SAR is starting the “Identification Guides as a series”. We believe that these guides need to be done. We have plans to cover the HK internals, the Models of the Colt M16 series (YES, we do mean ALL of them) and various magazine identification. This is a photographic series.

Probably the most popular modern submachine gun is the HK MP5. This is a simple statement and the evidence makes it hard to refute. Elite military groups, law enforcement tactical teams, and civilian shooters all utilize the MP5, and it dominates the marketplace. The HK weapons are the subject of intense scrutiny by the users, and the modular concepts involved give rise to many variants. This can get confusing to the users and to the armorers.

We chose the HK trigger housings as a start, because there is so much confusion about them. The following photographic essay covers all of the variants that we are aware of as of August 1997. This was compiled with the help of Jim Schatz, from the Federal Operations Division of HK in Sterling Virginia, and he has our thanks once again.

The only variant that is missing is the early 3 shot burst group, which had the burst cam in the rear of the pack- we have one on the way as we go to press, and will try to do a comparison of the old and the new. (Well, it’s the only variant that we KNOW is missing).

We have covered every conceivable model of the West German manufactured HK guns. If you have any trigger housings that we may have missed, let us know and we will publish an update later in SAR.

Please send in your requests for us to design different Identification Series to SAR at 223 Sugar Hill Rd, Harmony, ME 04942 phone 207-683-2172, fax 207-683-2172, email at sareview@aol.com.

In 1934 the United States Government managed to circumvent the Second Amendment of the Constitution, utilizing a tool that was becoming ever more popular at the time. These are harsh sounding words, but they are factual, and lead us to the root source of the so-called “National Firearms Act” weapons of today; the taxed and registered machine guns, silencers, short barreled weapons and Any Other Weapons. Congress had been advised that there were many things that they could not do- one of these things was to ban any class of firearms. Yet, they found themselves needing a path to “Righteousness”- a good dose of early days “Symbolism over substance”.

Brother Clinton would have been proud. Congress wanted to ban certain military type firearms from civilian hands, to make a stand against “gangsters”. The courts had found that the Federal government could do almost anything it wanted, if it could find a “Nexus” to either “interstate commerce”, or tax collection. In the case of the firearms that they wished to ban, taxation was the tool that was chosen. It worked on many other subjects that the Federal government was told they had no authority over- marijuana, child labor, etc. Whether we agree that these things need regulation or not is not the issue, it is whether the federal government has jurisdiction over
them. The use of the taxing authority became a way to gain control over an issue.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 imposed a tax on the transfer of ownership or manufacture of certain firearms. In the course of collecting this tax, it was determined that a “Registry” would be needed to record the tax information. This Registry is commonly referred to as the NFA Registry, although the more correct initials are NFRTR.

An almost punitive tax of $200 (Think about $200 in 1934!) was imposed on all transactions, and all transactions and ownership information were required to be sent in to the Registry. The history of the changes that the Registry has gone through is quite amazing, and will be dealt with at other times in SAR. For our purposes here, it is sufficient to mention only these several things:

1- Very few people took the registration laws seriously, and the government’s own estimate of the unregistered to registered machine guns ratio was ten unregistered to every one registered. Most war veterans were especially cool to the idea of registering firearms- they had seen the results of an unarmed populace in the wars they came home from, and there were countless thousands of MP-40’s, Greaseguns, Maxims and Brownings up above the floorboards in attics around America.

2- Due to the above situation, and riding on a wave of hysteria fostered by a combination of rising crime, anti-Vietnam War riots, race riots and the assassinations in the United States during the mid 1960’s, it was decided that the NFA weapons must be accounted for and an Amnesty was included in the Gun Control Act of 1968. All firearms that would have fallen under the definitions in the NFA-34, and the new category of “Destructive Devices”, had an amnesty period of an effective 30 days for the owners to register them. The stated purpose of the GCA 68 was to help the states to control their crime problems, but the actual outcome of this law was the creation of a massive bureaucracy that regulated the interstate commerce in firearms.

It would be an error, and an affront to a lot of good public servants for this author to leave that statement to stand alone. Many criminals have been caught, prosecuted, and the ensuing crimes they would have committed have been eradicated before happening. These people should have our undying thanks, and this author will not denigrate their sacrifices.

Here’s the “But”. But, there have been a lot of innocent people whose lives have been turned upside down, their families terrorized, financially ruined, all because of a violation of a tax statute, or even worse, because of inaccurate record keeping. The recent public airing of a private video tape address by the “Former” head of the National Firearms Act Branch, BATF, a Mr. Thomas Busey, has wreaked havoc on the legitimacy of the records in the Registry. That will be covered in later issues of SAR, by other Reasonably Knowledgeable Individuals who have been involved with the legal investigations of errors in the Registry. The accuracy of this Registry is a matter of great public interest.

This author has worked for many years to bring the Statistics of the National Firearms Act Activity to the public. These are public documents, but are not readily available. Each year since the late 1980’s, I have tried to get these published (usually with success) and the main vehicle was Machine Gun News.

The Small Arms Review will now pick up that torch.

These 5 charts are very intense. There is a lot of information in them. Most of it can be understood by comparing the activity from year to year- this means going and finding your old back issues of MGN.

Each chart requires individual study. If you take the time to look them over, you will be able to see what the course of transfers has been like over time, and what is going on in your state. Shifts in large inventories show up each year- the sale of collections, etc. One note is that the Destructive Device numbers are inflated by the requirement that all “Distraction Devices” or what is more commonly referred to as “Stun Grenades” must be in the Registry as well. The recent proliferation of these devices in law enforcement inventories, and the fact that many agencies do not bother reporting the destruction of these devices, leaves the accuracy of the Destructive Device part of the Registry in tatters. Many have suggested a separate Registry for these devices as a method of cleaning up a part of the problem.

We welcome your comments and observations regarding these charts.

Legend

MG: Machine Gun
SI: Silencer
SR: Short Barreled Rifle
SS: Short Barreled Shotgun
DD: Destructive Device
AW: Any Other Weapon
UNC: Unclassified
F1: Form 1, manufactured by an individual
F2: Manufactured by a licensed manufacturer
F3: Form 3 Transferred between Special Occupational Taxpayers
F4: Form 4 Transferred to or from an individual, tax paid
F5: Form 5 Transferred to or from a government agency, to a lawful heir, for repair, or “Other” reasons
F6: Form 6 imported
F9: Form 9 exported
F10: Form 10 into or registered by a government affiliated organization such as a police department or museum- these can not be transferred to other than government related operations
LTR: Letter, some transfers and registrations have been allowed on letters
4467: Form 4467, registered during the 1968 Amnesty- this is the original form used in the Amnesty.

The Original vs The Tube Gun

“Original or a tube gun?” This is a dilemma that many machine gun purchasers face at one time or another. Original guns are usually preferred, but there are many factors that make the choice to buy an original gun unpractical, or difficult.

An original gun, can first of all be difficult to locate. It can also be much more expensive than a non original gun, sometimes costing two to three times more. As you are probably well aware, no machine gun is cheap. Original guns, sometimes over fifty years old, can also be hard to find in decent original condition.

On the other hand, “tube” or remanufactured guns have usually been refinished and can be more appealing to the eye. Some will argue that wear and tear on an original weapon adds character and authenticity.

This of course raises the question, “Why are you considering the purchase of a machine gun?” People purchase them for shooting or for their collections. The most popular category would be “both”.

This brings another question to the table. How badly do you want to shoot an original gun? It is a fact that a lot of people purchase an original gun as a collector/shooter. Soon they begin to feel they are devaluing their original gun too much by firing it. They then purchase a tube gun of the same type for shooting and they then keep the original as a collector’s item only. Ideally that’s the way to go, but unfortunately few people are able to do that.

The purpose of this article is to compare an original, all-matching, German MP40 vs an MP4O with a receiver of a new manufacture, commonly known as a tube gun. We will compare features and performance of each of the guns.

The German MP40, like many German weapons of WWII vintage, have the weapons serial number (or a portion of the serial number) stamped on virtually every part of the gun: the bolt, barrel, stock etc. When a gun has all the matching original parts still intact, the gun is usually referred to as an “all matching gun”. An all-matching gun is considered far more valuable than one that is not.

The Original MP40 used in the test is a WWII gun of German manufacture. It is all-matching, and has 85 to 90% of the original finish remaining. It has the early flat side magazine housing and black plastic furniture. It is marked fxo 41, indicating that it was manufactured in 1941 by Haenel in Germany during WWII. For shooting purposes a barrel, bolt assembly and firing pin/recoil spring from a MP40 spare parts kit are installed. If a part (such as a barrel) is damaged on an all matching gun it will devalue it considerably. I might mention at this time that I rarely fire this gun, and its not because I don’t want to.

The MP40 came from a police department in Texas, where it was registered in 1967. No one currently at the department could remember where it came from, although before it gained a display spot on the wall, officers had taken it out on patrol. No one could remember ever having fired it in the line of duty.

The second gun used in the test was the MP40 tube gun. It belongs to gun collector/shooter Herb Plummer. He bought it a while ago for about half the going rate of an original one. Herb was looking for an original MP40, but he could not find one in suitable condition. The originals he did locate were very expensive, and not in the condition he wanted. Most were not all-matching weapons. Also, he says that he was looking for an MP40 to shoot, not to look at.

Herb purchased his MP40 directly from class II manufacturer Charlie Erb who also manufactured and registered the receiver tube. The trigger/lower housing assembly was marked bnz 42, indicating that it was manufactured in 1942. Most of the other parts were also marked bnz, the manufacturing code for Steyr.

The tube MP40 is also an all-matching gun. Charlie Erb makes them that way. He very carefully marks all his MP40s so that all the numbered parts match the serial number he assigned the tubes he manufactured (all prior to 1986). His serial numbers end in a small case letter like the originals.

At first glance Charlie’s guns look like all-matching originals. Even the Nazi eagles are stamped on the receiver tube. The tube MP40 had a blue finish that is very close to the gloss and color of an original gun. None of the original markings on the parts had been buffed away, which often gives away a poor reblue job.

Both guns fired and handled in much the same way. Both had the normal MP40 “wobbly stock”. The cyclic rate was, as expected, very similar. Both guns were 99.9% reliable. Malfunctions could usually be traced to the ammunition used. Reloads with cast lead round nose bullets were used, with no feeding or functioning problems. The only problem with lubricated cast lead bullets is that (during a long burst) the burning lube makes a lot of smoke, obscuring the target.

Accuracy of both MP40s was about the same. The cyclic rate is too fast to easily get off a single shot. We decided to see how many rounds we could get into a torso sized steel target at 50 yards. The best either of us could do was 18 out of 30, with a continuous 30 round burst.

The biggest problem with accuracy was the movement of the wobbly stock. Every time I would start a continuous burst, the stock would move, throwing me off target. About the time I corrected my aim, the magazine would be empty. I have fired other subguns at the same target, in the same manner, and had a lot more hits. I’m not saying the MP40 is an inaccurate weapon. Its weight and balance make it one of the better subguns of WWII. But the stock makes it difficult to shoot accurately. Unfortunately the MP40 stock is not easily repaired.

There was a problem with some parts not fitting the tube gun. One spare bolt would not interchange into the tube, while two others fit properly. There was a problem installing a spare trigger housing. All the parts fit onto the original tube with no problem. This isn’t cause for excessive concern, as it is common for original MP40 parts not to be 100% interchangeable. This is especially so between different manufacturers.

The tube MP40 is all-original WWII manufacture, except of course for the stripped tube. In this case the receiver is so marked that only upon close examination can you tell that it is not an original gun. The easiest way to identify a tube gun from an original is by examining the inside of the tube. An original gun will be fluted inside as it is on the outside. New-manufacture receiver tubes will usually be smooth inside. This applies only to the MP40. The earlier original MP38’s were manufactured with a smooth surface inside the receivers.

Under combat conditions the flutes or channels inside the MP40 tube made it more reliable, by giving any dirt or debris inside the tube a place to go. This helped prevent stoppages and jamming, a potentially deadly situation for the operator in a fire fight.

Machining flutes or channels in new manufacture, pre-1986 MP40 receivers was neither cost effective nor necessary for a recreational machine gun.

SUMMARY: Both guns were equally fun to shoot. Original MP40s have gone up in price considerably in the last few years. So much so that they are now in the collector only category. That means only shooting them occasionally, if at all. One big advantage is that original guns are considered C&R or Curio and Relics.

This is advantageous to those who reside in states that only allow C&R machine guns, or those who have a C&R license. Tube guns are not considered either curio or relics by the BATF.

Both guns functioned, and fired identically. Both MP40s are sure to continue to go up in value. Conclusion? The choice is basically up to you and your bank account.

MP40 Field Strip – Unload Firearm!!

In the few years of its existence, Qual-A-Tec developed a reputation as one of the most innovative developers of suppressors. Very little was written about their products since they were almost exclusively sold to the U.S. Military and the majority of those went to the Navy. The shield of secrecy was tightly held between the media and the user. I will not violate that shield and will instead try to describe the technologies that were developed.

Let me digress for a few moments to relate how I became involved in the Qual-A-Tec saga. Unlike many silencer designers, my involvement in suppressors came as a result of my job and not from some personal desire to build suppressors for myself. As a mechanical engineer working for the Naval Weapons Support Center, Crane, Indiana, I was assigned to work with the Joint Service Small Arms Program (JSSAP). Major David Baskett has to take the blame (or credit) for getting me involved in suppressors. He worked for JSSAP at Picatinny Arsenal and had become involved with trying to support the Special Operations Forces with special small arms developments. We worked together to establish a group within JSSAP whose job it would be to perform special developments for low demand weapon systems (including, of course, suppressors). We traveled the country searching out suppressors that could be useful for these special military operators. This effort started in the late 1970’s and to those who remember, there was not a lot of suppressor development going on in this country at that time. I recall that the 22 caliber Suppressors that we looked at were all 1.38 to 1.75 inch diameter cans with flat washer baffles. While they were relatively quiet, they were large, heavy and bulky. Looking back, there has been a tremendous amount of improvement made in suppressor technology in the last 20 years. I will try to relate my experiences throughout this “golden age” of suppressor development. I am not a historian, and did not do a good job of documenting the suppressors I evaluated so my look at this history is from the technological developments.

The suppressors of the 1970’s were primarily of two styles. The Navy was using the S&W pistols with the “Hush Puppy” wipe style of suppressors. This System had been developed by the Navy at White Oak and had inserts made with polyurethane wipes and special subsonic ammunition. The problem with the system was that the chamber pressure of the cartridges was quite high (loaded by Super-El) and that led to problems with ejecting the round after unlocking the slide. The other problem was that the terminal effects were poor. I recall a report from a SEAL who had the task to take out the “guard goose” at a Village in Vietnam. He shot the goose twice with the Hush Puppy and only succeeded in making the goose mad and very noisy. Obviously, this lack of lethality led to the guns being left behind during “real” missions. The other suppressors were a mixture of rather simplistic flat washer type baffles in rather large diameter tubes. Many were made from aluminum to keep the weight down and almost universally were not well suited to the real life missions of the military user. What was clearly needed was a real system. Unfortunately that approach was not to become a reality for quite a few years.

The advent of limited partnerships and capital write-offs for R&D expenses lead to some creative funding for a serious development of suppressors. Charles A. (Mickey) Finn met tax attorney Frederick R. Schumacher who set up these limited partnerships to fund development of suppressors specifically for military customers. Qual-A-Tec was the corporation formed to perform this effort. As one of the military customers, Crane took advantage of the offers from Mickey Finn to try and develop new technologies. This happened simultaneously with Richard Marcinko forming up his “Mob Six.” So here was a user in need of new good hardware and a developer in need of a project. Each needed and used the other. This was far from a marriage. It was more a case of consensual intercourse. When Maj. Baskett and I first tested Mickey Finn’s suppressors they were quieter than anything else we had found. At that time he was using simple flat washer baffles spaced at approximately .25 inches. The rear baffles usually had four holes near the outer edge that helped keep the decibel reading lower, but the real key to the suppressor’s performance was keeping the bore though the suppressor to an absolute minimum in relation to the projectile diameter. The 20 or more baffles of course added a lot of weight to the system. While I was still at Crane, Maj. Baskett arranged for me to take one of these to Washington for a demonstration to some clandestine operators. Being young and naive I put through the travel orders and carried the suppressed .22 Ruger pistol to Washington National. I met Dave at the entrance to the Pentagon and we proceeded to go inside to conduct a demo in one of the vaulted rooms. Phone books were gathered and used as the target. I remember everyone present was duly impressed. After the test I packed the gun and ammo into a tote bag and out the door we went. Dave and I repeated the tests later that night at the hotel room and the next day I was back in Indiana. Looking back, I see how utterly stupid one young engineer can be. I guess that by that time I was hooked. Not so much on the desire to develop suppressors but to try and help the Special Operations users. There was so much clandestine paranoia that the user simply would not go out and find the best suppressors available. That has changed a lot in the last 15 years due to the formation of USSOCOM. Back in the 70’s and early 80’s each Special Operations Group choose its own sources for specialized hardware and these sources were closely guarded secrets. Each group wanted the ability to claim that they were better equipped to handle a specific task than another group. This rivalry really held the total development process back. Things have greatly improved. Today there is open competition and users writing well thought out requirement documents. Today’s Special Forces operators are getting much better equipment than those in years past and more will come home from their missions because of it.

Mickey was able to get a few small contracts with Crane. One of the first involved was a .50 caliber Suppressor for a SS41 German rifle that came from the Aberdeen Museum. Crane took an accuracy barrel and sent it to Mickey along with a drawing. Mickey had located a lathe that could form the dual start course pitched metric thread. This weapon was used to establish the base line characteristics for a .50 cal. sniper rifle. Mickey built a suppressor that was used for the proof of concept. This suppressor was a large aluminum affair with titanium flat washer baffles. The first time we tried to mount this suppressor to the rifle happened at the SEAL’S Desert facility. The threads for the suppressor had not been machined properly, but because it was hard to tell whether it was fully seated on the weapon or not we decided to test it. The first shot was fired by myself and it launched the suppressor 20 to 30 feet down range. Needless to say the recoil was quite severe. The suppressor was only a little worse for the error and by the next day was properly mounted and successfully tested. This was probably the first successful .50 cal suppressor ever built.

Mickey also got another contract to improve suppressors for Ingram MAC 10s and the Hush Puppy’s that Mob Six needed. The Ingram suppressors were taken apart and the aluminum spiral cut baffles were replaced with flat washers and spacers. Testing showed that the sound pressure level reduction was improved by six to eight decibels. For the Hush Puppies a baffle was added behind the wipe unit and that improved its reduction by three decibels. The problems happened when the users started using the guns hard and didn’t keep the suppressors locked on the guns tight enough. To anyone who has handled an Ingram much it is easily seen that the alignment goes to heck very rapidly when the suppressor gets loose. The original spiral baffles had a tubular bore from one end of the suppressor to the other. This guided the bullet out of the suppressor whether the suppressor was tight to the weapon or not. The washer type baffles did not do this and eventually a round exited the side of one of the cans. The first of many lessons I learned about the SEALS is that they do not take particularly good care of their weapons. To many who look at their machine guns as investments or objects to study, realizing that the SEALS look at them as disposable tools, made to be used and abused as necessary is a revelation. To SEALS, there are two types of tools, shit and good shit. Shit tools have to be carried, cleaned, maintained and still don’t work right. Good shit needs minimal cleaning and maintenance and does its job, as advertised, every time. Good shit doesn’t get in the way of “Miller Time”. Once this got properly engraved into my mind I started looking at suppressors (and other weapons) from a different light. What must this tool become to be truly useful to these users? That became the driving force behind all of my future suppressor designs.

I had my mid-life crisis, resigned from Crane and went to work for Mickey Finn at Qual-A-Tec. This was not a financially advantageous move on my part and I owe a lot to my family for supporting this choice. I have to look at this as another educational experience on my part. Because Qual-A-Tec didn’t have to show a profit, we were able to devote a lot of time and money to improving suppressor design. Mickey is a very talented man and had a good analytical mind that understood the goals of improving the workings of suppressors. We were able to build and test two or three different designs a day for a couple of years. All of this resulted in a very good suppressor education for me. I mostly documented what was accomplished and had input into the development experiments. I also helped prepare and proofread all of the patent applications. Bob McDonald came to the company a little earlier than I did. Bob ran the shop and built most of the experimental hardware. He also provided input into the design but primarily brought forth new manufacturing techniques. Other people were involved but this was the core of the design effort. The first big breakthrough was the thicker flat baffle with the angled hole through the center. This baffle proved so effective that the diameter of the suppressor tubes were able to be dramatically reduced. I think that each baffle design has an optimum diameter associated with it for each caliber. It became apparent to us that this new baffle had to have higher gas pressure behind it to optimize its performance.

Let me digress a bit here to discuss some of the physics that makes a suppressor work. The measure of the sound from a suppressor is a measure of peak pressure at the muzzle exit caused by the escaping gas and projectile. A suppressor’s job, then, is to keep the pressure at the muzzle at a minimum. The first applicable physics equation is: pv=RT ; also known as the ideal gas law. In that equation p is pressure, v is volume per unit weight of the gas, R is a gas constant, and T is temperature in Degrees Rankin (degrees Fahrenheit plus 459.69). We are obviously not dealing with an ideal gas but some generalities can be made from this equation. First is that if you lower the temperature of the gas you lower the pressure. Likewise if you increase the volume in which the gas resides you also lower the pressure. The next thing that physics will show you is that turbulence causes flow to be reduced. Thus two things that a suppressor must do well are to take the temperature out of the gas and to restrict gas flow by causing turbulence. More efficient suppressors (in terms of decibel reduction) will get hotter in fewer shots than inefficient suppressors. This of course can lead to problems in suppressors for full automatic firearms. That is why material choices for suppressors are so important. They must absorb the heat from intimate contact with the gas as it travels through the suppressor yet conduct that heat rapidly to the outside of the suppressor. There are a few suppressor designers who think and even have patented suppressors based upon other concepts such as noise cancellation. I believe that the performance of their suppressors can be better explained with the physics of temperature reduction and turbulence creation. By the way, this education took several years to sink into this thick skull of mine. Of course knowing this will not make you a good suppressor designer. Applying these physical principals to hardware is still difficult. Looking at suppressors from this aspect will, however, lead the designer to better suppression concepts.

The suppressors which were developed at Qual-A-Tec began to shrink in total volume as the slant face baffles were improved. The spacers between the baffles also have a direct bearing on the efficiency of the suppressor. Like everyone else we started with simple tubular spacers of various lengths. The next generation we fondly called the “crank shaft” because the spacers were welded to the baffles and were undersize tubes with a single port that aligned with the output flow from the slanted baffle. The baffles were sometimes rotated 90 degrees at each baffle thus the crank shaft shape. These suppressors worked well in rifle calibers and some were built in 9mm as well. The next big step forward was the addition of a deep cut into the thickness of the baffle. This cut was joined with cuts from the back along the sides of the angled central bore. Three holes were then drilled to allow the gas which got compressed into this chamber to flow downward along the angled central bore. These baffles had some structural problems, which were eventually cured by adding strips of tubing between the two walls. We again went to the spacer design to gain some more sound pressure reduction. The final choice was a cone that was machined directly on the end of the baffle. This proved to be very quiet but lacked the structural strength to prevent the baffle from collapsing on itself when the pressures or temperatures of the suppressor got too high. This baffle was licensed to H&K and people familiar with their products from the mid to late 1980’s will recognize this baffle.

Qual-A-Tec made some significant advances in the state of the art of suppressors in the few years it was in existence. It probably built less than 500 suppressors and most of those went to military customers. Very few of these suppressors ever made it into private hands except as products built under license by H&K and AWC Systems Technology. It obviously takes a lot of business savvy to make a profit in the suppressor market and unfortunately that was not present in the Qual-A-Tec organization. It was an interesting period of time and I learned a lot from my involvement. Hopefully the military users of the suppressors that have their lineage through the Qual-A-Tec years have gotten superior hardware as a result of this company’s existence.

Gun owners have rightly rejoiced that the Sheriffs’ case was affirmed by the Supreme Court, and that part of the Brady Law being contested was overturned.

Twice in as many years the Court has ruled that Congress does not have the authority to enact gun control. In particular, the Congressional claim of authority has been based on the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8. The Court has said that there was no commerce involved in gun control, thus the Tenth Amendment requires declaring Congress’ efforts at gun control unconstitutional.

The Sheriffs took that part of the Brady Law to court where they had standing — where the Court would have to agree that they were directly involved. Thus, the Sheriffs complained that the Constitution forbids Congress from making them involuntary agents of the government of the United States.

Many people, including many gun owners, are rushing to conclude from all this that states should authorize background checks so that all gun buyers will have their names checked against a computerized criminal data base in Washington (and eventually in each of the 50 states). Nothing could be more unproductive, unconstitutional or ill-advised.

The Brady Law resulted nationally in seven prosecutions and three incarcerations in its first year of operation. These cases could have been prosecuted without the Brady Law. Others who were stopped could easily have obtained a gun the same day from some place other than a store. According to Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery, the state spent nearly $1,000,000 stopping 327 would-be purchasers who could have gotten their gun elsewhere. Since the murder rate in the U.S. began its present decline starting in 1991, it can hardly be said that the Brady Law has contributed to the decline, even less by taking three criminals off the streets.

The instant check is nothing but a request for government permission to exercise a constitutionally protected liberty that, according to the Second Amendment, “shall not be infringed.” Thankfully we have not come to the point of asking permission to give a speech, write an editorial or deliver a sermon, but that is the equivalent of the Brady Law’s permitting system regarding the Second Amendment.

Some argue that, regarding the First Amendment, we cannot shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. True, but we don’t issue muzzles on entering the theater. We only punish those who abuse the liberty. So it should be in the case of the Second Amendment as well.

Legislators in Ohio have learned that the national Brady check is actually an Instant Registration Check. When names are checked against the federal data base, all names (with their social security numbers) are coded to indicate that they are gun owners. Quite simply, in spite of the toothless prohibition in Brady, a national gun owner registration list is being compiled. Virtually none of these folks are criminals. Why then are their names being stored as gun owners?

One answer is suggested by the experience of New York City. Some thirty years ago, all rifles and shotguns had to be registered. About five years ago, many semi-automatics were banned. The gun owners were trapped. The Constitution guarantees their right to have those firearms, but the city is in a position to jail anyone exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Arrests have been made of grandfathered people who owned guns that were legal (and registered) before the law was changed.
Gun owners are the last ones who should be urging the imposition of the Brady Law in all the states. The Brady Instant Registration Check is the Trojan Horse that the gun banners will use later on to grab the people’s firearms. Brady needs to be repealed at the state and national levels, not imposed in those states still lacking such a terrible law.

Protecting the Second Amendment will be much easier when advocates of constitutionally protected liberties consistently defend the right to keep and bear arms. The most consistent position for defending firearms for personal defense is right-to-carry legislation modeled after the Vermont law. In Vermont, there are no licenses, permits or other government intrusions infringing on the right to carry a concealed firearm. The law essentially says that it is illegal to carry a firearm, concealed or openly, for the purpose of criminally injuring another person.

Vermont’s law highlights the radical anti-gun nature of the Instant Registration Check in the Brady Law. Just to buy a gun, one must seek government permission. In Vermont, one can both buy and carry a gun with no state government involvement whatsoever. Of course, since the federal government decided to embark on a series of unconstitutional, and therefore, illegitimate adventures in civilian disarmament, Vermonters have been hampered to the extent that they could not escape the reach of Washington.

Vermont’s murder rate is, almost every year, the lowest in the country. Those pushing for civilian disarmament say that Vermont has such a low rate because it is a rural population. But since last year, the anti-gunners have been countered by the overwhelming weight of the evidence amassed by Dr. John Lott at the University of Chicago. Lott took the crime data of every city and county in the U.S. for the previous sixteen years and analyzed the data in terms of poverty, density of population, arrest rates, sentencing rates and lengths among other variables. The one factor that consistently correlated in a positive fashion with crime rates was whether a state recognized or not the right of a citizen to carry a concealed firearm.

Lott’s study showed that states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1570 murders, 4177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.

Before the imposition of the Brady Law on the whole country, about half of the states had a waiting period, the rest did not violate their citizens’ constitutional rights in that way. The violent crime rates were higher in the states with waiting periods. In fact, California, with its 15 day waiting period, had a murder rate 25% over that of the rest of the country.

Two states can illustrate this clearly. In 1976, both Georgia and Wisconsin tried two different approaches to fighting crime. Georgia enacted legislation making it easier for citizens to carry guns for self-defense, while Wisconsin passed a law requiring a 48 hour waiting period before the purchase of a handgun. What resulted during the ensuing years? Georgia’s law served as a deterrent to criminals and helped drop its homicide rate by 21 percent. Wisconsin’s murder rate, however, rose 33 percent during the same period.

There is no doubt that waiting periods kill. For example, Bonnie Elmasri inquired about getting a gun to protect herself from a husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She was told there was a 48 hour waiting period to buy a handgun. But unfortunately, Bonnie was never able to pick up a gun. She and her two sons were killed the next day by an abusive husband of whom the police were well aware.

Conversely, Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross bought a gun (in a non-waiting period state before the imposition of Brady) and used it to kill an attacker in self-defense two days later. Had a 5-day waiting period been in effect, Ms. Ross would have been defenseless against the man who was stalking and seeking to kill her.

Waiting periods are unconstitutional. They are a prior restraint on the exercise of a constitutionally protected (not granted) right. The Supreme Court has ruled (Near v. Minnesota) that government officials should punish the abuse of a right and not place prior restraints on the exercise of the right. That is why it is illegal to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, but we do not issue muzzles to theatergoers as they enter. Obviously, the same principle applies to firearms. It is illegal to criminally injure another person, but prior restraint should be as prohibited under the Second Amendment as it is under the First.

Having said that, the danger of the waiting period is far less than that of the Instant Registration Check. The Brady Instant Registration Check is building (right now) a national, centralized, computerized registration list of gun owners. As Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership have shown from their definitive study of genocide in this century (Lethal Laws: “Gun Control” Is the Key to Genocide), genocide invariably is preceded by gun control. Once the identification of gun owners is in place, the thugs in power (a.k.a. the government) confiscate firearms. (In Ruwanda, they also confiscated machetes.) Then the slaughter of the target population can begin — Jews in Nazi Germany, Ukrainians and others in Soviet Russia, Christians in Uganda, Indians in Guatemala, the educated in Cambodia and so forth.

The figures are in. Before this century has ended, governments have slaughtered their tens of millions, the Al Capones their scores and hundreds. Yet Sarah Brady, Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and the other advocates of civilian disarmament breeze right on past the killing fields of our recent past. They also overlook the massive threat to personal security posed by center-city street gangs. Instead, their desire is to convince us all that it is the guns of the erstwhile victims that are at fault — decent people wishing to protect themselves from the criminals set loose on our streets by our government. We are watching a monumental shifting of the blame from those who have brought us a failed system of criminal justice. They want us to look not at murderers put out on the street. Rather than blame murderers, blame guns we are told.

Our answer to the civilian disarmament crowd has to be that crime is their fault, not gun owners. Gun control laws kill. When stating our position we must not fall into the trap of agreeing to policies, such as the Instant Registration Check, that make disarmament possible. We should press on for what we want — the free exercise of a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. After all, we will never get more than we ask for.
Gun controllers are the friends of criminals and the enemies of freedom. They arrogantly assume that only they (and their buddies in the government) are responsible enough to be trusted with guns. The watchword should be that guns save lives, gun control kills. And the Instant Registration Check is gun control — a threat to every gun owner.

To get information on how to fight the Instant Registration Check, call Gun Owners of America’s toll free phone: 1-888-886-GUNS (4867).

Analyst: Military Ammo Ban Efforts Based On Economic, Not Humanitarian Concerns

Forthcoming proposals to ban fragmenting types of small arms munitions, particularly the 5.56 x 45mm and the 7.62 x 51mm cartridges with an open-tipped bullet design, are detailed in a paper prepared for presentation at the American Defense Preparedness Association’s (ADPA) Small Arms Conference held last June in Reno, NV. The paper, prepared by Hayes Parks special assistant to The Judge Advocate General of the Army, but who did not actually attend the ADPA event, warned that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), working in tandem with a Swiss ballistician, Beat P. Kneubuehl, are the instigators behind a call for an international conference of “experts”-drawn from an ICRC list-which could be convened before the end of the year, to examine the issue of banning small caliber fragmenting projectiles for military use. If such a ban were to be enacted, it could be used as the basis for a public relations drive to influence public opinion to favor banning such ammunition not only for use by the armed forces, but also for use by civilians or police with the rationale that such ammo is too terrible in its effects, even for use in war.

“Their objective is to arrive at a new prohibition on small caliber projectiles that may fragment or yaw prematurely in the body, based on the argument that the resulting wounds are worse than those caused by the nonfragmenting 5.56 x 45mm projectiles developed by Kneubuehl at Switzerland’s Federal Department of Defense Ballistics Test Centre at Thun, during the Cold War, apparently in part to defeat Soviet body armor. With the end of the Cold War, the market (and funding) for Kneubuehl’s projectile dwindled. The military purpose for the ammunition was quickly put aside to emphasize the ‘humanitarian’ value of nonfragmenting ammunition,” Parks wrote. “The Swiss proposal that followed,” Parks continued, “was, and remains, two-fold: (a) to create an international prohibition of small arms ammunition that may yaw prematurely and/or fragment on impact with soft tissue, and (b) establish an international wound ballistics testing center at Thun, to be run by Kneubuehl.” Parks felt that in this time of post-Cold War worldwide downsizing of defense industries, the proposal amounted to little more than “buy my patent, and save my job.”

“Response to this proposal was,” Parks says, “at best, underwhelming. It is technically flawed and offers a solution to something not viewed as a problem. There is no 5.56mm projectile that can begin to wound as severely as an artillery fragment, a landmine, or a .50 cal. Projectile, for example. Virtually every small-caliber projectile used by military forces in this century has had the potential to fragment on impact with soft tissue at initial velocities. The U.S., U.K. and countrys states opposed it, and the Government of Switzerland subsequently withdrew its support for it.”

In an aside, Parks wrote, “Initiatives to regulate or ban antipersonnel landmines have been based on the indiscriminate effect or irresponsible use of antipersonnel landmines in recent or on-going civil wars, and the concomitant deleterious effect this illegal use has had on innocent civilians. They never have contained any suggestion that the wounding of enemy military personnel by antipersonnel landmines constitutes unnecessary suffering in violation of international law.” UN Initiative On another front, Parks, a former member of the US Delegation to the United Nations Review Conference for the UN Conventional Weapons Convention (which concluded its meetings in 1996), warned that at this UN group’s next scheduled meeting in 2001, the conference will focus on banning certain types of small-caliber munitions, as well as unexploded ordnance, incendiary weapons, flechettes, depleted-uranium and cluster munitions, and naval mines. During the two years of negotiations which occurred at the first UN Review Conference, the parties (which included the US) adopted an amended protocol regulating landmines, booby-traps and a prohibition on blinding laser weapons.

Ammo Ban History

Some insight into the history of attempts to ban various types of military ammunition was also offered by Parks. “In 1899, at the first Hague Peace Conference, Germany attacked the new British caliber .303 Mark IV bullet, which was being produced at the Dum-Dum arsenal near Calcutta, India. The rationale for the Mark IV was clear. The British experience in the Chitral Campaign of 1895 revealed that the then new full-metal jacketed bullet used in its .303 Lee-Metford rifle was inadequate in its ability to incapacitate, whereas following the battle of Omdarman in 1898 the larger caliber .577-450 Martini-Henry rifles of the Egyptian army sufficed to disable. The British government then directed experiments to be undertaken toward obtaining a jacketed bullet possessing equal stopping power with that of its larger caliber, lead bullet predecessors. The committee investigating the question recommended two bullets, one of which proved to cause more severe wounds than the other. The British government elected to adopt the less destructive bullet, known as the Mark IV,” Parks explained.

“The attack on the Mark IV was politically motivated, as Germany opposed British actions in the Anglo-Boer War. The criticism depended heavily on experiments allegedly conducted on the British Mark IV at Tubingen by a professor Dr.von Bruns, who used a bullet substantially different from the British Mark IV to skew his tests to support the German political argument,” Parks wrote.

“The German deception worked, and the conference adopted the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets that prohibits, ‘…bullets that expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.’ The U.S. never became a party to this treaty, but generally has applied it through this century (as have other nations) for the practical reason that, until recently, most military small arms would reliably function only with full-metal jacketed ammunition,” Parks noted.

Swedish Effort

A similar occurrence took place in the 1960s and 1970s when the US developed and adopted the M-16 rifle with its 5.56 x 45mm projectile. “Sweden immediately condemned the M-16 for two reasons,” Parks noted. “First, Sweden disagreed with US military operations in Viet Nam; and second, the 5.56 x 45mm cartridge represented a revolution in military small arms in which Sweden found itself totally unprepared to compete. As such, it (the new cartridge) represented a serious economic threat to Sweden’s arms industry.
“The U.S. experience in defending the M-16 at the first UN Conference on Certain Conventional Weapons, conducted in Geneva from 1978 to 1980, paralleled the 1899 British experience. Swedish claims about the horrendous wounding effect of the M-16, erroneously claiming that the M-193 bullet was designed to ‘tumble’ and fragment, were vastly exaggerated,” Parks noted. This was especially so often the U.S. changed the rifling twist, which further stabilized the 5.56 mm round.

A small-caliber working group was convened of which Parks was a member. While initially attended by representatives of more than thirty nations, participation rapidly diminished to representatives from Sweden and the US. “Once the rhetoric died down, it was agreed the wounds inflicted by the M-16 and its 5.56mm projectile were no worse than wounds caused by other, contemporary military small arms, much less other, conventional weapons. Therefore,the warranted neither further regulation, nor a new prohibition,” Parks reports.

“It was also determined that a number of factors ultimately determine the serious nature of wounds by delivered military small-arms ammunition. They include: range, velocity at time of impact, bullet yaw at time of impact, point of impact, intervening impact (deflection), whether or not the injury involves multiple wounds, the preceding condition of the person wounded, and the length of delay to treatment. This last item is regarded as the most essential element. The working group arrived at no new criteria for determining the legality of small caliber weapons,” Parks wrote.

A fallacy common to arms prohibitionists efforts, Parks pointed out, is that their argument attempts to isolate and exaggerate the wounding effects of the targeted weapon to stigmatize the arm’s effect in the public’s eye to force a policy change, rather than evaluate the arm based on accepted international law criteria.

“The international law standard is that, in determining whether a weapon causes unnecessary suffering (and therefore violates international law prohibitions), its effects must be measured against comparable, lawful wounding mechanisms in use on the modern battlefield. As indicated, on those rare occasions when a small arms projectile fragments, its wounding effects still pale when compared to other lawful wounding mechanisms in use on the modern battlefield.” “We are at a point in time where new programs are being undertaken that may enhance the soldier’s ability to accomplish his or her assigned missions. Two examples are the Army’s Objective Family of Small Arms, which may include bursting munitions, and Fabrique Nationale’s 5.7 x 28mm P90 Personal Weapon and FiveseveN TM pistol. With the additional threats of state-sponsored terrorism and use of weapons of mass destruction by rogue states, our military forces require the best small arms and ammunition that can be provided them. The U.S. has opposed the Kneubuehl proposal in the past and I see no reason for a change in that position,” Parks concluded.

“In no place of modern war are machine guns so valuable as during a retreat. If properly handled, they make the pursuit so difficult and costly as to render the retreat a far less dangerous undertaking than it used to be. One successful ambush by machine-guns is worth more than the most stubborn stand, for it imposes caution on the enemy as nothing else can.” Major C. H. B. Pridham in “Superiority of Fire” 1945

The wisdom culled from the War to End All Wars, as filtered through the experiences of the machine gunners of the Second World War is evident all through Pridham’s book. Raffica likes to point these lessons out, because the growth and direction of much of today’s machine gun design is to convert the role of the machine gun from an area weapon to solely use as a point weapon. While we applaud the new designs, the desire of Raffica is to throw in the cautionary note that the machine gun has it’s roots in a cross between infantry and artillery, and in order to keep the best of it’s abilities, the machine gunner should have training in the old ways, not just the scoped three round burst that is in vogue at the moment. No offense to the modern, but three men on a Vickers with a good ammo supply have saved many a soldier’s life as he scrambled back from a soured engagement.

Does this translate into validating “keeping the hammer down” at civilian machine gun shoots? Not really. Military training and recreational shooting are two entirely different things. However, there is an overlap- the passing of knowledge. There is an anecdote that I would like to relate regarding a meeting of some young Marines and an old Mainer at the North Country Shoot. There was a contest for beltfed shooters, and the Marine Captain entered his troops with the M249 SAW. The contest was a “Bake-off”, two teams at a time trying to perform certain tasks with the machine gun, one trying to beat the other’s time, and the winner moving up to the next round. The young Marine who was firing the machine gun got into position, bipod supported prone, and lined up his weapon. His opponent was an old Maine machine gunner, who had a 1919A4 Browning .30 on a 1917 mount, with a chair behind it for him to sit in. When the firing started, the Mainer stood on his trigger, manipulated his T & E, and quickly completed his tasks, long before the Marine (Recently back from Desert Storm) could complete part one- he was firing three round bursts.
The Marines were embarrassed, which was exhibited in traditional military manner, a severe and colorful ass-chewing by the Captain. “How could you let that old but respectable fuddy duddy civilian beat a UNITED STATES MARINE?” I wandered over and had a talk with the Captain (Not revealing the fact that I was an Army veteran, of course). The course of fire had demanded that the machine gunner first pulverize a cinder block at 50 yards, then cut off a standing log that was 8” thick and had a black cutoff line on it, then hit a piece of ditch dynamite that was taped to a stick at 100 yards. The course was designed to show some operator skill in various machine gun tasks- engaging hard targets to remove them, and some point firing as well. (We didn’t have the adequate range to work out a beaten zone, enfilade, or defilade test).

My suggestion to the Captain was that he put the M249’s away. The 5.56mm round was not very good for the destruction work. Something in .30 caliber would be better suited for this work. He took out an M60E3, and I told him to use his oldest, most worn barrel. The trick the old Mainer knew, was that with a worn out barrel, the bullet tumble is almost immediate, and tearing up buildings or forests is much easier with that type of action. It’s old soldier’s lore, and it works. The next competition came up, and the Corps fared much better this time.

Are civilian shoots totally useless tactically? Not in my opinion, as long as the lore gets passed along to the ones who may need to know it. Besides, the camaraderie is great!

Q1- What is the story with the Benelli shotguns? I had heard that they were made with a collapsing stock, yet I have never been able to order one. Is this available? JR again

A1- At the Modern Day Marine Expo in Quantico, I was walking by HK’s tables, and noticed this odd looking stock- and remembered your letter. It’s a top folder on an M3 Super 90. The stock was sturdy, and I was quite impressed with it- although it was a little odd in the way that it extended the height of the shotgun when it was folded. HK said they were not bringing them in for civilian sales, because it became a dreaded Assault Shotgun with the folding stock, but they are offering it to the military.

Q2- RAFFICA ADDRESSES THE RUMOR MILL:

Here we go again…. The FFL Newsletter dated August 1997 Volume 1, has gotten everyone upset. The rumor of the week is that a dealer can no longer keep any machine guns when he gives up his Special Occupational Taxpayer Status, unless he had possession of them before May 19, 1986. Obviously, a whole lot of Class 3 dealers have got their panties in a bunch. (Myself included when I first read it!) It’s not true, friends, it’s simply a mistake. Here is the offending passage from the FFL Newsletter, page 4:

RETENTION OF REGISTERED MACHINEGUNS BY LICENSEES WHO DISCONTINUE BUSINESS

Licensees who are qualified to deal in NFA weapons and decide not to renew their payment of special (occupational) tax must transfer all registered machineguns to another properly qualified licensee who has a legitimate need for the weapons. The weapons may also be exported in accordance with the regulations in 27 C.F.R. 179.114-179.119. These transfers must occur before the expiration of the license and special tax status. Otherwise, the machineguns must be abandoned to ATF or are subject to seizure.

However, qualified dealers who are sole proprietors may retain machineguns they lawfully possessed prior to May 19, 1986, the effective date of 18 U.S.C. 922(o). Dealers who wish to retain such weapons should make an entry in the acquisition and disposition book indicating that the weapons are now in their possession as an individual. These machineguns are still subject to the restrictions of the NFA and may only be transferred to approved law enforcement agencies.

Licensees who are corporations or partnerships and intend to discontinue business in NFA weapons may not retain registered machineguns, irrespective of their date of manufacture or importation. These licensees must dispose of all NFA weapons, including machineguns, prior to discontinuing business.

Obviously, the problem is in the second paragraph. There is no change in the law. Apparently the person who wrote this article misunderstood the 1986 law. I called NFA Branch of the ATF in Washington DC, and they informed me that this has been the source of a LOT of phone calls, and there definitely has been no change. Unless you are discussing a Post 86 Dealer Sample machine gun, the sole proprietor can just sign out the firearms to his personal ownership. Partners and Corporations have to pay the transfer tax, but each case may be judged individually, so check with NFA Branch. The ATF newsletter is referring to the Post 86 Dealer Samples only regarding having to surrender them or transfer them out.

Questions to: Dan Shea c/o SAR

The Art of the Rifle, by Jeff Cooper, ISBN 0-87364-931-1, 97 pages, 82 photos, Published by Paladin Press, Box 1307, Boulder, Co 80306, Phone 303-443-7520.

For those who came in late, the venerable Jeff Cooper has been teaching personal self-defense and the arts of rifle, pistol and shotgun shooting for a great many years. He has run thousands of students through his courses at Gunsite Ranch, near Paulden, Arizona.

This philosopher warrior has developed a unique approach in his teaching. In his characteristically Spartan style, Jeff has systematically stripped all of the useless and superfluous away – leaving only the necessary and essential elements. These he lays down in a logical and sequential way. In his personal teaching he is hard, fast, rigorous, regimental and ruthless, but his students achieve very high levels of proficiency in a remarkably short interval of time. Taking a class from Jeff Cooper is very hard work. All who make it through the purgatory, however, are pleased with the level of skill and confidence they’ve achieved. Many of the faithful have been waiting for this book on rifle shooting from Jeff for many years.

If I could only possess one weapon (a distinct possibility, considering the way things are going in this country) that one weapon would be a .308 bolt-action rifle. This book is not about rifles; it is about shooting rifles. It starts by saying that the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. It allows man to be the monarch of all he surveys. In capable hands a good rifle can easily and instantly reach out to defend against a threat out to 300 yards away. In highly skilled hands, that distance may be extended to 600 yards.

In 20 short chapters, The Art of the Rifle logically and sequentially explores and illustrates that which one needs to know in order to shoot a high-powered rifle well. In a nutshell, shooting well means placing first-round hits on appropriate targets rapidly and efficiently. As the veteran hunter or soldier knows, speed is almost as essential as accuracy. To quote Cooper from another source: “The second principal of personal defense is decisiveness. The hunting shot is one seldom fired in a purely defensive mode, but nonetheless it remains difficult for the novice to make the life-and-death decision when necessary. Once you have acquired your target in your sights, do not dally, dither nor delay. Do it right, and do it now. This does not mean that you should rush your shot or mash your trigger, but that once you are on, you go for score. I have seen this practice neglected in the field often enough to feel strongly about it. I do not know exactly how to teach the matter of decisiveness to a student on the range, but the demand remains-If you are going to do it, do it now. Do it right, but do it NOW.”

The Art of the Rifle is now into its second printing after only a couple of months. It is interesting, informative and well written. It is a good read. It’s only 97 pages, but you won’t get through it in 4 hours, and you won’t get it all on the first, second or third reading.

French Mle MAS 1949/56

Interest in French military weapons in the U.S. has been limited to just a few collectors at best. The French guns just aren’t as popular as the military weapons of other foreign nations, such as Germany or Great Britain. This lack of interest is due, at least in part, to the lack of French surplus arms, ammunition and information about them. The French are somewhat like the Russians when it relates to military weapons and their development, very discreet. The French also retain many of their military weapons long after they are deemed obsolete. In addition these weapons are typically ill – conceived, poorly designed, and shabbily built.
Another reason for the limited popularity French weapons have, is the odd cartridges they fire. The French cartridges, like the guns, have never been available in ample amounts to interest American collector and shooters.

Recently there have been some very interesting French military arms imported into the U.S. One is the MAS 36 bolt action rifle. The other one is the semi-automatic MAS model 1949/56. Both of these weapons are chambered for the French 7.5 round. What make these rifles attractive is the extremely low price and their availability in like-new condition.

Granted, both rifles are chambered for the odd 7.5 French round. Ammunition is available but it is expensive. There is however, an alternative solution to the ammunition problem. The brass case used for the 6.5 Swiss round can be easily converted to the 7.5 French specs. Boxer primed 6.5 Swiss brass is readily available from several manufacturers. For projectiles, the 150 grain .308 FMJ bullets will work fine. A future article will cover the cartridge conversion in detail.

The French 7.5 cartridge is a rimless design. A 139 grain, full metal jacket .307” projectile is used. Velocity is 2,690 feet per second. The cartridge was originally designed in 1924 as the 7.5x58mm/model 1924, to replace the outdated 8×50 Lebel rimmed cartridge. There were problems with the original round. The most prominent was the fact that it was very similar in appearance and dimension to the German 7.92×57 (8mm) Mauser cartridge. Problems arose when French troops would accidentally try to fire a captured .323 caliber German cartridge in the .307 caliber French gun. One dimension that wasn’t immediately obvious to the shooter that was the projectile on the German round was .016” larger. The result was usually a severely damaged gun, and an injured shooter.

A new 7.5 French round was then designed with a 4mm shorter case so that the German and French rounds were easy to distinguish from one another. This new cartridge was the 7.5x54mm/model 1929, and this has been the standard French issue for many years.

When World War I broke out the French were equipped with an array of various small arms, all obsolete.

It was the French who first issued semiautomatic rifles for military use, during WWI. The French developed several semiautomatic rifles and cartridges in the early 1900’s. Some of these designs were very advanced for the time. Some were adopted for limited use, but the only semiautomatic rifle issued in any large number was the French model 1917.

It would be the last semiauto France adopted for many years to come. Although the French developed and tested a large amount of prototype semi-autos they never had one fully developed, and ready for large scale manufacture until the end of WWII.

By 1939 the French army was still mainly equipped with the MAS 36 bolt action rifle of WWI. The French Arsenal of St-Etienne (MAS), had developed a suitable semiauto rifle, the MAS 38-39. That rifle soon evolved into the MAS 40, which was close to production in 1940. It was too late. The German Army had already begun the invasion of France. France was soon conquered and occupied by the Germans, and would be under Nazi control for the next four years. France’s quest for a semiautomatic service rifle was on hold.
After France was liberated by the allies on August 25, 1944, limited work resumed immediately on the MAS 1940. One addition to the MAS 1940 design was a new, detachable, 10-round magazine. This new updated version was the MAS 1944. About the time the rifle was ready for mass production, the war in Europe had ended.

The French MAS 1944 finally under went its baptism of fire in the French’s fateful war with Indochina (Vietnam). Combat experience in that war exposed some shortcomings of the MAS 1944. Development continued resulting in the MAS 1944A model. In addition to the MAS 1944 and MAS 36, The French used many U.S. small arms in Indochina. Many of these weapons were captured and used against U.S. troops early in the United States’ involvement in Vietnam.

A small quantity of MAS 1944s were imported into the U.S. in the mid 1980’s. Only a small number of these rifles were manufactured. These are seldom offered on the collector market today.

The basic MAS 1944-1944A was further developed into yet another model, the MAS 49. The MAS 49 differed from previous models slightly with a modified ejector, firing pin, grenade launcher and rear sight. Virtually every new model of the basic MAS had a different rear sight. Approximately 20,000 model 49s were manufactured. Some of these rifles were still in service as late as 1993.

The last model to evolve from the basic design was the MAS 1949/56. This model featured a modified rear sight, a blade type detachable bayonet, muzzle brake and a gas cut off for the grenade launcher. Approximately 275,000 1949/56’s were produced from 1957 to 1978, making it the most prolific model of the series. The rifle was an evolved model of a basic design that dated from 1938. The 1949/56 saw some service with the French Army in their Algerian campaign. The beginning in 1979 the 1949/56 was slowly replaced by the bullpup design 5.56 NATO caliber FAMAS rifle.

All the rifles in the MAS 1938 to the MAS 1949/56 series were chambered for the French 7.5 cartridge. This seems odd, as the 7.62×51 round (.308 Winchester) was adopted as NATO standard in 1954. Only a very few 1949/56’s were ever produced in 7.62 NATO caliber, the bolt head and firing pin were slightly different, and of course the barrel was chambered in 7.62 NATO.

The rifle featured in this article, the model MAS 1949/56, is an extremely well made firearm. The particular rifle reviewed is in virtually new condition inside and out. Both the Fit and the Parkerized finish are very good for a military weapon. Construction is almost entirely of milled steel. While this adds quality and ruggedness, it also adds considerable weight. Oddly the cocking knob on the rifle is made from nylon, that is white in color.

The 1949/56 is gas operated and utilizes the gas impingement system. This eliminates the need for many parts such as the operating rod, and related components. The system is much like the system used on the current U.S. M16 service rifle.

The bolt, and related parts, again, are quality-manufactured from milled steel. The tilting bolt system operates like that in the Russian SKS, and the FN FAL rifles. The bolt has a safety feature that keeps the firing pin retracted until the bolt is locked in the receiver.

The removable magazine has a ten-round capacity, and is formed from sheet metal. The magazine latch is located on the magazine itself, rather than on the receiver.
The rear tangent peep sight on the 1949/56 is adequate, and is adjustable for windage. The front sight is a protected post adjustable for elevation.

The rifle has a grenade launcher/flash hider and sight attached to the barrel. When the grenade sight is lifted the gas cutoff is activated. There is a movable ring that fits into graduated grooves (90m to 190m) in the barrel, and this can be moved to adjust the range of the grenade being launched.

The overall length of the rifle is 40”. The barrel has 4, left-hand grooves, with a 1 in 10.6” twist. Weight with a loaded 10 round magazine, is 9.9 pounds. Muzzle energy is 2,336 foot pounds.

The rifle has very gentle recoil for a weapon firing a full power round. Accuracy is adequate for a military weapon using issue ammunition, and could most likely be enhanced by experimenting with hand loaded cartridges.

Most of the surplus MAS 1949/56 rifles currently available come equipped with quite an array of accessories. They include several spare magazines, a bayonet and scabbard, a cleaning kit, sling, recoil pad, luminescent night sight device and a broken shell extractor. The accessories (like the rifles) are in like-new condition. Original M-1953 sniper scopes for the rifle are also being offered by dealers. Surplus 7.5 ammunition, though expensive, is available.

The French 1949/56 rifle is available from several different surplus dealers. The rifles are offered in two grades, like new, and very good condition. The rifles are a fraction of the price they once commanded, prior to being imported in quantity. The guns are listed in the BATF Curio and Relics book, and can be shipped directly to collectors who have a C&R license.

The French model 1949/56 has a lot going for it. The rifles are in excellent condition. They are semi-automatic, have lots of accessories are well made, and best of all, they are inexpensive. It is sure to be one of those rifles, that a few years from now you will be telling a friend “I can remember when I could have bought one of those guns like new for only…”

There is an excellent book available for those who would like to read about the French development of semiautomatic small arms. The book “Proud Promise” by Jean Huon, is published by Collector Grade Publications. The book reveals some surprising facts about French progress in small arms development.

Basic Field Stripping of MAS 49/1956

Looking back at the history and evolution of small arms, it is sometimes amusing to see that man has continued to concoct ever more complicated machinery to propel a chunk of lead at his adversaries. Firearms have been with us for hundreds of years. The modern versions do little more than hurl the lead further, straighter, and at a higher repetitive rate. During the time in which we progressed from the railroad to space travel, we have been clever enough to hook an electric motor up to the back end of a Gatling gun. (which, incidentally, was first done nearly 100 years ago.) No one would sanely argue that the improvements in weaponry have not made the individual soldier more capable. An army equipped with matchlocks would not fare well against an equal sized army equipped with squad automatic weapons. However, the basic damage mechanism remains surprisingly unaltered. The individual infantryman carries a rifle that shoots a bullet.

The current M16A2 type rifles are virtually identical to the M16 rifles issued over thirty years ago. (Anyone prefer using a thirty-year old typewriter?) The “Black Rifle” has now been the standard service rifle within our armed forces for longer than any previous service rifle in the history of the United States and there does not seem to be any impetus to radically change. This lack of impetus is driven primarily by the current military and political philosophy which holds that the efforts of an individual infantry soldier do not significantly affect the outcome of a conflict. The military leadership and politicians of this country see the value and effect of precision guided munitions, heavy armored vehicles and aircraft as the determining factors to success on the modern battlefield.

This concept of reliance on the heavy hitters will probably serve us well, so long as we engage our enemy in a conventional battle, on their soil, and can afford the luxury of never having to physically occupy enemy territory. It is literally a philosophy of war by long distance. As long as this country’s strategic doctrine devalues the concept of occupation, there is little reason to improve small arms.

Changes in doctrine may occur. We have seen a growth in limited conflicts, such as in Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia, to name a few. We have yet to see an elevation of the importance of the military success of these limited conflicts. Some feel the level of actual military success in these “small wars” has steadily declined. One would hope that the attitude of our military leadership changes before international events require it.

If and when the R&D begins in earnest for a replacement for the M16A2 series of weapons, the state of the art will determine the direction the replacement will take. There is a lot of new hardware out there, and directed energy weapons lie just beyond the technological horizon. Electrical and mechanical engineers lie in wait for the high- density, electrical storage devices and the high-temperature, super-conductive materials that once available, will permit the assembly of the hand-held, death-ray. (Current studies of charged particle beams, matter waves, high energy lasers, electro-magnet “rail guns” and others, show weaponization would be feasible if the thermal effects could be reduced by the use of electrically super conductive materials. “Super batteries” would enable portability.)

The homework has already been done. There are only these two parts missing from a most formidable puzzle that will change forever the very concept of war. When a single soldier has the lethality and range of a main battle tank; the tactics of the past will be of little value. A child, on the balcony of an apartment, will be able to engage and destroy a cruise missile several miles away. The intelligence gathering capability of our satellites, U-2 aircraft and others, will be vulnerable to even the smallest of air defense weapons available to the individual soldier. Air war itself may be rendered obsolete.

For those who are foolish enough to believe that man has evolved beyond the use of such extreme violence to effect political or social change, one can read any ancient text of their choosing and find an example of the evolution of the way humans think. We are no less prone to violent thought than we have ever been. We are simply more clever and judicious in its application. We have not “evolved” beyond violent war. I doubt we ever will.

Making the bold assumption that some small arms improvements will occur before the advent of directed-energy weapons, there is a technically feasible weapon design that should be producable in the near term. This weapon may be developed because it would greatly improve the warfighting capability of the individual infantry soldier. The design may be a composite of several previous designs that were not commercially successful, but were mechanically sound. The key difference between this new weapon and every other small arm produced today is the reliance upon the enhanced capability of the cartridge, rather than the gun.

If real advances are to be made in small arms design, these advances must make the individual soldier more effective at his primary task, which is to kill, wound or destroy the enemy soldiers, material or equipment. Merely changing the cyclic rate of the weapon, changing the way it is taken apart to be cleaned, changing the diameter of the bore or the shape of the projectile, is not going to create enough of an improvement in the performance of the individual soldier to be worth the expense. A radical change in design will be required to produce a radical change in soldier capability. The change that some believe will succeed, will be to a “smart” munition.

The future small arm may be a semi-automatic rocket gun, firing rockets having smart-fuzed, high explosive, dual-purpose warheads. (I’m sure that at this point, many of you are now convinced that you are witnessing the ranting of a lunatic, but if you’ll bear with me, it may appear more feasible than you first thought.) These rockets could be approximately four inches in length and from 20-25mm in diameter. (The Gyro-Jet rocket “rifles” and pistols used 13mm self-contained rocket rounds and were produced in small commercial quantities over 30 years ago.) The “dual purpose” terminology refers to the ability of a single warhead to possess both armor penetration as well as anti-personnel capabilities. It could be designed to incorporate a shaped charge liner in the nose, with a pre-fragmented body surrounding the side and rear of a high explosive filler. (This is the standard warhead configuration of the US M430 HEDP (High Explosive Dual-Purpose) 40mm Grenade Machine Gun projectile, first fielded over 10 years ago.) This permits light armor, or barricade penetration upon impact, with anti-personnel shrapnel being discharged upon sensor directed warhead detonation.

The smart fusing would permit the following functions:

Set-back, or initial arming

Time delay arming for a minimum distance safe detonation

Inertial impact detonation

Maximum range detonation

Thermal signature “fly-by” detonation

The setback or inertial arming would insure that the ammunition would be reasonably safe in transit and storage. (Set back arming is common among modern fuze designs.) The time delay arming would insure that the warhead would not arm until it had traveled far enough away from the soldier to keep him safe from the shrapnel of his own projectile. (Most mechanical fuzes use spin arming to create the time delay.) The inertial impact detonation would permit the warhead to detonate upon hitting any target of sufficient density to warrant the need for shaped charge penetration. The maximum range detonation would insure that missed shots would not travel outside the combat area and present an unnecessary hazard to non-combatants, and would not leave “duds” for future generations to worry about. Maximum range would probably be on the order of 1000 meters. The thermal signature “fly-by” detonation mode would be the single feature that would make this weapon more effective than any other ever produced.

The “fly-by” fuze would free the soldier from having to accurately aim the weapon at his adversary. It would prevent the enemy from taking any advantage of cover or concealment. It’s concept is very simple. It is human nature to seek the protection of some physical object when participating in a violent exchange. Suppose the adversary has taken cover behind a stone wall and is only occasionally exposed. Engaging such an adversary with conventional small arms exposes the advancing party to extreme risk.

With a “fly-by” fuze and a dual-purpose warhead, the soldier need only fire a single shot above the stone wall. When the rocket passed over the wall, the thermal sensing fuze would detect the temperature differential between the thermal signature of the enemy soldier’s body, and the more neutral surrounding, and detonate in the air, immediately past the soldier. The pre-fragmented warhead body would throw a shrapnel pattern, backward, into any of the enemy soldiers hiding behind the wall. By striking them from the rear, they would receive the minimum protection from any protective clothing they might have and would be severely injured, if not killed. With a casualty radius of three meters; accuracy and precision could be safely traded for speed of engagement and a reduction in volume of fire. If a shot were fired at an enemy soldier running in the open, the projectile would not have to strike him to take him out. It would simply have to pass within 3 meters of him to cause warhead detonation behind him, and subsequent casualty. Enemy soldiers lying prone would be equally vulnerable. Soldiers seeking cover in lightly armored vehicles could be attacked by direct fire, with the shaped charge allowing penetration of light armor, and liquid metal spalling adding to the effect. A sniper firing through a window could be engaged by putting a shot through the window (fly-by fuzing) or through the wall (shaped charge fusing). Enemy soldiers unlucky enough to be hit at ranges too close to permit primary fuze arming (probably 20 meters) would get a 20-25mm hole in them. If the projectile lodged in them, the maximum range fuze would detonate the warhead within a few milliseconds. It would be difficult to argue that a degradation in lethality would occur if such a weapon were used to replace standard small arms and conventional ammunition.

The key to the success of this type of warhead is in the electronic fuze. Skeptics may argue that there is no way to get that kind of function in something as small as the nose cone of a 20-25mm projectile. This can be countered with the fact that we now have the ability to manufacture at the atomic level (although currently, only in a laboratory environment), and the industrial field of micro-miniaturization is one of the fastest growing, with no end in sight. (The Pentagon is seriously investigating the use of sensors, for surveillance, that are small and light enough to be carried in the wind as “dust”. [ Army Times, June 9, 1997, page 34] )

So what would the “rocket gun” look like? A bull-pup version of the old Gyro-Jet would be a reasonable guess. It might use a rotary three-chambered cylinder, a-la Dardick Tround, so no fore-aft reciprocating parts would be required. It might use disposable-preloaded plastic magazines (of 10 round capacity; we certainly wouldn’t want to create an “assault rifle” now would we.). The magazines might also use their springs to power the revolving cylinder, further simplifying the base gun. The bore could be internally fluted (like ultra-deep rifling) to guide and support the rocket during the motor burn, but permit the exhaust gasses to vent forward, but diffused, to lower the recoil. The rockets could be held within the plastic trounds during firing, and the motors could be designed to insure complete combustion within the bore. This would insure high velocity, while making it more difficult to trace the trajectory of the projectile back to the soldier. (Tracers work both ways.) The gun might work like the Striker shotgun, where the revolving “tround” cylinder would advance when the trigger was released, but would have a crisp “pull” for more practical accuracy (not precision). The entire weapon could be made from plastics and light metals because no great stresses would be placed upon it during firing. It could be made very light, simple and cheap. Because the weapon would be designed for rapid target acquisition and engagement, the sight system would have to be a both-eyes-open heads up display type. Snap shooting or instinctive shooting would be the norm, with little time spent on precision target engagement, unless the tactical situation required it. Accuracy would not necessarily be degraded to unacceptable levels, but this would not be a match rifle. Simple aerodynamics and inertia would most likely achieve projectile stabilization.

Since the motor would be designed to burn out within the launch tube; the rocket and warhead would emerge from the end of the “muzzle” at maximum velocity and continue in flight only by inertia. The use of a lightweight motor body would enable the expended rocket motor casing to be much lighter than the warhead tip of the cartridge. The simple principle of placing the center of gravity (due to the relatively heavier warhead) in front of the “center of pressure” (designed into the cartridge by fluting the exterior or casting in small fins), would enable the cartridge to have reasonable stability in flight over the ranges it would be expected to travel (under 1000 meters). Of course, experimentation might reveal even more simplistic or effective ways to achieve in-flight stabilization. The Gyro-Jet used angled rocket nozzle ports to impart rotation to the rocket, but had to give up linear thrust (range) in exchange for gyroscopic stability. The cartridges would be fairly expensive, but not nearly so many would be required. The Vietnam experience indicated that conventional rifles and machine guns expended tens of thousands of rounds per enemy soldier killed. Even if the cost per cartridge were 1000 times that of a conventional cartridge, it might still prove cost effective. (It might be cost effective at 10,000 times the cost of conventional ammunition.) The uniqueness of the cartridges would make replicating or capturing the launchers/weapons of no value to an adversary. The “gun control freaks” would love it because even if the weapons were stolen, they would be absolutely useless without the specially designed ammunition they would use. The simple nature of the weapon and the lack of a requirement for precision target engagement would reduce training time. Practice firing could be conducted with training ammunition that lacked the expensive electronic fuzing and high explosive warhead, but utilized electronically sensitive targets that offered immediate visual feedback, simulating warhead detonation. So this may be the next real evolution in military small arms design. Some real advancement in the design of the individual soldier’s primary armament is long overdue. If the military need arises and the two missing components to the directed energy weapons are not yet mature, this is the logical step to take. Unfortunately, the decisions about such things are made by politicians more often than tacticians.

Since none of our current crop of national leaders has had any foxhole experience, there is little basis for optimism.