By David Lake

As the name implies, Battle Arms Development, Inc. (herein, Battle Arms, or BAD) is a product development firm. They specialize in creating new products and solutions to satisfy the needs of the hobby and professional shooter; and even solve the problems these shooters don’t yet know they have. Preemption is the Battle Arms’ strategy to successful problem solving. BAD was founded by an engineer and architect with an impressive resume in the themed entertainment industry, George Huang. He has worked for Walt Disney Imagineering, Universal Studios, and many major casino hotel resort venues around the world. His work mainly involved creating lighting and special effects displays to attract and impress the crowd. George’s superpower is that he knows what people want.

In 2009, Battle Arms Development was launched and began by offering a few armorers tools and AR-15 accessories. Today, BAD is an OEM supplier to dozens of other small arms manufacturers. There’s a good chance that your favorite boutique AR brand features the BAD selector lever as standard equipment. And BAD offers its services as a consulting firm and project development partner to a handful of new, small startups in the arms industry. Battle Arms’ latest claim to fame is that they’re an engineering and manufacturing partner to Bentwood Gunsmithing, the creators and purveyors of the world’s lightest AR-15 rifle, known as the OIP.

The mainstay of the BAD product line is the modular ambidextrous safety selector for the AR-15. The safety can be regarded as an innocuous and relatively simple part of the AR-15 mechanism. And that is not untrue. But George Huang is not one to accept that simple conclusion. He saw that the selector is one of the most important parts of a rifle. The rifles used in service by law enforcement and security companies may never fire, and if so, rarely. But, those same rifles may be deployed and carried and handled and loaded and unloaded on a daily basis throughout their service life. The selector lever can see more use than the trigger in some cases. And this begs the question, why then do we spend up to $400 on a trigger for our AR-15, and just accept the solid, cast safety that came in a little bag with our rifle’s small parts kit? Well, we shouldn’t. That’s the straight answer. The safety selector on a rifle is as important as the brakes on a car. The selector made by BAD has been optimized to enhance its role and utility. The selector levers are modular, that is, they can be interchanged as required to fit a shooter. The internal barrel of the BAD safety is made of hardened steel. The detent pin supplied with the safety selector kit is also harden stainless steel and features an improved geometry – this coupled with similarly refined geometry of the track in the selector barrel, where the detent rides, results in the most positive feeling safety on the market. The BAD safety delivers audible and tactile feedback to the shooter. The modular levers that are available in different lengths and profiles can also be had in many colors. There’s a BAD safety selector lever to match your new camouflage dip or Cerakote treatment. Or your selector can be red, pink, Tiffany Blue, zombie green or even raw stainless steel, just to upset the monotony of the “black rifle.” The BAD selector lever is available in two basic operating designs featuring the typical 90 degree swing and the 50 degree short throw lever. Among those two options, there are two basic constructions as well: the standard, BAD-ASS (Ambi Safety Selector) and the BAD-CASS (Combat Ambi Safety Selector), which has been “up-armored” for professional use. The CASS unit is mechanically locked together by a robust dovetail and a locking torx screw. The CASS lever is available in a select fire version also, to suit the needs of government agencies and the lucky owners of legal M16s. Battle Arms also makes a selector for the S&W MP15-22 to replace the plastic OEM part. And as a teaser Battle Arms would not confirm, but won’t deny, plans on an upcoming short throw safe/full-auto only selector with no semi-auto setting.

Another growing sector of our shooting community is long range precision shooting, also known as “tactical rifle.” This shooting discipline employs what some may call a “sniper rifle” to engage practical targets at distance, in less than ideal conditions. A shooter may be required to shoot without a bipod, or from a rooftop, or while lying in weeds or gravel. The targets may present at unknown distances, or with limited time exposures. This type of shooting has become very equipment oriented. More and more, shooters of “tactical rifle” can simply buy superiority over the other competitors. Enter Battle Arms Development. BAD did not invent the detachable box magazine (DBM) kit for the bolt action rifle, but they did indeed make it better. Most DBM devices place the magazine release button outside or far enough from the trigger guard that the shooter’s support hand is required to eject the spent magazine, and replace it with a new magazine. The BAD-DBM incorporates the magazine release paddles into the contour of the trigger guard. This allows the trigger finger to extend forward and easily reach and operate the mag release. This frees up the support hand to simultaneously go off in search of a full magazine, which cuts down reload time by half.

It should be agreed upon that Battle Arms is not really in the accessory market. It is more correct to say that BAD is in the problem solving business. One of the biggest persistent problems affecting shooters today is control and handling of their weapon. If parts and accessories don’t claim to make your gun more reliable, they probably claim to enhance its feel, handling, and control. This may allude to the shooter interface – the ergonomics of the gun, specifically, the stock and grip and forearm. It is not misleading to suggest that a rifle’s attitude and performance under fire can be tamed by a proper fit to the shooter and balance in his hands. Also, control and handling can be enhanced further by enforcing proper “hold” by the user. Technique can usually make up for technology to some degree, and vise-versa. Remember that next time someone is selling you something. Knowing this, BAD conspired in the development and refinement of a next generation stock assembly for the AR-15. Battle Arms calls their optimized lightweight butt stock the BAD-LBS. The LBS and its accompanying SABERTUBE receiver extension represent some “next gen” thinking. The length of the tube, and angle and draft of the butt plate are based on research into firearm behavior, the structure of the average human body, and the abilities and ideals of today’s shooting community. This may sound like snake oil at first consideration, but it has merit. Less experienced shooters tend to “blade” their body toward a target, or turn sideways while presenting the rifle. This position further encourages bad form by suggesting that a shooter place the rifle’s butt plate very high on the shoulder. The shooter must then bring the stock comb up to the head, which is setting atop a relaxed and vertical neck. This technique is ideal for slow fire, off-hand target shooting. This is not the way to present a semiautomatic combat rifle to a would-be assailant on the battlefield. This is not the way to carry your AR-15 onto the high-stakes game of multi-gun competition. This sideways and “open” hold of a rifle leaves the gun largely unsupported against any force besides gravity. Recoil and carryover forces from the cycling mass in the rifle will push and pull the shooter around, and recoil will push the gun back into the shoulder, then up and over and away from the shooter; off to the high one o’clock direction. By positioning oneself correctly behind and “on top of” a rifle, that rifle’s inherent control and accuracy can be improved. Proper form and hold on a rifle will reduce muzzle climb and overall recoil. Proper form will facilitate faster target transitions and make “walking fire” possible, and ultimately effective. The stock assembly offered by Battle Arms is not for decoration. It is a bolt-on performance enhancing upgrade for the AR-15. The BAD-LBS and SABERTUBE work by simply encouraging correct form and magnifying the performance enhancement afforded by the employment of proper technique. It will help you shoot better. The SABERTUBE and LBS componentry is all made from 7075 aluminum and type 3 hard-coat anodized. The SABERTUBE is honed and polished inside for smooth motion of the rifle’s recoiling mass. The unique dimpled structure of the tube promises great strength at an overall weight savings and, though the SABERTUBE’s length falls somewhere between that of rifle and carbine, it uses a standard carbine buffer and spring assembly.

Most of the ideas and innovations from Battle Arms began as inert boring parts that we see on “old fashioned” AR-15 rifles. Most hobby shooters and professionals alike are generally content with what they’ve got. Most just want “more,” not necessarily “better” when it comes to guns. But not George Huang. He has the habit of scrutinizing everything and looking for possibilities and greatness in the most mundane and inanimate things. The takedown and pivot pins on the AR have been brought into the 21st century with the BAD-EPS (Enhanced Pin Set) kit. These pins include a neodymium-iron-boron rare earth magnet that secures the detent pin in a small dimple at the bottom of the pivot pin, to assist with holding the pin while it is inserted into its pocket, atop the spring. The EPS pivot pin incorporates a shallow guide channel to maintain control of the detent pin until it snaps into the main groove on the pivot pin, thereafter remaining captive. This method facilitates a tool-free installation, and makes losing the elusive little detent impossible. One step further is the BAD-EPS-Ti. This pin kit comes crafted in 6AL-4V titanium for ultimate in corrosion resistance, strength, and weight savings. They’re also beautiful to look at. Both EPS pin kits feature improved head geometry, and increased length, both to make tool-free operation fast, easy, and painless. The EPS kits include selected premium springs and detents to ensure correct, positive function. Since Battle Arms’ involvement in the OIP ultra-light rifle project, titanium has become more common in Battle Arms’ lineup. Soon to go up for sale is an ultra-lean titanium gas block by BAD said to weigh less than the gas tube. Some firms in the gun industry shy away from the use of Titanium for its added expense and the extra care that must be taken during the manufacture of parts, but George Huang is not scared of Titanium. Keep an eye on Battle Arms for more upcoming Titanium accessories.

The magazine button is another boring item that is overlooked by everyone. Not at BAD. The Battle Arms magazine button, the BAD-EMR, has seen that the magazine release button rise to new levels of distinction. It’s made from 7075 aluminum, because it’s harder and stronger and costs more and is more difficult to machine. But it’s better, therefore it is the material chosen by George Huang to craft a simple button. They come in 8 different anodized finishes, some will match your camouflage pattern, others, like red, gold, or blue will boldly stand out against your black rifles. The EMR is slightly taller than other buttons. The screw does not protrude through the V-shaped face, and the smooth horizontal serrations allow the finger to “swipe” the button to initiate lightning fast mag changes. The extra height makes for ideal application to competitive shooting. For more serious endeavors, the magazine latch post can be cut short in order to mount the EMR lower, and below the “fence” on the receiver, to avoid inadvertently dropping a mag.

Whenever Battle Arms cannot improve on an item (where perhaps someone already has), BAD stocks and sells those optimized premium parts on his web store. Battle Arms Development stocks the ambidextrous magazine release from Norgon, anti-rotation pins, and takedown and selector detents from KNS Precision, the Fortis SWITCH rail and the SHIFT short angle grip. Also, BAD carries the modular Tactical Link sling mount, the MFT Battlelink collapsible stock and triggers from Geisele, ALG and CMC. Rainier and Battle Comp muzzle brakes as well. The consumer can buy with confidence if George is selling it. The reason Battle Arms carries these fine products from these respectable companies is that the Battle Arms brand of complete rifles (soon to be unveiled) are all built using these premium parts.

The beating heart of the AR-15 is the receiver and Battle Arms has not forgotten this. BAD offers two trim levels to their receivers. The entry model, coined the BAD-15, is a premium forged lower that features a precision wire EDM cut magazine well. The working surfaces are all CNC machined and holes are all precision reamed to size. All markings are laser engraved into the aluminum in fine detail. The Battle Arms “SPARTAN” logo shows itself in bold 3D relief. Prior to final finish, the BAD-15 is tumbled in fine abrasive media to even out the texture and marks from tooling or fixtures to produce a smooth satin surface. The receiver is finished in a Mil-Spec Type III Class 2 hardcoat anodizing.

The next step up in receivers is the BAD556-LW; available as a matched set upper and lower. It’s a departure from the norm even among the “billet” receivers of today and is a radical departure in that it weighs less than a basic forged receiver. The design takes cues from architecture. The “web and strut” can be found in skyscrapers and aircraft. It’s a beautiful and efficient way to incorporate strength and rigidity without adding more material. The overall aesthetic of the BAD556-LW finds its roots in Battle Arms’ collaboration on the OIP ultra-light rifle project. When compared to the exclusive and elusive OIP receiver (the OIP receivers are also made by Battle Arms), The BAD556-LW features a full length Picatinny rail to give the shooter a multitude of sighting options. This receiver lacks the see-through windows of the OIP allows for the use of a dust cover door. So it offers all the versatility and capability of any receiver, but weighs less and looks amazing while doing it.

The other major component of the AR-15 is the barrel. The barrel is the last influence a shooter has on a bullet before it is sent out, alone, into the world to find its target; the singular task for which all bullets are made. The barrel of a gun cannot be taken lightly and is, in fact, an iconic image today (recall a James Bond intro montage). The barrel requires supreme quality and precision and must be built to a specific purpose; the length, weight, taper, twist rate, contour and construction material all determine the role for which any barrel is ideally suited. The “one size fits all approach” is a losing strategy when it comes to the barrel on your AR-15. Late in 2014, Battle Arms released the LIGHTRIGID barrel. The thinking behind it was that if little material was used, little material would be required to support it. This is true in architecture and engineering alike as the heavier a structure becomes, the heavier it must then become to maintain strength in its operating threshold. As a barrel gets longer, it must become fatter to maintain rigidity. As a barrel becomes heavier, its spine is taxed by its own weight, and a stressed barrel will exhibit increased harmonic frequency, which leads to poor accuracy. At an extreme degree, a barrel can be made so thick and heavy, that it will not exhibit any harmonic activity, but nobody wants to carry that barrel around. The length and weight of a barrel do not directly determine inherent accuracy. Rigidity and internal finish and tolerance determine accuracy. Battle Arms set out to make the best light barrel; not the lightest good barrel. Double heat treated and cryogenic stress relieved 416 R stainless is used in the LIGHTRIGID barrel. This stainless alloy can be machined and tooled while maintaining a superb surface finish. The twist rate is 1-8 inches. This is actually the ideal twist for 55 and 62 grain .223 projectiles. 1-7 inches has found some popularity, and thus, demand in the current market. There is little demonstrable reason for a 1-7 inch barrel on a compact rifle wearing a 14.5 or 16-inch barrel. 1-7 is better suited for the DCM course, in slow fire high power competition. In fact, some high power shooters at Camp Perry still use 1-8 inch twist with bullets up to 80 grains. The LIGHTRIGID barrel has been kept to a minimum safe contour. It’s also worth mention that these barrels have extra material around the chamber and are thicker over the length behind the gas block than the standard M4 barrel profile. This is done for added safety, better accuracy and a longer service life. The gas block journal is only 5/8 inch diameter (this was the original design of the first AR rifles). The barrel is fluted across the entire length as a measure to save weight. The rifling is formed by a precision button process. The LIGHTRIGID barrel only comes with a mid-length gas system; it is preferred over the standard carbine as it runs with slightly reduced pressure and particulate in the gas charge. These barrels are chambered in .223 Wylde, an improved 5.56 NATO chamber that allows for the reliable use of all NATO spec ammo, and yet returns supreme levels of accuracy with match grade .223 ammunition. All LIGHTRIGID barrels come threaded with the standard 1/2 x 28 at the muzzle. As an option, the LIGTRIGID can be had in a 2-tone finish.

Yet to come from Battle Arms: There are rumors of their own ambidextrous charging handle, lightweight (and maybe modular) bolt stop, lightweight magazine latch, and an array of caliber choices in the new LIGHTRIGID barrel. Be on the lookout for .300 AAC blackout (subsonic and supersonic variants), 6.8 SPC, and even 7.62 NATO and 6.5 Creedmoor, whenever the BAD556-LW grows into the large pattern. There are two exciting (and unofficial) projects that are being kept in a vault, in the sub-basement of the Battle Arms’ research laboratory – a 6.8 SPC specific receiver set, to accommodate the new optimized pattern magazines, which allow the 6.8 to stagger correctly and utilize some extra room in the mag for new and better bullet profiles. This receiver pattern is very specialized; to both the bolt group and magazine, but it does let the 6.8 come into its own realm and stretch it legs rather than share space with the underachieving 5.56. Also we found an impossibly cool new take on the AR receiver. It’s a PDW monolithic receiver/stock combo. It’s a joint endeavor between Battle Arms and Cross Machine Tool. It features a sliding wire frame stock that lives in and on the receiver. The receiver is the stock and the stock is the receiver. To reiterate, the ultra-short PDW style collapsible buttstock mechanism does not attach to the receiver – it is born there. This new design cuts inches and ounces off the assembled configuration of many other offerings to this market. It comes with its own special space-saving buffer and spring system and even a beard-friendly carbon fiber cheek rest. The entire surprise will not be spoiled here, now. Suffice to say that it is an over-achieving piece of engineering and is peerless in execution. SAR will have images of this exciting receiver in an upcoming issue.

Battle Arms Development is rapidly becoming a front-runner in the race to reform and re-brand the AR-15. But BAD is not a giant disconnected company. One can actually call the office and speak to George Huang. Or you can speak to his wife (who is really the boss). Battle Arms has always held the ideals of “progress and innovation” higher than “production and margins.” Respect and reputation are also on the list of what’s important at Battle Arms. BAD seeks out and welcomes contact with and feedback from the end user of the product. Battle Arms can offer tremendous input and insight in projects or ideas to established companies or new startups. They should not be seen as a competitor, but a partner. The goal and purpose of Battle Arms Development is to make what you the shooter; weekend player or workweek professional, want and need from your rifle.

Battle Arms Development, Inc.
180 Cassia Way, Suite 510
Henderson, NV 89014.
Phone: (702) 802-3588
www.battlearmsdevelopment.com
https://www.facebook.com/BattleArms
Instagram: Battlearms

The HK P9S was a revolutionary handgun for its time. Employing the roller-locked action made famous in the HK G3 and MP5-series guns, the P9S is an exceptionally smooth and accurate firearm.

By Will Dabbs, MD

What do the SIG P226, Glock, HK USP, Colt 1911, FN Hi-Power, Tokarev TT33, Walther P99, and CZ75 all have in common? Despite the fact that these guns originated from the four corners of the globe, the common theme to them all is the luminary John Moses Browning. In the history of mankind, John Browning is the undisputed master of firearms design. Kalashnikov made more guns. Stoner revolutionized the ergonomics and materials. Maxim likely claimed more lives. Browning, however, changed the very landscape. In the case of handgun design, the Browning operating system wherein the barrel tilted out of battery by means of a wedge or link still drives most of the world’s tactical handguns nearly a century after the man died.

There have been some interesting alternatives. The Walther P38 and the Beretta 92 employ a novel tilting wedge. A few designs to include the Beretta PX4 and the new Chinese CF98 use a rotating barrel with a cam system to lock the breech. Some designs just made the slide and recoil spring beefy enough to manage recoil energy and left it at that. Those brilliant German engineers at HK, however, once tried something completely different.

Big Bore Beginnings

A team of German engineers working for the firm of Johannus Grossfuss Metal-und locierwaffenfabrik in Doblen, Saxony, began work designing a replacement for the belt-fed MG34 General Purpose Machine Gun in 1939. The guys who designed the resulting German MG42 had never before designed a firearm. Given the requirements for a quick-change barrel and accelerated rate of fire perhaps this explains the unconventional nature of the gun. The MG42 was mostly steel stampings welded together and could be built en masse using modern production facilities without requiring excessive numbers of skilled machinists. The MG42 was portable, reliable, devastating downrange, and relatively cheap. The WWII-era design was so effective that it is still general issue in many armies even today. The beating heart of the MG42 was the delayed roller locking mechanism.

In the MG42, locking was undertaken via a pair of steel rollers that cammed out into corresponding recesses in the breech of the gun. This system made for a very smooth action that ended up being reliable in the face of fouling and high round counts. While there was some detailed machining required to produce both the bolt and barrel extension, compared to the MG34 that preceded it the MG42 was a breeze to build in quantity. The original roller locking system was actually inspired by the design of the industrial pile drivers of the day.

German engineers were so enamored with the concept that towards the end of the war they were adapting this system to drive a shoulder-fired assault rifle. After the armistice these engineers made their way to Spain and built their rifle as the Spanish CETME.

The CETME was chambered for 7.62x51mm cartridges and fed from a 20-round box magazine. Soon after its introduction the gun’s German designers went back to Germany and started production of a product-improved version for Heckler and Koch called the G3. Several calibers and countless variations later, this roller-locked operating system drove the HK33 and MP5 families as well. Never satisfied with creative stagnation, HK engineers eventually miniaturized the classic roller-locked operating system into the revolutionary HK P9S tactical handgun.

Vital Statistics

The 9mm P9S arose before the world’s fetish for high-capacity magazines so it feeds from a single-stack box magazine that holds nine rounds. The magazine release is on the heel of the butt in the European fashion and there is a simple slide-mounted safety. These are about the only aspects of the gun that aspire to normal, however.

There is a manual decocker on the left side of the frame that is accessible with the right thumb. Unlike the SIG-series guns, to render the weapon inert you depress the decocker, pull the trigger, and then lower the internal striker into a neutral position. Pressing the decocking lever all the way down also drops the slide on a fresh magazine.

The trigger on the P9S is simply outstanding and the slide is coated with something that feels a bit like Teflon. The P9S employed a polymer frame back when polymer frames weren’t cool. In this case the polymer portion is little more than a sheath that wraps around a metallic endoskeleton. After several decades of hard use the polymer frame on my example has had to be replaced twice.

The HK P9S employs such innovative features as polygonal rifling and a small mechanical indicator that protrudes from the rear of the slide when the action is cocked. As with all things HK, the P9S looks like a sewing machine on the inside but is executed to an incomparable standard of quality.

Turning Ammo into Noise

HK produced the P9S in limited numbers chambered in .45 ACP as well. However, most examples encountered today are in 9mm. Given the modest recoil impulse of this cartridge, the P9S is a very nice-shooting handgun. As is the case with its larger cousins, the MP5 and G3, the roller-locked action is almost unnaturally smooth. Follow up shots are easy and the heel-mounted magazine release is fairly intuitive if not quite as awesome as that of John Moses’ 1911.

My P9S is monotonously reliable despite years of use and is just the right size to tame the 9mm into a pussycat. Sights are decent and the barrel is stainless. Even after a bazillion rounds the P9S still groups competitively with any of my more modern iron.

One aspect of the novel roller-locked design that did find a passionate niche following was as a suppressor host. The roller-locked mechanism lent itself to a fixed barrel. That meant that a suppressor might be mounted without adversely affecting reliability or requiring a Linear Inertial Decoupler or LID device. This fact alone has guaranteed the popularity of the P9S years after it was discontinued from production.

There are frequently multiple right ways to reach a common destination. In the case of tactical handgun design there is basically John Moses Browning and then there is everybody else. Within that tiny subset of everybody else, HK engineers once conjured up a truly innovative way to skin the cat. You just cannot help but be impressed with how well the Germans pulled it off.

By Jeffery E. Followder

The Nature of Association

“I don’t like the NRA. They aren’t pure enough for me, so I don’t give them money.”

“I simply cannot support the Gun Owners of America.”

“The Second Amendment Foundation doesn’t align with my objectives.”

“Come And Take It is a little too ‘in your face’ for my liking.”

“The Open Carry folks are gonna get us all in trouble.”

“The NFATCA is a good old boys club.”

“What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?”

I cannot tell you the number of times that I have heard each of these sentiments or some variation on the theme. Many people tend to have a pretty clear idea of what they want an advocacy group to be and pretty much look for reasons to support only those groups that perfectly align with those ideas. The rest of the groups can only garner their derision – until it’s time to actually do something.

“The NRA should be pouring money into this state issue.”

“NFATCA should be fighting to get us another amnesty registration period.”

“GOA should be building support for federal concealed carry legislation.”

“SAF should be funding my pet project.”

“Somebody should be suing ATF over this!”

And well they should. All of these things are important and deserve resources and attention. Unfortunately, without individual financial support, the ability to drive grand plans becomes a tenuous proposition for established organizations. This is not new news. The cause of the disconnect is rather straightforward: people want the battle waged with somebody else’s money. It’s just like government programs for the masses. “We get it free from the government!” Except that “somebody else” is actually picking up the tab, whether it is the wealthier taxpayers or future generations of taxpayers. As long as the individual gets the benefit without the direct cost… Take the following as an example:

“You guys should be working to repeal the Hughes Amendment so that all of us can get access to new, inexpensive machine guns.”

“We’d love to do that. Matter of fact, we did some preliminary research to figure out just exactly what kind of resources and effort we would need to mount such an effort. We are going to need some bright minds to do the heavy lifting of lobbying Congress to find supporters and sponsors. We’ll need to pay those folks and also pay the folks to help draft the new legislation. We’re looking at several million dollars in just the first two years, alone. And be warned, this is going to take a long, sustained effort to
be successful.”

“Great! Let’s get started now. I want this!”

“We do, too. Would you be willing to support the effort? A check for $1,000 would be a great start to help get things going.”

“Umm, this has actually been a rough year for me. I don’t have that kind of dough just lying around. Can’t you get some of the big collectors to make donations? How about the NRA? Can you get them into the fight?”

“We’ll work on that. Absolutely. In the mean time, can we count on you to join us? Every little bit helps and even a $50 membership is a place to start.”

And we hand the enthusiast a sign-up card and get told that they will take care of it later, instead of signing up now. We tell them that we can run a credit card right now, very easily – which gets brushed off. We remind him that he can sign up online. It never happens. In all truth, this person also did not renew his NRA membership. He didn’t sign up for GOA or any of the other organizations, either. He also will spend a lot of time on the Internet and with his buddies complaining that (insert organization name here) just doesn’t care about the “important stuff.” This causes somebody to start up their own new organization that will be more focused and better aligned with the needs of the constituency. Traction will be gained and effort expended in all the right places. That is until the funds get tight. And then there is a cash call beyond the opening splash. It isn’t too long until the new group is just like the old groups.

At a recent gathering of NFA enthusiasts we were asked point blank: “You guys have been around for a dozen years and are always asking for money. Are you going to be here in another few years?” Great question. It’s something that every association must ask itself on a continuous basis. Without a bit of hesitation the response was “Yes!” The NFATCA is in it for the long haul. We understand that progress is a long term project and that there will be ups and downs. We will be lauded for our wins and we will be derided for what others perceive to be mutiny or missteps. We will take that in stride. Each and every member of our board and steering committee understands that there are no quick wins, no easy solutions with low cost/low effort. It’s a message that we try to communicate to our membership because we know that the glacial pace of our progress can be frustrating. “Yes, we’re going to be here and we absolutely will make a difference. We will work on issues that will make a difference and we will ultimately succeed. And we are going to do it with your support and your money.”

We are determined to stay the course. We know that it does require support and money to accomplish much of what we all want. So we eagerly await the news that you are willing to fund the fight instead of waiting for somebody else to do it for you. Go to www.nfatca.org and click the Join Now button on the left. Sign up as a new member, renew your membership, extend your membership or increase your membership level today. And send us a note at info@nfatca.org to let us know what issues are important to you.

Right side of the Phase I SPIW from Springfield Armory with the full complement of equipment for firing 60 rounds of point-target XM144 flechettes plus 3 rounds of area-fire 40mm grenades, with biped and bayonet. The ingenious double box magazine, featuring two 30-round stacks one behind the other, is described in the text.

By R. Blake Stevens

The APHHW Becomes the SPIW: Point and Area Fire Now Specified

By January of 1962, a set of formal military specifications for a flechette-firing weapon had been prepared and submitted to the Office, Chief of Ordnance (OCO) for approval. The specifications superseded the short-lived APHHW nomenclature with a new name for the project: the Special Purpose Individual Weapon; the SPIW.

In these specifications one important main addition was made to the original burst-fire flechette weapon concept: the new SPIW was to combine the point-fire characteristics of the flechette-firing APHHW with the area-fire potential of a weapon like the recently introduced M79 grenade launcher.

On March 22, 1962, the OCO approved the detailed forecast for the development of the SPIW. The object was to, “provide the individual soldier with a weapon system possessing the capability to engage point and area targets to a range of 400 meters.” The forecast ended by confidently predicting that the SPIW would be type classified “Standard A” by June of 1966.

Terminating the M14 Program: An “Acceptable” Risk

Scant months later all M14 rifle production was abruptly halted, and contracts with the three hapless civilian M14 producers, Winchester, H&R and TRW, were brusquely abrogated. As stated in U.S. Rifle M14,

… [M14] Production at Springfield Armory was scheduled to be phased out first, by September, 1963. All three commercial producers wound down in the first quarter of 1964, amid very bitter and acrimonious comment to the effect that the immense amount of time, energy and money invested in good faith in the M14-manufacturing “learning curve” had all been wasted.

Meanwhile, as America’s military involvement in Vietnam escalated dramatically in the middle sixties, a worried U.S. Senate Subcommittee again queried the Secretary of the Army, Cyrus Vance, about America’s shoulder rifle policy for the immediate future. With implicit reliance in the forecasts of his systems analysts and theoreticians, Mr. Vance testified: “Termination of production of the M14 prior to the availability of SPIW involved certain risks which, after consideration by the Army, are deemed acceptable.”

All the tests by all the agencies over the preceding two years had concurred that the SPIW concept was technically feasible, and that the approach to its development was logistically sound. Heartened by this response, the Army confidently accelerated the SPIW’s adoption date by a full year, to June of 1965.

Choosing the Four Contractors

By December 1962, ten formal written SPIW development proposals had been received from industry. Each posited a completely different design, but all ten promised an on-time and reliable hand-held point-and-area-target weapon which would meet the specifications. In February, 1963, contracts were awarded to two soon-to-be former M14 rifle producers, the Harrington & Richardson Arms Co., and Olin’s Winchester-Western Division. The third and fourth designs that were chosen already had head starts at both the soon-to-be-renamed AAI Corporation (formerly Aircraft Armaments Inc.), and at Springfield Armory.

What the “SPIW Must Do”
Some salient characteristics excerpted from the carefully prepared SPIW Technical Data Package (TDP), which was supplied to each potential contractor to govern their manufacture, read as follows:

The weapon shall:
… Be of minimum weight… the loaded weight including a minimum of three (3) area type rounds and sixty (60) point type cartridges excluding other accessories shall not exceed ten pounds.
… Be capable of shoulder firing without undue discomfort from recoil or blast.
… [Produce] no hazard from ejected particles to personnel…

Reading over just the few characteristics quoted above, one can begin to understand the enormity of the gulf that has historically separated weapons designers from those who think up the specifications. Those searching for the SPIW project’s Achilles’ heel need look no further: the mutually-exclusive requirements of great complexity within stringent weight and size limits effectively locked each competing contractor into an arcane series of trade-offs and compromises, virtually insuring the ultimate failure of the program right from the outset.

In an interview with the author, retired Springfield Armory engineer Fred Reed summed this up bluntly as follows: “The SPIW was the first of the programs to be doomed from the start by ridiculous specifications.”

The Four First-Generation Firing Models

Difficulties notwithstanding, firing models of each of the four competitors’ first-generation SPIWs were duly delivered for examination and trial in March of 1964, only one month behind schedule. Three of the four were subjected to a variety of tests throughout the summer. The fourth design never even made it to the firing trials; it was rejected almost immediately as being far too heavy, and unsafe.

The H&R SPIW and the Dardick Triple-Bore Tround

The H&R SPIW earned the dubious distinction of being the only contender of the four to be rejected out of hand as “dangerous to shoot.. It was built around an exceedingly ill-conceived refinement of the revolving open chamber principle, which had previously been unsuccessfully offered on the commercial market in pistol form by its inventor, Mr. David A. Dardick. Working for H&R on the initial phases of that firm’s SPIW project, Mr. Dardick adapted the special triangular plastic cartridges his pistol had utilized, called Trounds, to contain three of the standardized AAI flechette-and-sabot projectiles, grouped around a central primer and powder charge. The result was called the “5.6x57mm triple-bore Tround.”

In the Dardick/H&R SPIW, the only reciprocating part was a top-mounted gas piston, which cammed a revolving cylinder 1200 (a third of a turn) with each fired shot. The three open-sided chambers in the cylinder thus successively picked up the leading round of a belt of the taped-together Trounds from a drum magazine suspended below the standing breech, positioned it for firing, and then released the spent case, still in its plastic belt, down the other side of the weapon. When the chamber containing a live Tround was in the firing position, all three of its flechettes were automatically lined up with a triangular cluster of three smooth bores, which had been drilled in the weapon’s ponderously front-heavy steel barrel.

In the open chamber concept, the body of each plastic Tround itself plays a much more crucial part in containing the forces of the explosion than does a conventional cartridge case, completely supported in a normal chamber. Initial function firings of the H&R SPIW had produced excess bulging and splitting in the Trounds due to variations of only a few thousandths of an inch in the plastic tape which surrounded each Tround.

Another immediate and fundamental problem concerned the three-shots-at-once theory. The three “barrels” were in fact one common space: every time the H&R was fired, gas leakage began as soon as the flechettes left their Tround. The first flechette exiting the muzzle triggered a further dramatic drop in pressure. At best, this reduced the muzzle velocity and consequently the range and accuracy of the other two flechettes. At worst, the pressure drop just might leave one or both of the remaining flechettes stuck in their respective bores, waiting to act as a serious obstruction when the next shot was fired.

In any event, the H&R SPIW package weighed in loaded at a ludicrous 23.9 pounds: the specification, it will be remembered, read a maximum of ten. Examining officers at Aberdeen’s Development & Proof Services promptly turned thumbs down on any further testing of any part of the H&R SPIW design.

The Olin (Winchester) Soft Recoil SPIW

Firing the conventionally-primed Springfield XM144 5.6x44mm flechette cartridge, the recorded muzzle velocity from the Winchester’s 20-inch, non-chromed smoothbore barrel was 4,585 fps. The weapon weighed twelve-and-a-half pounds fully loaded. The rate of fire was around 700 rpm for both full-auto and burst modes of fire.

The innovative blow-forward grenade launcher was the only feature of the Winchester design to survive the phase 1 selection process. The point fire portion of the weapon was judged unsatisfactory. Indeed, it was discovered that the very advantages claimed for the “soft recoil” concept were difficult if not impossible to obtain when teamed with the Winchester’s low rate of fire: a recoil housing many times longer than that provided would have been necessary in order that a three-shot burst could be fired at 700 rpm before the recoiling parts abutted the rear of their housing and transmitted the recoil impulse to the shooter.

The Olin (Winchester) SPIW was consequently abandoned, but the blow-forward launcher was developed further under contract for the Springfield SPIW team, in favor of the Armory’s own initial launcher design.

The Springfield Armory Bullpup SPIW

If the first two candidates mentioned above were quick disappointments, the remaining two were not. Indeed, it is ironic in the extreme to consider that the Phase I weapons fielded by AAI and especially Springfield were prototype designs, which sprang in their complexity virtually from nowhere in terms of predecessors, and yet in some ways their performance was never surpassed or even matched in the following six, expensive years.

Aberdeen described the 1964 Springfield bullpup SPIW as “a conventional gas operated system which fires the XM144 cartridge. Main portions of the mechanism are housed in the butt stock.” The rifle fired from a 60-round double-box magazine and was gas-operated (conventional gas piston), with a front-locking, rotary bolt.

The Springfield point target magazine serves very well to illustrate the ingenuity of design born of sheer desperation that was to become the rule rather than the exception during the SPIW program. Springfield’s solution to the 60-round capacity specification combined two thirty-round, double-column stacks, one behind the other. (It was here that the bullpup concept came to the rescue, providing the least awkward place to mount such a box-like device.. In firing, the reciprocating bolt stripped rounds off the leading stack until it was empty and the follower appeared. This freed a device that had been depressing the rear stack of cartridges, allowing them to rise into the path of the bolt. The rear magazine had no feed lips as such: the bolt first slid the top round from the rear magazine forward onto the follower of the empty front one, and then fed it up into the chamber.

The designer in charge of development of the 1964 Springfield bullpup SPIW was Mr. Richard Colby. He had not chosen the unique double magazine design frivolously. Feeding sixty rounds of even the small, lightweight XM144 flechette cartridges from a single double-column stack had proven to be an impossible task: no magazine spring that could be reloaded by hand would provide enough lift fast enough to have the next round of a full magazine ready for feeding during 1,700 rpm burst fire. This is not to mention the fact that calculations for such a magazine revealed that it would be so long and unwieldy as to make shooting from the prone position impossible.

Both Winchester and, as we shall see, AAI answered the first-generation 60-round point target capacity requirement by using drum-type magazines, but in so doing both firms encountered many new and serious frictional forces inherent in a rotary feed system. This led to chronic feeding problems and consequent unreliability, which in Olin’s case contributed to the demise of the whole Winchester SPIW program. It is noteworthy that the point target ammunition capacity specification was eventually relaxed to a more realistic fifty rounds, but not until the perfection of the sixty-round magazine had eluded a further two years’ expensive development.

The AAI Corporation Primer-Actuated SPIW

The 1964 AAI SPIW was 39.9 inches long overall and weighed eleven pounds unloaded, or 13.3 pounds fully loaded with the required sixty XM110 flechettes and three 40mm grenades. Muzzle velocity from the AAI’s 18-inch barrel-and-stripper was 4,820 fps, with an actual measured cyclic rate of 2,400 rpm on three-round burst fire.

A Note on Rates of Fire

It is worth commenting that both the Springfield and AAI SPIWs had answered the “salvo” requirement by featuring blisteringly high rates of burst fire. The rate of fire for the Winchester, which was by far the slowest of the first-generation SPIW submissions, was 700 rpm, which is just over eleven rounds a second. Burst and full-auto fire from the 1964 Springfield SPIW was measured at 1,700 rpm, which translates to over 28 rounds a second; while the AAI burst fire rate was 2,400 rounds per minute, or an astonishing 40 rounds per second.

Phase I Results

The results of the phase I Aberdeen D&PS examinations and that summer’s firing trials, which had taken place at Fort Benning from April to the middle of August, 1964, led to a curiously mixed reaction. Army Weapons Command remained solidly behind the SPIW as a concept, and the SPIW designers themselves had long since recognized and accepted most of the erratic, not to say startling, behavior of their brainchildren as necessary trade-offs in the desperate attempt to meet the specifications. Nevertheless, a bewildering array of problems in almost every conceivable area of the endeavor was documented by the test teams.

By November of 1964, when all the results were in, one thing was certain: the carefully-planned scenario leading to the adoption of a successful SPIW by the following June was out the window completely. Even phase II of the initial TDP, which had confidently envisaged a short period of full-scale engineering development for the successful phase I candidate followed by its limited manufacture for final troop trials, was itself now out of the question.

Regarding the summer’s simulated mass production runs of XM110 and XM144 cartridges, no economical way had been devised to fabricate a satisfactory flechette round in quantity. The contractors complained that every component required extraordinary care in manufacture and assembly in order to ensure a reliable round. This meant a great deal of costly and difficult-to-inspect hand-work on each cartridge.

In general, reported user dissatisfaction with the two finalist SPIW designs (Springfield and AAI) as weapons was lumped into three basic categories: poor reliability, poor durability, and excessive weight.

As for system durability, the exasperated designers grew weary of trying to explain to adamant AWC test officers that every conceivable ounce had been shaved from these complex weapons in an attempt to meet the weight requirement.

As it turned out, no SPIW ever came within the ten-pound-loaded, point- and area-fire weight limit. As the program continued, this official weight requirement was ignored as much as possible, with weights for the two halves of the SPIW system thenceforth discussed separately.

The Second Generation SPIW Plan

Many of the SPIW’s initially startling idiosyncrasies, which had been abruptly user discovered in the first generation trials, were already the subject of much AAI research. The AAI engineers felt strongly that effective remedies were not only feasible but just a matter of a little more time and R&D money. This attitude was at length adopted by AWC.

In a move that coincided with the March, 1965 deployment of American troops into the combat zones of South Vietnam, AWC approved a re-orchestrated, 35-month, two-phase SPIW development plan under which AAI and Springfield were both to develop and fabricate ten complete second generation weapon systems. There was one difference: “Standard A” status for the successful second-generation SPIW was rescheduled for March of 1968, a postponement of almost three full years.

Another interesting difference in the new plan was that the Army had turned thumbs down on any further development of the bullpup concept, which Springfield had emulated in 1964, or even a rifle with a separate pistol grip like the early AAI models. From now on, all SPIWs submitted were to feature what AWC considered to be the increased pointability of conventional rifles, like the M14, or, to give it its due, the 1964 Winchester SPIW.

The busy program at AAI contrasted sharply with the mood at Springfield, where following the 1964 trials the Armory engineers had received virtually no feedback regarding their first generation design. Reasons for this brusque treatment were not long in surfacing: in a further reorganization disguised as cost cutting, Defense Secretary McNamara had already announced the termination of Springfield Armory as an official agency, to be effective by April of 1968.

Improvements in Flechette Cartridges The Fatter Springfield / Frankford XM216

Springfield in particular had experienced difficulty meeting the velocity requirement with their XM144 cartridge; in fact the unofficial word is that they never quite did. Be that as it may, both contenders redesigned their cartridge cases for more powder capacity before entering the second generation competition. Thus, Springfield’s XM144 was presently superseded by a completely new round, the somewhat fatter XM216. Both the XM144 and the XM216 were fitted with the “Primer, Miniature, FA T186E1.”

The AAI XM645, with One-Piece “Anvilless” Piston Primer

AAI’s XM110 had already left its dimples behind, to become the slightly longer XM645. Both new rounds were loaded with AAI’s still-standard flechette-and-sabot package for the upcoming second generation trials.

AAI had in the meantime also developed an ingenious one-piece piston primer to replace the more complex and prohibitively expensive first-generation multi-piece design. The AAI one-piece piston primer was yet another remarkable product of the SPIW program, in that it was designed to function without an anvil. In other primers, whether Boxer, Bloehm or Berdan, it is the action of crushing the priming compound against the anvil that causes ignition. No such anvil was present in the new one-piece AAI primer design.

Interestingly enough, no one was really sure just how the AAI anvilless primer worked. Some thought the priming pellet, which contained about three times more primer mix than usual, slid a bit when the piston was pushed in, thereby striking itself alight like a kitchen match. (As part of the manufacturing process the priming mix was very heavily compressed: a note on the drawing reads “Primer mix is to be compressed within a compaction pressure range of 129,000 psi to 172,000 psi. Piston-primer size must not be altered as a result of the compaction operation.”)

Others felt that the restricting front collar acted like an anvil. Still others pointed to the roughened, or finely threaded, internal sides of the primer cup itself, positing that the specially-compounded priming pellet set itself alight as contact here was abruptly broken by the firing pin blow.

In addition to remodeling their SPIW along more conventional lines, AAI was to set up a simulated mass-production assembly line to produce 130,000 rounds of its new improved XM645 piston-primed cartridge. Production contracts for AAI’s second generation cartridge case, and for new one-piece piston primers, were first let at this time to the Canadian government ammunition facility Dominion Arsenals in Quebec (initial headstamp DA 65).

The Last SPIW from Springfield Armory

The 1966 Springfield SPIW was exactly 40” long and was chambered for Frankford’s new, fatter XM216 cartridge. The 60-round point target ammunition capacity specification was still in effect, and due to the conventional nature of the new rifle the longish, front-and-rear double magazine of 1964 had been reconfigured. It was now made of clear Lexan plastic and, in a further burst of desperate ingenuity, featured two thirty-round stacks side-by-side. Springfield’s Preliminary Operating and Maintenance Manual (POMM 1005-251-12) for their 1966 SPIW described the functioning of this novel magazine as follows:

The left cartridge stack is depressed by the stack release mechanism when the magazine is seated in the magazine well, while the right stack remains elevated in the stripping position. When the last round is stripped from the right stack, its spring actuated follower raises the cartridge retainer actuator into the path of the operating rod. After the operating rod moves rearward after [the chambered] round is fired, it cams the actuator and retainer to [the] left side, releasing the left cartridge stack to stripping position.

All in all it appeared that, although the Armory SPIW team had taken the project to heart and made it a labor of love, the very tight timing and funding constraints of Secretary McNamara’s termination order were very evident in this second generation Springfield design.

The AAI Second Generation SPIW

AAI’s SPIW program had by far the longest pedigree of any of the four original contenders, due to that company having originated the flechette concept in the first place. The mood at AAI was therefore one of determination and conviction: while a number of features on Springfield’s second generation gun were brand new and born of desperation, AAI’s were mostly refinements of early ideas, which already had a comparatively lengthy firing record.

A parallel program of redesign had resulted in a very well-conceived new plastic-stocked AAI SPIW prototype, which soon emerged fully engineered for second-generation production. The drum magazine and action stroke were both slightly longer in AAI’s 1966 model SPIW, due to the extra 4mm in the length of the new XM645 cartridge case.

Results of the Second Generation SPIW Trials

A second generation engineering design test was conducted by the Infantry Board at Fort Benning from August 26 to October 31, 1966. These trials, or more accurately, comparative evaluations, were in a word disastrous.

The one supreme flaw in the SPIW program still, which AWC had steadfastly refused to face or even consider right from the outset, was the gulf separating the specifications from what was humanly possible to design and construct. The Board’s report on the 1966 comparative SPIW evaluations contained clear indications that this gulf had again proven too wide and deep to bridge.

A Frank Assessment by Colt’s Robert E. Roy

Meanwhile, AWC was trying to find a civilian firm willing to continue the development of the Springfield SPIW, which was to receive no further funding at the Armory regardless of the outcome of the second generation trials: that bastion was being adamantly wound down in response to Secretary McNamara’s termination order. A meeting was therefore set up at Fort Benning in October, while the 1966 evaluations were still in progress, to demonstrate the second generation SPIWs to representatives of a selected few companies who had expressed interest in taking the Springfield project over.

The real if inadvertent importance of this AWC demonstration was that it provided some highly qualified but uncommitted outsiders with their first real look at the SPIW in action. Among those attending was Mr. Robert E. Roy, then the Engineering Project Manager for Colt’s Inc. Colt’s had purchased the rights to the AR-15 from ArmaLite back in 1959, and had since shrewdly piloted the “little black rifle” all the way to quasi-adoption in the U.S. Armed Forces. With America’s massive buildup in Vietnam went more and more Colt-made M16 rifles: Colt’s had more at stake than virtually anyone should the SPIW be successful. They therefore took a very sharp and direct interest in these proceedings. A saboted flechette load in the regular 5.56mm case already existed, for example, as did experimental smoothbored M16s.

The Infantry Board was necessarily constrained to report its findings exclusively in terms of the requirements, but Colt’s was not so restricted: Mr. Roy wanted to know how the SPIWs looked and functioned in a real-world sense. The bottom line was, how long did Colt’s have until the SPIW put the M16 out of business. Mr. Roy’s confidential report to his superiors, excerpted as follows, soon calmed any fears on that score:

… It appears to me that the SPIW system is still far from fruition as an operational weapons system. The “all things to all people” approach that has been used in setting requirements for this weapon has resulted in many problems that appear almost insurmountable, since many of the requirements are at odds with each other.

… The normal tendency when [the flechette] strikes flesh or bone is for the shaft to bend slightly and then to tumble. It is this property that makes such a small, light projectile lethal. When the flechette tumbles, it has lethality comparable with the 7.62 NATO. The flechette does not always tumble, however, and if it does not tumble, it has very little stopping power and a person might hardly know he is shot…

In order to keep SPIW ammunition as light as possible, cartridge cases have been made to the minimum size possible. This makes it necessary to use relatively slow-burning powders in order to get the necessary energy for full velocity. The result is very high pressures at bullet exit. I would estimate bullet exit pressures are in the order of 25,000 psi.

The noise and flash produced by these weapons is far in excess of the M14 or M16 and at least the equal of our M16 Commando submachine gun without the noise-flash suppressor. I have fired the AAI weapon, and it is definitely uncomfortable to fire without ear plugs.

Present plans call for design finalization by early 1968 and initial production by 1969. After looking at the hardware available, witnessing the firing, and firing the weapon myself, I can’t see how this schedule can possibly be met. SPIW is still an R&D effort and will require at least one more complete redesign, and the solving of several basic problems before it can be seriously considered as a military weapon.

The Mountings, Tripod, Auxiliary, .303 Machine Gun, Mark III” or Sangster mount, attached to the water jacket of the Vickers Mark I water-cooled machine gun.

By Robert G. Segel

One of the rarest and most sought after accessories for the Vickers water-cooled machine gun is the “Mountings, Tripod, Auxiliary, .303 Machine Gun, Marks I, II and III” – otherwise known vernacularly simply as the “Sangster Mount.”

The large 51 pound Mark IV tripod was the standard service mount for the Vickers machine gun and was the appropriate base for controlled aimed fire, either direct or indirect, from an entrenched position. However, by 1915 in World War I, it was recognized, and there emerged a perceived need, for a small auxiliary tripod that could be clamped directly to the water jacket for use in the quick moving forward attack as well as an emergency tripod to be deployed quickly when rapid redeployment from a position was necessitated by incoming enemy fire, to a new position that required the gun to be put into immediate action.

On April 20, 1915, Charles Thomas Brock Sangster, a well-known British engineer and industrialist in the bicycle industry, applied for a patent for just such an auxiliary tripod and a patent was granted on June 8, 1916 (Patent No. 100577).

The use of this auxiliary tripod is stated quite clearly in the British Handbook for the .303-In. Vickers Machine Gun, September 1918: “This auxiliary tripod mounting, which is not intended to replace the Mark IV tripod, is for use as an alternative to it, and will in future be issued on a scale of 1 per machine gun to cavalry and infantry units.”

There were technically three Marks of the mount that ultimately saw service with the differences being slight design changes very early on and two variations of brackets to hold the legs when not in use. . The final, Mark III version with spring leg clamps was officially adopted on October 25, 1917. The Mark designation was not stamped or applied to the units.

The “Sangster” mount actually consisted of two components: the main tripod and clamp assembly and the leg holding clamp bracket. On the Marks I and II, the forward leg holding bracket was essential to hold the legs forward in a horizontal positon. Freeing the legs from the forward holding bracket would allow the legs to drop and be deployed. The Mark III version, the most common used and deployed, used a piston arrangement to hold the legs horizontally thus a simplified forward leg holding bracket was employed. The Mark III was deployed by slightly spreading the three tripod legs, which depressed a piston on the tripod head, allowing the unit to rotate and drop down to a vertical position, which then allowed the legs to be fully splayed. When deployed, the mount allowed a full free 360 degree traverse and a 45 degree elevation.

Again referring to the Handbook for the .303-In. Vickers Machine Gun, September 1918, the mounting consists of the following parts:

1) Three legs, each fitted at one end with a joint for attaching to the crosshead pivot, and at a short distance from the opposite end with a shoe which gives stability to the mounting when firing. The pivot receives the trunnion block to which the saddle of the rear gun band is connected by trunnion screws. The underside of the bracket is so formed that by the action of a spring plunger which passes through the center of the pivot, it admits of the legs being folded down in one direction, but held rigidly in the opposite direction.

A hinged clip – provided with a clamping screw and wing nut – with saddle, complete the rear gun band to which is secured a leather lining for gripping the gun.

2) The front gun band which is of steel (leather lined), is formed with two free ends (leather covered); these ends clip the legs of mounting when folded down. It is provided with a clamping screw and wing nut for securing it to the barrel casing of the gun in such a position that the legs of the mounted, when folded up, shall protrude about 1-inch beyond the spring clip.

3) Two leather straps are provided for transporting the gun with the mounting.

A number of auxiliary tripod front band mountings were issued to the Service that differed from the Number 3 description above and were known as the Mark I. These eliminated the leather straps and merely held the legs in the forward un-deployed position. Interchangeability of the front gun band Mark I among the different rear mounting Marks is not affected.

Warfare methods quickly changed and with the widespread issuance of Lewis guns in 1916, the Lewis was much better suited to be carried forward in infantry assault than the heavy and clumsy water-cooled Vickers. Though issued widely and generally well accepted, particularly in emergency situations, the bane of all foot soldiers is the amount of equipment they must carry and the weight imposed upon them. The 8 pound auxiliary mount was generally discarded to save weight as the need for emergency use was very rare amongst regular infantry. There are very few photographs actually taken in World War I that show the Sangster mount in use among the front line infantry either with the auxiliary mount deployed or just attached to the gun ready for use. However, cavalry units and members of the Motor Machine Gun Corps riding Clyno motorcycles with Mk IV tripods secured to sidecars used the auxiliary mount for rapid dismounting and quickly putting the gun into action. They were officially discontinued for use and declared obsolete in 1921 and scrapped. Few have survived making this a rare and important accessory for a Vickers in a collection.