazine. The barrel locking is achieved by a tilting locking block, located under the barrel. A polymer frame houses the double-action trigger, which features a trigger safety similar to that on the Glock. The pistol features a grip safety and finally a firing pin safety in the slide. The double-action mode of fire will work only if the hammer is in the half-cocked position.

In 2003, the design was modernized to the SR-1M, with a strengthened polymer frame and improved ergonomics. Another modernized variant is the SR-3MP, which features an M1913 rail adapter and threaded barrel for a sound suppressor. Recently, this author had the opportunity to inspect an SR-1M in late 2018 while visiting Chechnya. Unfortunately, he was not able to shoot it, due to the pistol’s infamous ammunition unavailability; the author was later told that if this were an FSB (Federal Security Service) unit there would be no issue with ammunition availability. A Special Forces instructor presented his pistol to me, and at his request, I was not able to photograph the weapon with the serial number visible. This is why the photo has it obstructed from view. In the hand, the pistol feels and handles well with ease of manipulation and fire control access. Coming in line with the eye, it has standard low-profile sights, and the crisp trigger is complimented by a short trigger pull and clean reset.

In the end, Grach was adopted as the standard issue Russian service pistol and for the last two decades as well; however, the PM is still in wide use in conflict zones around the world. Despite their best efforts, the world of Russian combat pistols remains a mixed bag—the SR-1M alongside the PM on the same fighting team. The Spetsnaz instructors, with whom this author spoke, indicated that the idea of a pistol with increased armor-defeating capability is very useful for their applications, but limited ammo had negatively affected their ability to train as rigorously as they demand. As for this author, all I could attest to was the feel of the gun. It was well-machined with a slick action. It was a typical TsNIITOChMAsh product. Someday, the author hopes to get his hands on that precious ammunition and put some rounds downrange.

Successful inventors often have to think outside the box. In weapons technology, too, many a smirked-at pipe dream has turned out to be a great success. But now and then it’s difficult to distinguish deliberate charlatanry from actual conviction. This is a problem that the SS-Waffenamt also had to contend with when so-called “inventors” described their ideas in grandiose terms. Like Dr. Christian Fuchs, for example, with his centrifugal machine gun.

Machine guns became an indispensable weapon in warfare. Their firepower helped both in attack and defense. On days of heavy fighting, however, this turned into hard work for the ammunition carriers, considering that a German MG34 could easily fire 800 rounds per minute. The MG42 even managed 1,500 rounds in the same amount of time.

Dr. Fuchs, from Poznań in the Nazi-occupied Reichsgau Wartheland area of Poland, who had a doctorate in law, had the idea of developing a machine gun that used kinetic energy instead of gunpowder to impart thrust to projectiles. Whether he was aware of other prior attempts to create such a device is unknown. He approached the Heereswaffenamt (Army Ordnance Office) with this idea and on 8 February 1943 his project was discussed during a weapons demonstration at the proving ground Kummersdorf as the agenda item “Development of a new machine gun with mechanical projectile acceleration.” According to Dr. Fuchs, his invention was recognized as correct in principle, but the development time needed to create a weapon suitable for frontline use was judged to be too long and he was refused further support.

However, Dr. Fuchs did not give up that quickly. He contacted a Nazi SS office in Poznań and presented his idea there on 20 November. “With this machine, the projectiles are hurled away without explosives, i.e. silently,” it was reported, and that, “Dr. Fuchs has already achieved a performance of 50 shots per second, that is 3,000 shots per minute, with his model.” Furthermore, he lambasted the lack of support from the Speer Ministry, declaring that he needed only six months to complete a weapon “which could be used immediately at the front,” but, of course, only if qualified mechanics and raw materials were made available to him. Furthermore, Dr. Fuchs urged a quick decision, because the suspension period for the public announcement of his patent would soon end and failing to gain an extension would be contrary to the interest of national defense. He urgently requested the support of Gauleiter SS-Obergruppenführer Arthur Greiser and wanted to demonstrate the invention to him personally.

Despite the support of the SS, Dr. Fuchs was unable to procure the necessary high-speed motors and other individual parts. In May 1944, he travelled specially to the Siemens company in Berlin where he learned the compact, high-speed electric motors he had planned to use in his design were no longer being built. Instead, he had to make do with motors that provided only 7,000 revolutions per minute, for which, however, a gearbox was necessary. Siemens agreed “in the most obliging manner” to produce a model of the machine gun and also commissioned the development of a gearbox that ran in oil. But nothing came of it.

In June 1944, Dr. Fuchs wrote to the SS headquarters (Technical Office VIII FEP), “Due to the two heavy air raids on Poznań, the workshops of the company entrusted with the construction of the gearbox were partly destroyed. […] In addition, the manager of the Poznań workshop of the Siemens company has collapsed due to work overload and is therefore no longer able to provide the kindly promised help in the construction of the machine gun.” Dr. Fuchs then built a prototype gearbox himself that reached a speed of 15,000 rpm. On the finished weapon, one bullet would have left the barrel for every revolution.

Dr. Fuchs felt very important. He again pressed for help from the SS, who this time were to make certain parts for him. The work would only progress so slowly and Fuchs urged, “since I must not neglect my professional duties as a judge, nor can I cease my intensive collaboration as Hauptsturmführer of the SA, lest I betray the cause. […] Without the requested help, it would hardly be possible to make the new weapon operational for this war. In my opinion, however, that would not be in the Führer’s interests”. Two weeks later, the SS-Führungshauptamt agreed to have the parts manufactured in SS workshops and asked for drawings to be sent to them. In mid-July, the finished parts were sent to Dr. Fuchs.

Now the personal staff of the Reichsführer-SS also intervened. SS-Obersturmbannführer Gräßler wanted to know why the matter was taking so long. The head of the technical office, SS-Brigadeführer Schwab, himself a doctor of engineering, made it clear in his answer of 3 October 1944 what he thought of the centrifugal machine gun. He reportedly said the invention was a technical gimmick and that such a weapon would weigh 100 times more than a normal machine gun and the trajectory would be uncontrollable. All this did not justify the use of an extensive test facility and the assignment of dozens of experts, he continued. Presumably in order not to upset anyone, he added, “It must remain the case that we give Dr. Fuchs further opportunities to improve his ideas and to see for himself on basic tests how far things can be realized. […] Dr. Fuchs has now expressed the wish to be transferred to the Waffen-SS in order to be able to continue working here within the framework of the Technical Office. I have no objection to this and will clear the way for him to do so. With the best will in the world, that is all that can be done at the moment.”

Unfortunately, this is where the story ends. The further fate of Dr. Fuchs, the whereabouts of his prototype and the technical drawings of his design are unknown. But, based on what we know of his ambition, the ammunition consumption of his invention would have been incredibly high, if the system worked at all. With some basic math we can see how absurdly the idea was likely viewed at the time. The common heavy pointed bullet (schweres Spitzgeschoss) of the rifle cartridge weighed 12.8 grams. At the intended target of 30,000 revolutions per minute, the centrifugal machine gun would thus have hurled 384 kilograms (about 85 pounds) of lead per minute at the enemy. So, assuming the technology could be developed to realize Fuchs’ design, the weapons insatiable appetite for ammunition would have precluded it from ever becoming a reality given that ammunition was already in short supply in almost every corner of the German Reich by this point of the war.