Reed Exhibitions Out as SHOT Show Manager

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the largest trade association for the firearms industry, has announced that it has reached an agreement with Reed Exhibitions to terminate the agreement the parties had for the management of the SHOT Show. Accordingly, effective immediately, Reed Exhibitions will no longer be manager and producer of the SHOT Show.

Reed Exhibitions provided service to NSSF and the customers of the SHOT Show for more than three decades, however, the company’s decision to restrict the sale of certain types of firearms (particularly AR-15 derivatives) this year at the large Pennsylvania consumer hunting and fishing show – an event unrelated to NSSF and the SHOT Show – was in conflict with NSSF’s mission to serve the shooting sports industry. This Reed decision resulted in many industry firms cancelling their participation at the Pennsylvania expo and ultimately caused the event to be cancelled. As a result, both organizations (NSSF & Reed) decided it was in the best interest of the SHOT Show to end their relationship.

Some SHOT Show exhibitors were considering their non-participation at the 2014 SHOT Show if Reed continued on as its manager.

Reed’s decision to ban AR-15 type rifles from the Pennsylvania show was made during the time when the firearms industry was under severe stress and in danger of faltering from the attacks by members of Congress, led by Obama/Biden, who were predicting that an anti-gun “tidal wave” would sweep the firearms industry away.

The SHOT Show – the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show – is owned and sponsored by NSSF. It is the largest and most comprehensive trade show for all professionals involved with the shooting sports, hunting and law enforcement industries. The 2014 SHOT Show will be held Jan. 14-17 at the Sands Expo and Convention Center in Las Vegas.

New SHOT Show Management Company Chosen by NSSF

After what has been described as an extensive national search involving the trade show industry’s top management companies, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has selected ConvExx as its new SHOT Show management partner.

ConvExx replaces longtime NSSF partner Reed Exhibitions, which became uncomfortable with managing the SHOT Show due to its extensive displays of “black rifles.”

Based in Las Vegas, ConvExx is privately held and has produced more than 200 shows and events, working with more than a million exhibitors and attendees.

ConvExx produces the annual Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) Show, which at nearly 1 million net-square-feet and 135,000-attendees is ranked as the fourth largest trade show in America by Trade Show Executive magazine (SHOT Show is ranked 16th).

“We’re excited to have ConvExx on board as our new management partner,” said Chris Dolnack, NSSF senior vice president and chief marketing officer. “ConvExx offers a unique combination of extensive large-show and Las Vegas experience, which will serve our exhibitors and attendees well.”

“We’re thrilled to be selected to help NSSF manage the SHOT Show,” said ConvExx Chairman Chuck Schwartz. “The SHOT Show is one of the premier trade show events, and we are proud to be associated with NSSF and the shooting sports industry.”

Sturm, Ruger to Open Third Factory

Sturm, Ruger & Co. has announced that it plans to open its third manufacturing plant, a 220,000-square-foot facility in Mayodan, North Carolina.

This will be the company’s first major expansion in over 25-years. It is expected to be finalized in late-summer. The company currently employs over 2,000 people in its two plants in Newport, New Hampshire and Prescott, Arizona.

NSSF Files Suit Against Connecticut’s New Gun Law

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, has filed suit in federal court for the District of Connecticut alleging that Governor Dannel Malloy and the leadership of the Connecticut General Assembly misused the so-called “emergency certification” exception to circumvent the safeguards of the normal legislative process and in violation of Connecticut statutory law in order to pass Senate Bill 1160, a package of strict gun control regulations.

The suit further alleges that enactment of the new law violates fundamental due process rights guaranteed by both the Connecticut and United States Constitutions. NSSF is asking the court to declare the law invalid and issue an injunction prohibiting its enforcement. “A 139-page bill was assembled behind closed doors, bypassing both the public hearing and committee processes, and quickly sent to floor votes on the same day in both the House and Senate where legislators did not have adequate time to even read the bill.

“The governor then signed the package into law the next day. All of this is in violation of guarantees citizens are supposed to have under Connecticut State Statutes and protections in our State and U.S. Constitutions for which our forefathers fought,” said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel, NSSF.

“Our suit focuses on this abuse of process that has resulted in enacted law that does nothing to improve public safety, while resulting in adverse effects on law-abiding citizens, manufacturers, retailers and sportsmen’s organizations,” said Keane.

Non-Licensed Exports to Canada Limit Now $500

The State Department Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) has revised sections 123.16 and 123.17 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to increase the dollar limit of exports of certain firearms, and firearm parts, components, accessories and attachments to Canada without a license from $100 to $500 (wholesale). This has been a F.A.I.R. Trade Group effort that has been an undertaking of several years.

These amendments implement the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, which restricts DDTC from requiring an export license:

(1) for certain firearms and firearm components for end-use by the Canadian Government when the total transaction value does not exceed $500 wholesale; and (2) for certain firearms components for end-use in Canada when the total transaction value does not exceed $500 wholesale.

FAIR has been advocating this issue on behalf of industry for quite some time. They thought they had attained victory back in 2005 when the House of Representatives and the Senate passed the appropriations legislation, but it had to continue to work with DDTC to ensure they implemented the legislation.

Following are excerpted portions from the Federal Register Notice. Please review this revision carefully, as the firearms and parts and components that qualify for the license exemption depend on the final end-user. In addition, there are several conditions that must be satisfied to use the license exemption failure to meet these requirements could subject the exporter to fines, penalties, or other enforcement action.

It is important to note that the license exemption dollar limit for all countries other than Canada remains at $100.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 123 RIN 1400¨CAD07 [Public Notice 8371]
International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Canadian Firearms Components Exemption

AGENCY: Department of State.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Department of State is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations to implement a statutory provision regarding the exemption from licensing for export to Canada of firearms components not exceeding $500 in value.

DATES: This rule is effective July 8, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sarah J. Heidema, Acting Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, telephone (202) 663-2792, email DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov ATTN: Part 123, Canadian Firearms Components Exemption.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of State is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to implement section 520 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act 2012 (Pub. L. 112¨C55), which applies to fiscal year 2012 appropriations, as carried forward for fiscal year 2013 by the Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act 2013 (Pub. L. 113-6). The Department has the authority to regulate the export control program pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. 2778. Pursuant to section 520, the Department cannot require a license for the export of certain firearms and firearms components for end-use by the Canadian government with a total transaction value not exceeding $500 wholesale, and cannot require a license for the export of certain firearms components for end-use in Canada with a total transaction value not exceeding $500 wholesale. ITAR 123.17 is revised accordingly. In addition, ITAR 123.16(b)(6) is amended to remove the words “for personal use,” as the firearms exemption at ITAR 123.17 includes use of the exemption for an end-use other than personal use. This rule implements a statutory mandate, and concerns a foreign affairs function of the United States. Therefore, the Department is publishing this as a final rule, and is not soliciting comments.

Text of New Rule on Exempt Canadian Exports

3. Section 123.17 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
123.17 Exports of firearms, ammunition, and personal protective gear.

(a) Port Directors of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall permit the export without a license of:

•(1) Parts and components for USML Category I(a) firearms, except barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames), or complete breech mechanisms, when the total value does not exceed $100 wholesale in any transaction, except to any of the countries or entities as provided in 126.1 of this subchapter;

•(2) Parts, components, accessories, or attachments for USML Category I firearms, except barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames), complete breech mechanisms, or fully automatic firearms and parts and components for such firearms, when:

i. The total value does not exceed $500 wholesale in any transaction;

ii. The export is to Canada for endues in Canada or return to the United States, or temporary import into the United States of Canadian-origin items and return to Canada for a Canadian citizen; and

iii. The exporter makes a declaration via the Automated Export System, pursuant to 123.22(a) of this subchapter, and the exporter is eligible to export under this exemption or

•(3) Parts, components, accessories, or attachments for USML Category I firearms, including fully automatic firearms and parts and components for such firearms, when:

i. The total value does not exceed $500 wholesale in any transaction; pursuant to 120.1(c) of this subchapter; or

ii. The export is to Canada for endues by the Canadian Federal Government, a Canadian Provincial Government, or a Canadian Municipal Government; and

iii. The exporter makes a declaration via the Automated Export System, pursuant to 123.22(a) of this subchapter, and the exporter is eligible to export under this exemption, pursuant to 120.1(c) of this subchapter.

ATF Head Confirms Straw Buyers Rarely Prosecuted

President Obama’s choice to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives told a Senate panel last month that, the arrest of “straw buyers” was a top Justice Department priority but the department rarely prosecutes cases “due to limited resources.”

The testimony from U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones came during a rancorous confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Republicans – led by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa – questioned Jones’ credentials, his leadership of the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota, and his role and involvement in the Fast and Furious gunrunning probe that let more than 2,000 weapons be “walked” across the U.S.-Mexico border to drug smugglers.

Jones acknowledged in questioning by Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, that of 48,321 cases involving straw buyers, the Justice Dept. prosecuted only 44 of them – saying that “hard decisions” to prosecute were made based on “limited resources.” He also acknowledged that as the U.S. attorney in Minnesota, he never prosecuted anyone accused of being a straw buyer.

“The data demonstrates that it is not a priority for the Obama administration to prosecute those who illegally try to buy firearms,” Cruz said.

Jones took over as acting director after the Fast and Furious operation was made public, although Grassley noted that he served as chairman of the advisory committee to Attorney General Eric Holder from 2009 through 2011, when the operation was in effect.

Jones has now been confirmed as director of ATF. Grassley had asked that the hearing be postponed, saying Jones was the focus of an open investigation by the Office of Special Counsel on his conduct as U.S. attorney in Minnesota.

“When there is a pending investigation, the committee obviously doesn’t have the full information about the nominee,” he said. “In this case, there are allegations of gross mismanagement and abuses of authority in Mr. Jones’ office. And there is a complaint that Mr. Jones retaliated against a whistleblower. These are serious charges, and ones that are of particular concern to me.”

On April 12, Grassley said the OSC reported two pending matters involving the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota – a prohibited personnel practice complaint and a whistleblower disclosure alleging gross mismanagement and abuses of authority. A month later, he said the OSC gave the committee an update, saying the whistleblower disclosure case had been closed but the prohibited personnel practice complaint was moving to mediation.

Grassley said employees within the U.S. attorneys’ office had written anonymously to the OSC asking for “a review of the patterns, practices, treatment, and abuse that [they] have suffered.” He said they claimed Jones “had instituted a climate of fear, had pushed employees out of the office, dismissed employees wrongly, violated the hiring practices of the EEOC, and put in place an Orwellian style of management that continues to polarize the office.”

Separately, he said, Donald Oswald, former special agent-in-charge of the FBI’s Minnesota division, wrote to the committee to voice his concerns about Jones.

Magpul Joins Suit Against Colorado’s New Law

Magpul Industries has joined 54 Colorado county sheriffs in filing a federal lawsuit against the state’s recently signed gun-control bills.

But even if the lawsuit is successful, the Erie-based firearm magazine marketer is still planning to leave Colorado. “Just to clarify, we are still moving, regardless of the outcome of this legal action,” said a post on the company’s web page. “That train has left the station, and we are well into the selection and negotiation process as well as arranging many elements to be prepared to launch and already moving some production out of state.”

The lawsuit challenges two bills signed in March by Dem. Gov. John Hickenlooper: House Bill 1224, which restricts ammunition-magazine capacity to 15 rounds, and House Bill 1229, which requires background checks on all gun sales and transfers – including temporary transfers. “This isn’t good public policy. These are really awful bills,” said Weld County Sheriff John Cooke at a press conference. “They are unenforceable and encourage disrespect for the law, which puts both law enforcement and the public in greater danger.”

The Democratic state legislature approved the bills, along with a third bill requiring gun owners to pay for their own background checks, with no Republican votes.

Another manufacturer, HiViz Shooting Systems, has announced that it would move from Fort Collins to Laramie, Wyo.

NYC Taxpayers Help Sponsor Bloomberg’s Gun Control Group

The webpage of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) appears to have been purchased and hosted by City of New York, the Weekly Standard reports.

The group was co-founded by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston mayor Thomas Menino to “share best practices, develop innovative policies, and support legislation at the national, state, and local levels that will help law enforcement target illegal guns Mayor Bloomberg’s press secretary, Marc La Vorgna, confirmed the City of New York’s involvement with the domain’s purchase and hosting, to the Standard.

When asked whether the purchase and subsequent hosting of the domain by New York City’s Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications was accidental or intentional, La Vorgna replied that the purchase had “definitely been vetted.”

La Vorgna continued, saying that, “Mayor Bloomberg’s push for changes to federal firearms law was part of the New York City agenda” and compared it to other efforts Bloomberg, as mayor, has undertaken – like the effort he and other mayors are involved in to limit the use of food stamps in purchasing sugary drinks.

The Mayors Against Illegal Guns website, according to La Vorgna, like other Bloomberg efforts to lobby the federal government, was done as part of “his capacity as mayor.”

Maggie Haberman and Steve Friess of Politico add, “At minimum, the use of a city web server and city employees underscore what critics have long derided as a blurring of the lines between government resources and Bloomberg’s own multi-billion-dollar fortune, his company, and his pet interests in his three terms as mayor.”

It is unclear why Bloomberg, who has a net worth of $27 billion and has given millions of dollars in donations to Mayors Against Illegal Guns Action Fund, would involve the City of New York in purchasing and hosting the webpage for Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

The author publishes two of the small arms industry’s most widely read trade newsletters. The International Firearms Trade covers the world firearms scene, and The New Firearms Business covers the domestic market. Visit www.FirearmsGroup.com. He may be reached at: FirearmsB@aol.com.

The SKS carbine or Samozariadnyia Karabina Simonova was the first Soviet series production weapon chambered for an intermediate-range cartridge. The SKS carbine was conceived during World War II to supplement the semiautomatic SVT 38 and SVT 40 (Samozaryadnaya Vintovka Tokareva) and 7.62x54mm bolt action Mosin Nagant battle rifles. The 7.62x39mm round would eventually replace the powerful long range 7.62x54R rifles and short range 7.62x25mm cartridge used in Soviet submachine guns.

The SKS is a gas operated, semiautomatic-only carbine that has a fixed 10-round magazine that is designed to be loaded through the top of the receiver using stripper clips. The Soviet SKS weighs approximately 8.8-pounds with an overall length of 40.16 inches, which is somewhat heavy and long for its midrange round. The rear sight is calibrated for a range of 100 to 1,000 meters, with a 300 meter battle sight position. The action’s locking mechanism is a tilting-bolt design.

Although well made and reliable, the SKS design was dated at the time of its post-war introduction, which was at the dawn of the select-fire, detachable magazine assault rifle. Work was already well underway on Kalashnikov’s AK-47 design around the same time period that the SKS was being placed in large scale production during 1949. Despite large numbers of SKS carbines being manufactured, its front line service in the Soviet Union was brief.

The SKS was distributed and manufactured in a number of Communist satellite nations, and was in front line service for a longer period of time in many of those countries. U.S. Forces encountered the SKS during the Vietnam War were it was fielded by Viet Cong guerilla fighters and the North Vietnamese Army.

In addition to the Soviet Union, the SKS was manufactured in Albania, China, East Germany, North Korea, Romania, Vietnam and Yugoslavia. Although the non-Soviet SKS carbines were the same basic design, there were small detail differences on the weapons manufactured in the aforementioned nations. Once shunned by collectors, many of the SKS variants that were once cheap and plentiful have become difficult to find and have gone up in value as interest in collecting them has increased.

Soviet Production

The Soviet SKS carbines were manufactured at the Tula Arsenal from 1949 until 1956 and at the Izhevsk plant from 1953 to 1954. The Tula manufactured SKS carbines can be identified by an arrow inside of a star marking and date of manufacture on top of the receiver cover. The markings vary slightly in small details. Some of the early 1949 Tula markings were rather crudely done. The Tula markings were changed during 1955-1956 to a small star on the left side of the receiver. The Izhevsk plant’s SKS two year production run was short compared to the Tula Arsenal, making the Izhevsk carbines less common. The Izhevsk SKS carbines are identified by an arrow in a triangle inside of a circle symbol along with a date of manufacture, which like the Tula markings, can vary slightly in small details. Most original stocks were made of birch, except for very late Tula production which were laminated.

When first imported to the U.S. during the 1990s, the Soviet SKS carbines sold for as little as $99. Most had undergone an arsenal rebuild and appeared in like-new condition. A few features that may appear on refurbished rifles are Soviet rebuild markings that include a box symbol with a line inside or a diamond icon on the top cover or buttstock, blued bayonet and bolt, black painted parts, XXXed out or mismatched serial numbers, or a laminated replacement stock. There were a few Soviet SKS carbines imported that had not undergone the rebuild process; these rifles are highly desired by collectors. Some Soviet SKS carbines have additional “new” receiver serial numbers that were added by the importer. This came about as a result of an ATF directive claiming that original serial numbers having Cyrillic or non-Roman characters were not being properly recorded by FFL dealers transferring the carbines making them difficult to trace by the ATF.

Albanian Production

During the Cold War period the Soviets began to supply military aid to Albania. The Soviet military supply line ended when Albania cut its ties with Russia in 1961 and in 1968 Albania withdrew from the Warsaw Pact. Communist China also assisted Albania with military hardware, which included Chinese Type 56 SKS rifles, and Type 56 milled receiver AK rifles. After Albania broke ties with the Soviet Union, and left the Warsaw Pact, the country continued its relationship with China.

China provided technical assistance and parts to Albania in order to help them establish their own weapons production, which began with the SKS rifle, at the Uzina e Municioneve Gramsh state-owned factory in central Albania. Series production of the Albanian SKS known as the Pushkë Gjysmë Automatiku Shqiptar tipi 56 (Albanian Semi-Automatic Rifle, Model/Type 56) began in 1962, with the Type 56 designation originating with the original Chinese SKS. Also in 1962, the manufacture of M43, 7.62x39mm ammunition was established at the state owned M Poliçan factory.

The Albanian SKS differs slightly from its Soviet made counterpart by having a long three vent handguard that extends out to the gas block. The buttstock has two separate compartments for maintenance items and a sling swivel on the left side. The 10 round magazine has a slightly different shape than other SKS carbines. The underfolding bayonet is a spike style and black in color. The most obvious difference from other SKS carbines is its hook-type cocking handle. Albanian serial numbers are located on the left side of the receiver and on most major components. The serial numbers generally have three to six numbers followed by a dash and a two digit year of manufacture. The 300 meter battle sight position is marked with a letter D. Large numbers of the Albanian SKS carbines and stores of 7.62x39mm ammunition were destroyed by the United Nations disarming initiative after the Balkan wars. Several NATO countries, including the United States and Great Britain, supplied funding for the destruction project. Only a limited number of Albanian SKS rifles were imported during 2002, the average price was $229.

Chinese Production The Type 56

Chinese production of the Type 56 (SKS) carbine was undertaken during 1956 by a large number of arsenals, and remained in production longer than any other country. In addition to military carbines, China made a large number of their commercial Type 56 carbines for export, primarily for the U.S. civilian market. Chinese SKS carbines were first imported during the 1980s.

Military production of Type 56 carbines can be identified by an arsenal symbol on the left side of the receiver. One of the most common is a number 26 inside of a triangle, the logo of the Jianshe Arsenal. There were a number of different factory codes used by China. The Chinese characters located near the factory code represents “56 Type.” Most Type 56 carbine serial numbers are numeric except for very early production that was assisted by Soviet technicians; these serial numbers were preceded by a letter. Rear sight battle sight positions markings vary from a Cyrillic letter P (P) used on early manufacture, a letter D, Roman numeral III or a number 3.

Due to the large number of factories involved in production there are many small detail differences in Chinese production of their SKS carbines. During early manufacture at the arsenals many milled parts were used, as production continued into the mid 1960s, stamped parts began to replace labor intensive machined ones. One of the first components to be fabricated from sheet metal was the trigger group; eventually some receivers were made of sheet metal. Another cost saving initiative was to pin the barrels to the receivers instead of having to thread the barrel and receiver. Milled lightening cuts in the bolt carriers and other parts were eliminated to save machining. Two types of folding bayonets were used during production in China; the spike style and a blade type.

The Chinese Type 56 SKS carbines are the most common of the genre in the U.S. Some are surplus Chinese military, but most are commercial variants made for the U.S. market. At one time the Chinese SKS carbines were very inexpensive, advertised as low as $79.

East Germany Karabiner-S

The East German version of the SKS is the Karabiner-S. Some of the unique features include a slot in the buttstock for attaching a sling, lack of a trap door in the buttstock for a cleaning kit and there is no cleaning rod, which is normally stored under the barrel on other SKS carbines. The factory markings are located on the left side of the receiver, the first two numbers preceding the serial numbers indicate the year of manufacture. Rear sights are marked with the letters SV. Stocks were made of laminated wood. There are also East German issued Soviet manufactured SKS carbines; these can be identified by a triangle with a number 1 inside it, marked on the receiver near the serial number. East German SKS carbines are somewhat rare. There may be other variants and features, but because of the rarity of the weapons very few are available for study. Many of the East German SKS carbines were destroyed after the reunification of Germany. Most of the East German SKS carbines in the U.S. were war trophies brought back from Vietnam.

North Korea Type 63

The North Korean SKS, designated as the Type 63, is similar to the Soviet configuration. The North Korean star in a circle logo and 63 and a Hangul character representing “Type” are stamped on the receiver’s top cover. The battle sight position on the rear sight leaf is a Hangul character that translates to “height.” Stocks are made of laminated birch with two small reinforcing pins in the wrist area and two pins in the foregrip area. The underfolding bayonet is a blade type. The North Koreans fielded a grenade launching model with a launching sight attached to the left side of the receiver, a gas cut-off valve on the gas block and a detachable clamp-on launching tube. The grenade launcher appears to be a compilation of the U.S. designed M8 and M1 launchers. There may be other variants and features, but because of the rarity of the Type 63 carbines very few have been available for an in-depth study. North Korean carbines were never imported to the U.S. Those that are in the U.S. are most likely Vietnam War trophies.

Romania M56

The Romanian SKS designated as the Model 56 was manufactured in Romania from 1956 to 1962. The serial numbers begin with two letters followed by sequence numbers, followed by the year of manufacture. The M56 carbines were produced in the Uzina Mecanica Cugir plant in Transylvania. The Cugir factory’s arsenal mark is similar to the Izhevsk Arsenal of Russia, a triangle with a vertical pointing arrow inside but without fletching. The 300-meter battle sight position on Romanian SKS rifles is marked with a letter I. The bayonet is the blade type with dull chrome plating. The major parts are marked with the full serial number but the bolt, bolt carrier, receiver and barrel are marked with a similar one to three digit number. The stock is beech wood with a sling swivel located on the bottom. A number of M56 carbines have been imported into the U.S. In 2002, Romanian SKS carbines were offered for $150.

North Vietnam

The Vietnam SKS carbines are marked with a small star with a 1 inside of it, located on the left side of the receiver. The battle position on the rear sight leaf is marked with a Cyrillic letter P. Documented serial numbers are all in the 620,000 to 650,000 range. One of the rarest SKS variants, those in the U.S. are trophies that were brought back from the Vietnam War as none were ever imported.

Yugoslavia M59, M59/66

The Yugoslavian SKS is the Model 59. First manufactured in 1959, the M59 has a few minor differences from the Russian SKS. One is the radius on the front of the gas tube and the stock is made of beech wood. There are matching serial numbers on most of the parts. The battle sight position on the rear sight leaf is marked with a letter I.

The M59 was modified in 1966 to the Model 59/66 that has a permanently attached NATO spec 22mm diameter grenade launcher, gas cut off valve and flip up grenade sight. The attachment of the launcher tube to the barrel added 3.74 inches (95mm) to the weapon’s overall length. There are several variations of the grenade launcher tube configuration. Later tritium and/or phosphorus night sights were added and this variation is often referred to as the 59/66A1. The Yugoslavian SKS variants do not have chrome-lined barrels and chambers because the technology to apply it wasn’t available in that country during production. Manufacture of the 59/66 started in 1966 and lasted until 1970. A large number of the Yugo 59/66 rifles have been imported, many in new or like new condition. During 2003 the Yugo SKS carbines were advertised for as low as $89.

This well-run event is put on by the members of ARPC, many of whom volunteer to serve as range officers during the two days. At any given time, there are approximately 25 range officers wearing orange vests all down the line ensuring complete safety. This is vital, as many of the shooters are trying full auto for the first time. Including set-up and clean-up, there are perhaps 70 or more volunteers helping out. Depending on the weather, the attendance ranges from 1,200 to 1,800 visitors each year. The entrance fee is $10 per day and this allows access to the event as a spectator and shooter. Each vendor has signs posted stating the cost per magazine or belt of ammo for each gun they rent. Naturally prices vary greatly depending on ammunition, but most rifle calibers average about one dollar per round. The mighty .50 BMG round was a fair bit more, at $6 or $8 per shot. In light of the recent panic buying and hoarding of ammo in the past months driving up the cost of ammo to record highs, these prices are not unreasonable.

Besides the usual water jugs and balloons, they brought in several old cars from a local auto wrecker. These seemed to attract a lot of attention. Tannerite explosive targets are occasionally set out at the 100 yard line, or beyond. At least once during the event, a 20 pound package of Tannerite was detonated at the 200 yard line.

ARPC used to run a Fall shoot as well, but it had to be cancelled several times due to the extreme fire danger after a long hot summer. Since 2006, there has only been a Spring shoot, always on the third weekend of May.

This event attracts enthusiasts from across the western states, and beyond. One notable full auto collector from Idaho is Dominic Spediacci, who had an astounding array of belt feds on the line on Sunday. Among the treasures he brought were an M1919A6, an M1918 BAR, a Westinghouse-made water-cooled M1917 (rechambered to 8×57), an M1917 Marlin, a Colt-Browning M1895 “Potato digger, and a Frigidaire-made water-cooled M2 .50 BMG. The .50 was mounted on a very rare M3 anti-aircraft pedestal mount, (Mount, M3AA, .50 cal., Water Cooled) commonly referred to as the “Tora Tora” mount, and was fed by the correct 200 round “tombstone” drum magazine. It also had the matching hand-cranked water pump (Chest, Water, Caliber .50, M3). His guns on display would put quite a few military museums to shame. He happened to mention that he had to leave a few others at home, including a 1914 Hotchkiss French heavy machine gun, a 1915 Colt Vickers and a 1917 Marlin piston operated potato digger. He also brought along a 1928 Thompson for friend’s kids to shoot.

Dominic also brought an equally impressive quantity of ammo to feed his toys. This included 2,200 linked rounds of .50 BMG, approx. 6,000 rounds of 8×57 on cloth Browning belts, and 3,000 rounds of .30-06 on belts and in BAR mags, and 1,000 rounds of .45 ACP for the Thompson. By the end of Sunday afternoon, he had turned it into a rather big pile of brass, links, and empty belts. It is truly something to see 200 rounds of .50 BMG go in one continuous burst. He did so several times during the day. Dominic managed to actually saw one car in half with an intense barrage of fire.

Another vendor, Todd Alden, had an intriguing looking item. It was a hand cranked multi barrel gun named Gunzilla, made by Red Jacket Firearms (Yes, the Sons of Guns guys) with another manufacturer, from two Masterpiece Arms 971 guns somehow tied together. Although it appears to have six barrels, only two actually fire. It feeds from two Suomi 71 round drum mags. It is surprising how fast a drum of ammo can be cranked through it. Customers put about 3,000 rounds through it during the event. Todd plans on fitting a laser pointer to one of the false barrels soon, to light up the smoke created by the two real barrels.

On Sunday afternoon, David Statham brought his Viet Nam era OH-6A helicopter. Not just as transportation, but to strafe the targets. Again, the wrecked cars seemed to receive most of the attention. The ‘copter was built in 1967, and used in VN from 1968-72. It was actually shot down twice, and rebuilt twice. It has lots of ground fire damage evidence still, in the form of small patches on the fuselage. David claims that no one died in it though. For the flying demonstration, the rear gunner was Mike Gardner, co-owner of Halo Manufacturing, Eugene, OR, firing an M60. In the front passenger seat was Matt Stoner, owner of Stoner Arms, Keizer, OR. Matt was firing an RPD-44. This demonstration was a real treat for the spectators, and received quite a cheer afterwards. Stoner Arms also had two tables of various guns for rent, and a full staff overseeing it all.

Every so often a cease-fire was called, in order to reset targets. Usually, upon the range going hot again, there would be a “Rolling thunder,” much like a Mad Minute mass burst of fire. However, on several occasions, the range director would call for suppressed guns only. This allowed spectators to see and hear just how effective a good suppressor can be. Certainly there is some noise created, but a normal conversation could be had just behind the firing line without ear protection on; very civil, indeed.

At the other end of the sonic spectrum was Chuck Riggs, a class 3 dealer from Wasco OR, with his “Obnoxinator.” This is an HK-51K with a 5 inch barrel and a copy of the JP Enterprises muzzle brake. Thunderously loud only begins to describe this thing. Chuck mentioned that all he has to do is fire a mag himself and right away there is a crowd of people wanting to rent his gun and make their own thunder. He estimates about 2,500 rounds of .308 went through his gun over the two days.

Albany has a very friendly, West Coast feel to it. This author/photographer really appreciated being able to stand alongside a friend as he shot, rather than being confined well back. As long as all safety issues are complied with, the range offers are quite willing to accommodate such requests. Dominic Spediacci is a veteran of several large MG shoots and speaks highly of Albany. “Albany is one of the bigger shoots out on the west coast, but not as big as Knob Creek or Big Sandy (Wikieup, AZ). However it is well thought out, hosted and staffed. The people are always nice and courteous at these shoots. The nice thing about Albany is you don’t have a waiting list to shoot that is booked out for years on end like some other shoots.” Also, it is well attended by women, children, and families. This author noted several well supervised youngsters on the firing line.

Next year’s shoot will be the 25th anniversary, and plans are underway to have some special treats. As always, it will be held on the third weekend of May (May 17 and 18, 2014), one week after Mother’s Day, and one week prior to Memorial Day.

Albany Rifle and Pistol Club
29999 Saddle Butte Rd.
Shedd, OR 97377
(541) 491-3755

AK-47 The Grim Reaper
(Second edition)
By Frank Iannamico
Chipotle Publishing
631 N. Stephanie St. #372
Henderson, NV 89014

Reviewed by Christopher R. Bartocci

This is a very large and thorough book on the history of the AK-47 and all its facets. There are 1,086 pages of information and a large number of high quality detailed photographs of various weapons and military photographs. This is the second edition of the AK-47 The Grim Reaper.

The first edition was published in 2008 and takes the reader through the development of the assault rifle, manufacturers in Russia, detailed looks at the 1st-3rd generation AK-47 rifles, AKM update, AK-74 family of weapons, AK-100 series, other Kalashnikov designs, Warsaw Pact countries manufacturing AK-type rifles, AK-derivatives, AK comes to America, made in USA AK-47 rifles, magazine and ammunition variations. The second edition greatly enhances the reader’s knowledge by the addition of many detailed photographs of various models, additional information and updated information of the current status of this family of weapons.

• The book begins with Chapter 1 on the development of the modern day assault rifle with discussion of the U.S. Army Weapons Command Research & Engineering Directorate Small Arms System Laboratory testing on the AK-47 rifle from experience in Vietnam. It also parallels the development of the AK-47 with parallel to U.S. small arms development and ammunition development. Included are detailed historical descriptions of the German Sturmgewehr and its 7.92x33mm intermediate round and its influence on Kalashnikov’s design as well as the introduction to Kalashnikov’s story of his development of the rifle and its trail to the hands of the Soviet soldier.
• Chapter 2 gives an introduction to the numerous Russian weapons factories spread out over the vast lands of the former Soviet Union. The arsenal marks are shown and how to identify the weapon with the factory that produced it. The second edition adds photographs of current manufacturing of the rifle.
• Chapter 3 begins the analysis of the developmental history of the AK47. There are thorough descriptions and photographs of the first, second and third generation rifles. The second edition offers more detailed photographs of the first and second generation rifles to help the reader understand how they were built and what the exact differences are. Attention is given to every detail and every change. This includes both fixed and underfold stock variations of all three generations of the rifle.
• Chapter 4 introduces the AKM and its derivatives. All changes are documented on the 3rd generation machined receivers’ transformation into the 2.5 pound less stamped AKM rifle. Many detailed photographs and drawings clearly define the changes that make up the AKM.
• Chapter 5 documents the development and history of the small caliber 5.45x39mm cartridge and the new AK-74 which would eventually replace the AK-47/AKM family of weapons in the Soviet Army. The AK-74 has gone through many incremental changes and continues to this very day. Through this chapter the reader will see the advancements in Soviet/Russian manufacturing capabilities.
• Chapter 6 takes the reader through the latest developments in the AK-series of rifles, the AK-100 Series. Designed for export use, the rifle goes through an update in furniture as well as the introduction of rifles that will fire the NATO 5.56x45mm cartridge. Additional gas systems, stocks and barrels are introduced. The end of this chapter also introduces and describes in detail the AN-94 rifle, the rifle that was suppose to replace the AK-74.
• Chapter 7 shows other Kalashnikov developed weapons including the Bizon submachine gun, RPK, RPKS, RPK-74, RPKS-74, PK, PKM and SVD.
• Chapter 8 documents the Warsaw Pact countries that the Soviet Union set up manufacturing facilities in their country to produce the array of Kalashnikov weapons. Russia states now that many of the rifles produced are illegal clones that were not licensed by Russia for the use of their technical data. The proliferation of sales throughout all these former Warsaw Pact countries have hurt Russian companies from selling the rifle that originated with them. This chapter details description of all of the countries the Soviet Union licensed manufacturing rights to the AK-47 family of weapons and their variations. There are significant numbers of new photographs added to this chapter from the first edition.
• Chapter 9 discusses production of AK-type rifles outside of the former Warsaw Pact countries – one of the largest being China. China has many different variations of the AK-type rifle and sold them abroad in large numbers. Egypt is another large producer. Greatly expanded information about AK-production in Iraq including many new photographs not found in the first edition. Also included are North Korea, Pakistan-Khyber Pass-Afghanistan, Yugoslavia/Serbia and Croatia.
• Chapter 10 goes into Kalashnikov design derivatives which are rifles that closely copy or borrow a significant number of features from the design. These countries include Czechoslovakia, Finland Valmet rifles, Israeli Galil and South African R-4 series.
• Chapter 11 takes the reader through the AK introduction to the American market with the history of the imported sporting rifles into the U.S. starting with the Finish Valmet and Egyptian Maadi versions. Additionally, for all the “Wolverines!” fans out there, the second edition gives the historical details of the rifles that were used in the movie Red Dawn. The introduction of Chinese rifles to the U.S. market was vast and in different variations, which are all documented and photographed in the book. Descriptions and photographs follow with Hungarian and Yugoslavian sporting versions of the AK rifle.
• Chapter 12 marks the dark days of the Assault Weapon Ban. This marked the 1989 importation ban and all the legalities of assembling post ban rifles with pre-ban configuration parts. Also included is the discussion of all the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban and its sunset in 2004. Descriptions and photographs of the numerous imported AK-type rifles are contained in this chapter.
• Chapter 13 chronicles AK’s that are made in the USA. Many are American made receivers built up with foreign parts kits. Many American companies are listed who either manufacture or modify different variations of the rifles mixing in American made parts.
• Chapter 14 delves into the magazine variations of all generations and all caliber AK-type rifles with detailed photos and descriptions of the magazines made in numerous countries.
• Chapter 15 gives detailed descriptions of ammunition. This will include identification of ammunition types as well as the arsenals in which they were manufactured. This covers both 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm.
• Chapter 16 gives a collectors description of accouterments including bayonets, grenade launchers, rifle grenades, sound suppressors, night vision, scopes, carrying cases, cleaning kits, blank firing adapters, magazine pouches and slings

This book is a must have for any student of the AK-family of weapons. This book also would be well put to use by law enforcement and crime laboratory reference libraries where identification of these rifles and accessories are needed. There has never been a more thorough study of the AK-series ever put in print. For those who already have the first edition, it is well worth upgrading to the second. There is significantly enough material added to make it worthwhile. The photographs are of the highest quality and no stone is left unturned.

This book may be purchased directly from Chipotle Publishing for $69.95 plus shipping at www.smallarmsoftheworld.com, on Amazon.com, or at your local bookseller.

A Dark History

Stinger is a term that has been associated with pen guns for decades. The British Special Operations Executive (SOE) was established in July of 1940 under the ultimate command of Dr. Hugh Dalton, the English Minister of Economic Warfare. The mission of the SOE was to take the fight to the Nazis in the occupied territories whether that be repatriation of downed fliers, sabotage, or, on occasion, assassination. The SOE operated a weapons research facility out of Welywn Garden near London where engineers developed weapons for the SOE’s 5,000 clandestine operatives that were effective, transportable, and concealable. These weapons included some of the earliest effective suppressed firearms, collapsible crossbows, and guns designed to operate as parts of belts, gloves, pipes, or cigarettes. Designers at this facility also produced a variety of pen guns.

The typical pen gun of the era fired a 6.35mm cartridge and could still pass for a writing instrument in dim light. One particular version was common enough to be type-classified as the T-2 and fired a .22 short cartridge. This weapon was disposable and could be concealed in the palm of your hand.

The Military Armament Corporation, the same folks who brought us the MAC series of submachine guns designed by Gordon Ingram, produced pen guns that sported the name Stinger in the early 70s. Interestingly, their Stingers could be had with matching sound suppressors. These weapons were well-made and lethal though records of any operational use are understandably sketchy. The few Stingers that were sold commercially during that time went for $36 each new.

What Does ATF Think of All This?

Original Stinger pen guns fall under the purview of the National Firearms Act in the category of “Any Other Weapon,” a sort of catch-all heading that categorizes weapons such as cane guns, umbrella guns, and purpose-built handgun-sized shotguns. While the paperwork involved in purchasing one of these weapons is identical to that required to own a suppressor, machine gun, or short-barreled rifle or shotgun, the transfer tax is a paltry $5.

The more contemporary Stinger circumvents the NFA categorizations brilliantly. Originally marketed by the Stinger Manufacturing Company of Sault St. Marie, Michigan, today’s Stinger rides in your pocket just as would a linear writing instrument but deploys into a more familiar angular handgun shape prior to firing. The accompanying literature claims that the weapon can be deployed in about two seconds and actual hands-on experience has born that out.

It should be noted that I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and have spent my entire adult life immersed in guns and similar mechanical contrivances. Despite this, and with the factory manual at my fingertips, it took me nearly an hour of fiddling to get to the point where I could consistently deploy, fire, recock, and stow my Stinger pen gun without frustrating myself. In their defense, however, the Stinger is the archetypal last-ditch weapon. The Stinger is the tool you use when the alternative is bare hands and foul language.

Deploying and firing the gun is not challenging and this process is fairly intuitive. However, if someone is trying to reload the piece tactically for a follow-up shot then something has obviously gone desperately wrong.

How Does It Shoot?

The rifled barrel of the Stinger is two inches long and the gun has no sights. No one will be shooting the Camp Perry matches with this rascal. However, the workmanship, fit, and finish on the piece are superb and one really would not want to be downrange from it in an up close and personal confrontation. Trigger pull is adequately crisp and positive though recoil is, believe it or not, a bit attention-getting even in .22 Long Rifle. I can consistently keep my rounds on a pie plate on a pleasant day at the range out to about ten feet. Considering the piece really is designed to be used at contact ranges this is adequate.

Just How Do You Make It Work?

The Stinger is legitimately elegant mechanically. As a safety mechanism it incorporates a floating breech that cams into position with manipulation of the safety ring. This mechanism only allows the firing pin to contact the cartridge when the pistol is deployed into its angular configuration and the safety ring is rotated. In practice this makes for an unusual manual of arms.

Loading is straightforward with a gun that is cocked and in its pen configuration. The operator simply unscrews the barrel, drops in a cartridge, and screws the barrel back in place. Deploying the weapon for firing is simple. Grasping the opposite ends of the gun the operator extends the two halves and pivots the toggle joint in its center before allowing the two halves to settle back into each other at a mechanically-determined angle due to spring tension within the body of the piece. This movement deploys the trigger, a simple flat steel appendage, from the body of the gun. This also engages a tab on the barrel that prevents its removal until the gun is retracted back into its linear pen configuration. The shooter then rotates the safety ring slightly clockwise as viewed by the firer (the only direction it will turn) until the ring finds its natural detent position. Pressure on the trigger then fires the gun.

At this point the barrel is locked in place and cannot be removed for reloading. This requires cycling the action twice to reset the safety, release the barrel for removal, stow the trigger, and recock the firing mechanism. While this is counter-intuitive, it does indeed require two complete iterations of this exercise to release the mechanism completely. As mentioned, it is complicated.

The Bottom Line

Anyone interested in acquiring one of these little marvels should do so with reasonable expectations. It is mechanically brilliant. Its designers built this device in such a way as to allow it to be sold in the U.S. as a conventional title I firearm while still facilitating open carry as though it was a writing instrument. It also incorporates sufficient mechanical safety features as to make it safe to carry loaded and retracted in one’s shirt pocket. Herein lies the problem. To design a weapon that will meet these requirements yet still have any hope of succeeding in today’s hyper-litigious environment makes it mechanically cumbersome. As such, it really is only an appropriate piece for the advanced shooter or collector who will take his time and study the mechanism.

Stingers can be tough to find these days. Originally produced in both .22 LR and .25 ACP versions, both have been out of production for some time. There have even been a couple of “sniper” versions produced with long barrels and telescopic sights. This sounds to me like the fruits of a gifted designer with some proper machine tools and too much free time.

Additionally, there was a fairly high profile incident wherein a rap artist who was said to be intoxicated at the time was playing with a Stinger at a party and accidentally killed himself. In a political environment wherein it is a definitive uphill struggle to convince anyone but the most ardent gun enthusiast that a pen gun of any sort may be legally owned and carried, this makes for some unique marketing challenges. For the right person with the right inclinations and a little patience, however, finding a Stinger at a gun show or local gun shop can add a useful and fascinating tool to the right collection.

Daniel Defense’s thought process was to create a lightweight, simple to operate AR rifle similar to Eugene Stoner’s original concept. This counter-intuitive approach involved simplifying it away from current trends. AR designs consisting of heavy barrels and bloated full-length four-sided Picatinny rails adorned with lights, lasers, vertical forward grips and other accessories were abandoned in favor of simple contemporary components of the highest quality put together by qualified personnel one at a time ensuring maximum quality control.

It is no secret that the AR is not only the best selling civilian and law enforcement rifle in the U.S., but also gaining popularity around the world with the U.S. equipping/training so many armed entities. This has caused many manufacturers to jump on the AR bandwagon in recent years by offering their versions. The Daniel Defense’s operating philosophy is captured in its motto of “Lighter, Stronger, Better…” This is also how Daniel Defense strives to separate themselves from the rest of the AR field. The DD M4 V1 LW typifies this by weighing in at 6.8 pounds while still featuring a full length Daniel Defense DDM4 quad rail. This is outstanding considering a rail is present as well as other features that are typically avoided in other builder’s efforts when attempting a lightweight AR. A slim 16 inch 1:7 twist hammer forged barrel is affixed with a Daniel Defense flash hider. Length of the rifle is 36 inches with stock extended and 32.5 inches collapsed. The Daniel Defense upper and lower receivers are forged from 7075 aluminum upper and then hardcoat anodized. A single-stage trigger is standard with M4 feed ramps machined into the receiver and the barrel extension. A Magpul MOE adjustable buttstock is fitted to the V1 LW. The mil-spec upper and lower receivers are combined with a 5.56mm chamber and direct gas impingement operating system. The gas system of the DD M4 V1 LW is carbine length.

If you want it done right, do it yourself. This might be the unofficial motto for all Daniel Defense endeavors since arriving on the AR scene. The Daniel Defense DD M4 V1 LW model evaluated herein is an embodiment of this statement. Since Daniel Defense’s start in 2000, the size of the company has doubled and sometimes tripled every year. As the company stands currently, it has over 100 employees and is located in a 38,000 square foot manufacturing facility in Black Creek, GA with another recently opened site across the river in South Carolina. Marty Daniel decided in 2000 that the AR market was ripe for someone to introduce quality aftermarket accessories such as sling adaptor, railed forends, etc. This is probably hard to fathom for the current 2013 situation where there are a plethora of AR products available. It was only a small concept leap before Daniel Defense was making complete AR rifles starting in early 2009.

Marty Daniel has given clear perspective on how he wants to run his business. During a tour of the Black Creek facility, Marty explained the importance of customer service in the Daniel Defense mindset. This customer service philosophy is reinforced by their pride in their product reflected by producing much of their ARs in-house. They are not an AR parts assembler who then stamps their name on a weapon made from someone else’s components. In fact, Daniel Defense is a major supplier of OEM parts and accessories for many of the AR brands on the market. (It was interesting to see what items were shipping out from Daniel Defense to other brands – though a gentleman’s agreement prohibits detailing.) This in-house production allows Daniel Defense a high degree of quality control and frees them up from over reliance of suppliers. They make their own barrels, upper receivers, lower receivers, receiver extensions, bolt carriers, bolts, carrier keys, gas tubes, etc. Every bolt is proofed and magnetic-particle inspected to guarantee reliable performance. Daniel Defense even goes so far as to produce their own lower parts kits composed of the trigger assembly and a bunch of tiny parts and pins. When a company is willing to produce their own pins for their rifles, it’s a safe bet that they’re obsessed with turning out a quality rifle. Daniel Defense has invested heavily into production capability such as CNC machinery, robotics, and hammer forging barrel production. A walk around the Black Creek facility makes this obvious while keeping in mind what the 90,000+sf South Carolina plant must represent in terms of capital investment from Daniel’s corporate leadership.

A key component to the Daniel Defense AR reputation for accuracy is the Chrome Moly Vanadium steel cold-hammer forged barrel produced in house. The barrel is mil-spec phosphate coated. It is worth exploring Daniel Defense barrel production as a vehicle to explore what sets their rifles apart from others in the market. The majority of ARs sold feature button-rifled barrels. Button rifled barrels can be some of the most accurate barrels made or some of the most economical barrels made depending on specific methods utilized in production. The AR market is very competitive currently with multiple brands competing for consumer dollars; thus price point is extremely important with accuracy and durability taking a secondary position with some makes/models. Compared to button rifled barrels, the cold hammer forged method used by Daniel Defense is difficult and expensive to manufacture with the resultant benefit of durability and longevity. As witnessed on the Black Creek factory floor, a hammer-forged barrel starts its life as a short steel blank with a hole drilled down its center. The blank is threaded over a piece of hardened steel mandrel that is the exact dimensions of the rifle’s bore. Big hammers then pound the blank onto and around the mandrel until the barrel is 16 inches long (or whatever is specified) and has the appropriate contour. The process makes for a very dense barrel that is ideally suited to a high round count carbine. The machinery doing this work has been installed on vibration dampening flooring and isolation springs so as not to impact other delicate machinery surrounding it. Daniel Defense technicians follow detailed proprietary quality control methods with each barrel produced.

To wring the most out of the M4 V1 LW, multiple optics were used in testing. A Leupold Mk4 3.5-10x was employed to ascertain the true accuracy potential. The optics most typically intended to be left on the V1 LW after accuracy testing would be a non-magnified type. The V1 LW was tested with Trijicon’s red dot optic the SRS (Sealed Reflex Sight). The 3.75 inch long Trijicon SRS features 1.75 MOA adjustable intensity red dot. The 28 mm aperture combined with 38 mm objective lens with only minimal housing between the two translates into the SRS providing a relatively large field of view as well as serving to eliminate the tube effect sometimes encountered with red dot optics. The SRS uses a solar panel to supplement the AA battery when in sunlight providing 3 years of run time. The Trijicon SRS weighs 15 ounces including battery and mount. The ability to control the SRS dot intensity is an important asset related to the SRS allowing the user to tailor brightness to user preference. The Trijicon SRS offers the capability to engage multiple targets in rapid sequence compared to iron sights, while at the same time providing adequate accuracy out to a couple hundred yards. As many “maturing” shooters can attest to the single focus plane is easier to shoot accurately than coordinating front and rear sights. The 5.56/.223’s flat trajectory aids in making center mass hits out to 300 yards without having to compensate excessively for bullet drop.

Ammunition tested with the DD M4 V1 LW was a combination of Black Hills Ammunition loads, multiple Hornady TAP loads and Winchester 55gr FMJ. The V1 LW kept all loads tested under 2 inches at 100 yards with Black Hills 69gr Match producing MOA groups out to 200 yards. This accuracy level justifies considering mounting a magnified optic such as the Trijicon ACOG or Leupold’s adjustable power Mk 4 CQ/T depending on intended mission. Overall, the accuracy level was more than acceptable considering the barrel’s profile. Accuracy test protocol consisted of three five-shot groups with each ammunition type. Group sizes were averaged. Velocity figures ranged from 2,700 feet per second to 2,950 feet per second over Shooting Chrony chronograph. Most bulk range firing utilized the Black Hills Ammunition 55gr FMJ load.

The V1 LW was tested with a variety of magazines including the 3rd Generation Magpul PMAG AR-15 magazine. The next generation PMAG 30 GEN M3 Window is a 30-round 5.56mm polymer magazine for AR-15/M4 compatible weapons that feature transparent windows to allow rapid visual identification of approximate number of rounds remaining. The Magpul GEN M3 PMAG incorporates new material technology and manufacturing processes for enhanced strength, durability, and reliability to exceed rigorous military performance specifications. Magpul introduced the 3rd Gen AR-15 magazine with modified internal and external geometry permitting operation with a wide range of non Colt spec platforms such as the HK 416, M27 IAR, British SA 80, and FN SCAR MK 16/16S. A redesigned bolt catch notch in the rear of the magazine provides increased bolt catch clearance, while an over-travel stop on the spine helps ensure the magazine will not over-insert on compatible weapons.

The Daniel Defense M4 V1 LW was evaluated at Echo Valley Training Center (EVTC). The V1 LW rifle showed its true promise by performing not only within the multiple 100 yard bays at EVTC firing from barricades and engaging targets, but also back at the prepared firing position line with targets placed out to 300 yards. Numerous drills were run involving magazine changes and moving between barricades simulating cover. A Mayflower Research & Consulting LLC LE/Active shooter chest rig carried four magazines during range evaluations. Steel silhouettes were situated randomly from 20 yards to 110 yards on EVTC Range #2. The Daniel Defense V1 LW and Trijicon SRS red dot made short work of striking various targets in quick fashion.

The V1 LW was purposely neglected in terms of cleaning over the course of the range evaluation. Cleaning methods for the Daniel Defense rifle will be familiar to anyone with a modicum of experience with the AR-15. Timing worked out to allow me to utilize the V1 LW in a 3-day Graham Combat course further pushing the V1 LW in terms of performance. The svelte V1 LW was much appreciated for its handling around vehicles and barricades during training scenarios. Several of the more dynamic drills experienced during the T&E showed the Daniel Defense M4 V1 LW at its best; unrelenting reliability even when scorching hot after multiple magazines fired consecutively. Combining range T&E and the Graham Combat course, the Daniel Defense V1 LW had 1,600 rounds fired through it for this evaluation. A High Speed Gear patrol belt equipped with their TACO magazine pouches was used to support the M4 V1 LW for both range T&E and Graham Combat course. Nothing is as personal as gear for holding magazines and other items at locations that become instinctual after countless training evolutions. Several common themes became apparent during the Graham Combat course. The importance of having an ergonomic rifle in terms of mounting to the shoulder quickly while maintaining sight picture became apparent when running and gunning quickly. Another point was a quick handling rifle able to react to dynamic unexpected situations and put rounds downrange accurately and rapidly. The Daniel Defense V1 LW delivered very well in these two aspects while at the same time providing solid reliability and a high degree of accuracy.

There are a plethora of AR style rifles vying for consumer attention albeit individuals, departments, or other entities. The Daniel Defense M4 V1 LW is worthy of consideration considering the attention to detail and quality of materials used in its manufacture. The cliché of “buy right the first time” comes to mind with the DD M4 V1 LW being a good example.

Sites of Interest

Daniel Defense
101 Warfighter Way
Black Creek, GA 31308
www.danieldefense.com
(866) 554-4867

Echo Valley Training Center
www.echovalleytrainingcenter.com

Trijicon Inc.
49385 Shafer Ave
Wixom, MI 48393
www.trijicon.com
(248) 960-7700

Black Hills Ammunition
PO Box 3090
Rapid City, SD 57709
(605) 348-5150
www.black-hills.com

Winchester Ammunition
427 N. Shamrock St
East Alton, IL 62024
www.winchester.com

Leupold & Stevens, Inc.
14400 NW Greenbrier Pkwy
Beaverton, OR 97006
(800) LEUPOLD
www.leupold.com

Hornady Mfg., Inc.
3625 Old Potash Hwy
Grand Island, NE 68802
800-338-3220
www.hornady.com

The last quarter of the 19th century and the beginning of 20th were marked by considerable progresses as regards light weapons. The discovery of guncotton and then smokeless powder made it possible for most inventive researchers to realize their dream: the design of weapons with automatic loading, using part of the energy of the preceding shot to rearm the mechanism and to reload the weapon, without intervention of the shooter.

Multiple inventions were born and were applied to handguns, shoulder weapons and machine-guns. Varied ways were employed in the operation of these weapons: blowback; delayed blowback; gas action; short recoil; long recoil; and blow forward.

Ferdinand von Mannlicher was probably one of the most inventive engineers of this period. He was born in Mainz (Germany) in 1848. He left for Austria after the death of his father and undertook studies in engineering and mechanics. He worked initially in the railroads. Following travel to the United States in 1876, he became interested to small arms. He developed several devices, and was engaged by the Steyr Weapons Factory as chief of the research department. He remained there from 1877 to his death in 1904. He invented a great number of mechanisms for repeating rifles, semiautomatic rifles and machine guns. His name is associated with a clip feeding system in which the clip is retained in the magazine. He received the highest decorations of the countries that adopted the weapons that he conceived; as well as the title of Knight (Ritter).

M1894 Mannlicher Pistol

The M1894 Mannlicher pistol was unique in its operation. The friction of the bullet in the barrel forces it forward up to a shoulder arranged in the tube which functions as a guide. During this time, the trigger mechanism is disconnected and becomes operational again only when the barrel returns to its initial position. The recoil spring is located in the front part of the barrel and the cartridge is loaded when the barrels goes rearward.

The weapon has a thickset shape, more like a revolver than a pistol. The grip is short and the frame contains the magazine, which is placed near the grip, as well as the trigger mechanism with its external hammer. The mechanism is single or double action, but it is necessary to use double action to obtain semiautomatic operation because otherwise no part of the mechanism re-cocks the hammer.

The frame is open at the top to permit ejection of the empty case and loading. It is prolonged by a tubular sleeve containing the barrel and the recoil spring. The prototypes shot an 8mm cartridge used with the Salvator-Dormus pistol manufactured by an Austrian railways company. The next models shot 6.5x23R or 7.6x23R cartridges, built by Dreyse in Sommerda (Germany) or Österreichische Waffenfabrik Gesellschaft in Steyr (Austria). Other models were made in Switzerland by the Bern Federal Small Arms Factory.

M1896 Mannlicher Pistol

The M1896 Mannlicher semiautomatic pistol was derived from a repeating pistol developed the same year. As many of its contemporaries, it has a magazine located in front of the trigger guard.

The weapon is delayed blowback. Two ears are located at the top that are used to open the bolt. The hammer is located inside the frame and an external lever placed on the right makes it possible to cock it or to uncock it.

This model was perfected and became M1897, M1898, M1899, M1900 and finally M1903 Mannlicher pistol. It uses a more powerful cartridge and it works by short recoil of the barrel. This Mannlicher pistol was also produced in a carbine version. Both shot a 7.63×25 cartridge; not to be confused with the 7.63mm Mauser or 7.62mm Tokarev cartridges (same dimensions, same weight bullet but lighter powder charge).

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Saint Etienne Small Arms Factory produced a copy of this gun, shooting a 10×25 cartridge.

M1900 Mannlicher Pistol

Derived from a patent granted in 1898, this weapon has blowback operation with a friction delay against the slide. The recoil spring is located horizontally under the barrel at the front part of the frame.

The shape of the pistol is very graceful and the grip is furnished with squared side plates. The magazine in the grip is fed by means of a stripper clip. Two dismountable side plates give access to the mechanism. It uses a 7.65mm (.32 cal.) rimless cartridge. Four Mannlicher pistols of this model were tested in France between September 15, 1900 and June 27, 1901.

M1901 Mannlicher Pistol

To follow the requests for modifications of the French Army and perhaps also to improve the model, Ferdinand von Mannlicher modified his patent and presented eight specimens to France on October 31, 1903. To answer the wishes of the commission, the inventor mounted a stronger spring to prevent the firing pin from striking the primer during closing of the bolt; the trigger pull became softer, the profile of the grip was redrawn and a safety was added. Other minor modifications were also made to this model.

Following a very thorough trial run, the commission recommended the adoption of this weapon for the French Army. This report/ratio is certainly most favorable of all those which were seen on automatic pistols tested in France before 1914. In spite of that, no decision was made to introduce this type of weapon within the French armed forces.

M1905 Mannlicher Pistol

Slightly modified once again, the Mannlicher pistol was adopted in 1905 by Argentina. The tang of the grip is higher and the grip plates are vertically serrated. Production of M1900, M1901 and M1905 Mannlicher pistols is approximately 10,000 specimens including 6,000 sold in Argentina. Some others were used by Paraguay.

Description

The M1905 Mannlicher pistol is a weapon entirely built of machined steel parts. This weapon has no box magazine, but a magazine is located in the grip and loaded with a clip like a Mauser rifle. To empty the magazine it is necessary to open the bolt and to press the cartridge stop button located on the right side above the grip plate.

The frame is also used as the grip and is hollow to contain the magazine. It has a detachable bottom on which is assembled a broad rectangular ring for attaching a lanyard. It contains the follower and its spring. The grip receives two wooden plates vertically serrated, each one attached by a screw.

The barrel is fixed and is mounted on the frame. It is bored to 7.65mm (.32 cal.) and has four grooves, right hand turn. The firing mechanism is mounted on the left face of the frame. It consists of the trigger, bar, sear, their common spring and a hammer. The hammer spring is a V blade located on the right side of the frame. A plate closes the sides of the frame. It is provided with an extension – the front of which is bearing the recoil spring.

The slide is composed of a cylindrical bolt with two rear ears provided with vertically striated ears for gripping and contains the firing pin and carries a right-sided safety and on the top the extractor. It has also a clip guide for loading the magazine. Two arms guide the slide and actuate the recoil spring, which is located under the barrel and has a short guide rod. Sights are a rear V notch located over the rear ears and a front sight mounted by a dovetail assembly at the top of the barrel.

Characteristics

M1905 Mannlicher pistol
Caliber: 7.65mm (.32)
Cartridge: 7.65mm Mannlicher (7.65×21)
Overall length: 243 mm (9.57 inches)
Barrel length: 160 mm (6.30 inches)
Height: 151 mm (5.94 inches)
Weight: 940 g (2.07 lbs)
Mag capacity: 10 shots

Operation

• Open the bolt, which is held to the rear by the magazine follower.
• Place a clip loaded with cartridges on the guide.
• Press firmly the column of cartridge to introduce it into the magazine.
• Remove the clip; the slide is forced forward by the recoil spring and a cartridge is introduced into the barrel.
• The pistol is ready to fire.
• The shooter pulls the trigger; the hammer falls on the firing pin and ignites the cartridge.
• Under the action of the recoil, the slide moves rearward slowed by the friction device; the hammer is retained by the sear and the recoil spring is compressed.
• The empty case is extracted and ejected.
• End of the rearward movement and return of the slide to the front under the action of the recoil spring, a new cartridge is pushed in the barrel. Closing of the bolt and the pistol is again ready to shoot.
• To unload the pistol, place the slide in the rear position and maintain it in this position. If there were a cartridge in the barrel it is extracted and ejected.
• Push the button-stop of the cartridges to retract it and recover the cartridges in the palm of the other hand.

Disassembly/Reassembly

• Put the weapon on safe.
• Cock the hammer.
• ress the cover stop, which is located at top of the front arm of the trigger guard.
• Remove the cover and the recoil spring.
• Pull up the rear part of the slide at top and push it to the front.
• nscrew the grip screw and remove the grips.
• It is not necessary to continue disassembly for normal maintenance.
• Reassembly is carried out in the inverse order.

Holster

The Argentine M1895 Mannlicher pistol rides in a “ham” shaped holster, similar to that of the French M1892 or Type 26 Japanese revolvers, also early Nambu pistols. It is made in two brown leather parts, with a cover locked by the combination of a brass loop and rivet. On the back side there is a belt loop and two loops for a shoulder strap.

Some copies of the Mannlicher M1905 pistols were made in Spain and sold as Lira or Triumph. They fire the .35 ACP cartridge and are fed from a conventional removable box magazine.

The M1905 Mannlicher pistol is a superb weapon and it is a representative example of the world technological patrimony and history.

Ammunition

This cartridge, developed in 1898, is called 7.63mm Mannlicher in Germany and 7.65mm Mannlicher elsewhere. It was cataloged by several European cartridge factories up to WW II, and it was produced in Argentina up to 1958. The case is 21 mm (.826”) long and is slightly conical. The cylindro-ogival bullet weighs 5 to 5.8 grams (77 to 90 grains). It has a lead core and a gilding metal or cupro-nickel jacket. Muzzle velocity is 312 m/s (1.023 fps).

Bullet diameter: 7.65 to 7.82mm (.301”-.307”)
Case diameter at neck: 8.28 to 8.45mm (.326”-.332”)
Case diameter at head: 8.73 to 8.85mm (.343”-.348”)
Case diameter at rim: 8.75 to 8.85mm (.344”-.348”)
Case length: 20.8 to 21mm (.818”-.826”)
Cartridge length: 28.15 to 28.70mm (1.108”-1.130”)
Cartridge weight: 9.3 grams (145 grains)

Introduction

During the late 19th century technological advances made truly reliable repeating rifles a practical reality for military usage. Prior to that time such weapons were generally too fragile or complex to withstand the rigors of combat. Arguably the most important of these emerging technologies was the magazine-fed bolt-action rifle. An equally important adjunct innovation was that of small-caliber high-velocity ammunition. These innovations substantially increased the ability of soldiers to achieve lethality in combat. That is, rapidity of fire combined with accuracy to make the soldier a deadlier instrument of war than had previously been the case. On the threshold of the 20th century, U.S. Army Ordnance officers were well on the way to producing a service rifle that employed both these innovations. The product of which would ultimately be the superlative Springfield Model 1903 rifle with its equally impressive .30-06 cartridge. That rifle-cartridge combination would demonstrate its efficacy in both war and peace for more than thirty-three years in its role as the Army service rifle. This essay sketches the historical events and technological changes that underlay the Springfield Model 1903 rifle becoming the service rifle of the U.S. Army.

The closing of the American frontier in the 1880s and early 1890s made it necessary for the Army to rethink its service rifle. That is, in light of the significant technological changes that had taken place since mid-century. Additionally, there was the possibility – albeit fairly remote – of the United States encountering a military threat from South America or even Europe. Amid such uncertainty, one thing remained constant. U.S. Army soldiers needed to overmatch the service rifle of any future enemy. Overmatch in this case was measured in terms of superiority with regards to effective range, wounding, lethal effects on the target, and overall accuracy. Ordnance officers by virtue of their role as weapon developers had a significant stake in rifle modernization. However, the complexity of the problem required more than simply choosing among the most technologically advanced candidate rifles.

Two obstacles stood in the way of rifle modernization. The first was economic, the second doctrinal. The economic problems were those of parsimonious peacetime military budgets. Being perennially short of funds, the Army spent what few dollars it possessed on the maintenance of equipment already in its inventory. The second situational obstacle involved the matter of Army doctrine: How did the Army plan to fight and with whom did it expect to fight. Both the how and who of it were in flux at the time. The only certainty being that the peacekeeping activities on the Western Frontier kept the small Army, some 25,000 men, somewhat gainfully occupied. Savage battles between soldiers and Indians were punctuated by lengthy periods of inactivity and boredom. In addition, there were the much less bloody involvements of the Army in domestic civil disturbances, such as the great railway strike of 1877. However, despite the difficulty and complexity of such peacemaking and peacekeeping missions, senior Army officers remained confident that the existing single-shot service rifle was more than an adequate tool for handling such domestic threats. Despite the absence of monies for modernization and the ill-defined combat need, the Army service rifle was to change dramatically in the years approaching and shortly following the turn of the century. Central to this change were the efforts of the U.S. Army Ordnance officers – only about fifty men at the time.

1880-1892: Single-Shot to Magazine Fed

When the Civil War ended in 1865, the Army had on hand more than million obsolete but serviceable muzzle-loading rifle-muskets. The discarding of such a great number of weapons, in favor of a technologically improved replacement rifle, became unthinkable as defense expenditures began to drop. And so, the Army chose as an option a modification to the rifle-muskets. The product of this effort was known as the “Trapdoor rifle” or “Allin Conversion” as the namesake of its inventor Springfield Armory master armorer, Erskine S. Allin. The rifle-muskets were converted to breech-loading rifles at the Springfield Armory by cutting into the breech and adapting a hinged “trapdoor” breechblock mechanism. This mechanism enabled the loading, firing, and extracting of self-primed metallic cartridges. This modified rifle, and the sixteen variants that followed between 1865 and 1889, served as the official Army service rifle until 1892. The Model 1873 Trapdoor models fired the powerful .45-70 cartridge. This 405-grain bullet had an average velocity of some 1,300 feet per second (f/s). The weight of the rifle was moderately light at 8.25 pounds. Despite the ad hoc design of the rifle, it proved to be both rugged and effective in combat – although speculation on some rifles having jammed during General Armstrong Custer’s Little Big Horn fight in 1876 fueled controversy. No matter, since the late 1880s the rifle had become transparently obsolescent when compared to its counterparts in Europe.

The response of Ordnance officers to service rifle obsolescence was to periodically upgrade the Trapdoor rifle, hence the many variants. However, parallel to that effort they sought to monitor technological change by testing new rifles. These tests had practical utility as they enabled officers to assess such innovative weapons as the Lee, Chaffee-Reece, Ward-Burton, and the Hotchkiss rifles. By such testing, officers kept abreast of technological change. When defense budgetary matters began to improve in the 1880s – Army expenditures rose from $38,177,000 to $44,483,000 – Ordnance officers were relatively well-informed regarding small arms technological change.

The watershed event for rifle modernization came in 1890 when Army Ordnance Department Chief, Brigadier General Daniel Flagler (1835-1899) convened a Board on Magazine Arms. Once again the testing of rifles resumed. However, unlike with previous tests, this board of officers had as its object the true search for a new service rifle rather than simply monitoring technological change. Fifty-three repeating rifles of varying types were extensively tested. Candidate rifles came from all parts of the globe. Exhibitors’ addresses included Austria, Belgium, Demark, England, Germany, Japan, Portugal, as well as the United States. When the testing concluded, the Krag-Jorgensen No. 5 rifle – Denmark’s entry – was the Ordnance Department’s chosen weapon. The inventors of the Krag rifle were Ole Hermann Johannes Krag, a captain in the Norwegian Royal Artillery, and Erik Jorgensen, Master Armorer at Kongsberg.

The Krag was to be the first official bolt-action magazine-fed service rifle of the U.S. Army and it possessed several advantages over its predecessor. The loading capacity of the magazine was five .30-40 cartridges. The 220-grain .30-40 bullet had a muzzle velocity slightly over 1,900 f/s. This smaller, faster bullet reduced time-of-flight to the target as well as flattening the arch of the trajectory, both of which enhanced hit probability. Another feature that the evaluators liked was the fact that the Krag functioned well with rimmed cartridges. Rimless cartridges were still novel at the time and generally not looked upon favorably by Ordnance officers. Additionally, the Krag fired smokeless powder. This was an important issue, for when the Trapdoor fired its black powder cartridge, a plume of smoke easily identified the shooter’s position to an enemy. Or the smoke made follow-up shots more difficult as it tended to obscure the shooter’s field of view. Another advantage was that one hundred of the Krag’s .30-40 cartridges weighed about the same as sixty of the Trapdoor rifle’s .45-70 cartridges. This situation helped to lighten the soldier’s load in terms of ammunition basic load. The Krag rifle and bayonet did weigh more than the Trapdoor rifle, tipping the scales at 9 pounds, 5 ounces.

In the final analysis the Krag’s capacity to be loaded one-round at a time with its magazine being held in reserve in case of emergency would prove its winning features. Known as the “single-loader” concept, it was accomplished mechanically by way of a magazine cutoff – a lever on the rear left of the receiver. When in the “OFF” position the cutoff mechanism prevented cartridges from being moved forward and chambered by the bolt. The Magazine Board summarized its findings as follows: “[the] relative merits of a magazine arm and a single loader for use in the United States service [is such that the] the board adds that it considers such an arm as this Krag-Jorgensen No. 5, which is capable in a high degree of both single-loading and magazine fire, to be vastly superior for use in the United States service to any weapon adapted to single-fire only.”

The Krag’s status as the official Army service rifle was formalized on September 15, 1892, when acting Secretary of War L.A. Grant approved its adoption. However, the weapon’s status was unhinged as the “not-invented-in-America” aspect of the rifle soon fomented controversy; American arms-makers being quite upset with its selection at the expense of American entries. The ensuing uproar was such that Congress directed that $400,000 earmarked for Krag production be withheld until further tests of American arms were conducted. And so, the Congressional constituencies in arms manufacture were given a second chance. During April and May of 1893, the Ordnance Department tested fourteen American rifles. Much to the dismay of American arms-makers a second look changed nothing. Once again the Krag was deemed the superior rifle. And so in 1894 the Krag finally went into full production at the Springfield Armory.

Rational Behind The “Single-Loader” Concept

The fixation that late 19th century Ordnance officers appeared to have had with the “single-loader” concept was not solely their own. Infantry and Calvary officers of the period were also united in their belief that soldiers should first load, then carefully take aim, and only then fire – one aimed shot at a time. This concept was contrary to having soldiers rapidly fire, aimed or not, in the general direction of a large formation of enemy soldiers. This “concentrated fire” technique was fairly representative of Army tactics as practiced prior to 1871. However, by the 1880s, skill in individual marksmanship had relegated concentrated fire to usage only under extreme circumstances. For example, when one’s defensive position was at risk of being overrun. However, as a general rule, officers held that aimed fire was not only tactically better than its predecessor technique, but that it minimized the wasting of precious ammunition.

This trend towards aimed-fire was further enhanced as officers came to recognize the generally poor state of soldier marksmanship in both the Army and the militia. The case was articulated by Lieutenant-Colonel William C. Church, editor of The Army And Navy Journal. In the 1870s he printed numerous articles addressing matters of marksmanship training in the Army and volunteer militia units. His efforts contributed to an awakening by officers to this key aspect of training. Soon, the Army leadership began to place strong emphasis on aimed, accurate long-range shooting. In Addition, other combat skills – such as physical fitness – were tested by fire and movement to sequential shooting positions. Not everyone felt enthusiasm for the new rifle marksmanship. In 1885, Colonel Richard I. Dodge of the Eleventh Infantry complained, “At present the whole army is afflicted with a ‘boom’, a genuine craze on target firing and everything has to yield precedence.”

Along with a new emphasis on marksmanship came added hopes for reduced ammunition expenditure by troops in battle. The psychology of this fixation with ammunition expenditure might have been linked to institutional remembrances of Civil War logistical difficulties. During that war, ammunition had to be trans-loaded from wagons to a fighting position or formation – often by hand-carry while under fire. Such lessons-learned made the expenditure of every bullet appear particularly precious. And so, the “single-loader” concept drove much of the criterion for service rifle adoption. Interestingly enough, this concept was not inter-service in nature. Sailors of the era possessed the Winchester manufactured Lee bolt-action straight-pull rifle, a rifle that fed exclusively from the magazine, an arrangement that did not feature the single-loader concept. Perhaps shipboard ammunition re-supply to landing parties led to markedly different thoughts regarding small arms fire.

1898: The Spanish-American War And The Service Rifle

On April 25, 1898, America found itself at war with a foreign power for the first time since 1846. The Spanish-American War is notable for both American naval successes and U.S. Army shortcomings. In that sense, many war veterans concluded that the enemy’s Spanish Mauser service rifle had outperformed the American Krag rifle during the war. The Spanish Mauser Model 1893 was indeed an excellent combat weapon. Adopted by Spain on 7 December 1893, it had received much positive acclaim by Spanish Army officers. As a token of their esteem, the designer Paul Mauser was awarded the Grand Cross of the Order of Military Merit by the Spanish government. The rifle was very easy to load, reload, and fired quickly. The charger, which was held in position during loading, facilitated this rapidity of firing. Another significant attribute of the rifle was its accuracy. Being on the receiving end of its fire, American soldiers soon learned to duck upon hearing the “peculiar whirring or rustling sound” of the Spanish 7mm. Commonly referred to as the 7mm Mauser, this bullet was in fact the 7x57mm Mauser – a rimless bottlenecked cartridge that used smokeless powder. Its 173-grain round-nosed bullet was propelled at a muzzle velocity of 2,300 f/s. The rifling-twist giving it gyroscopic stability was one turn in 8.8 inches. Moreover, it possessed a relatively flat trajectory and its high velocity made it less susceptible to bullet deflection caused by winds. Both these attributes contributed to its accuracy. Its rifle weight of 8.69 pounds made it ergonomically comparable with that of the Krag.

The exacting accuracy of the Spanish Mausers was somewhat in counterpoise to its wounding effect. In that sense, its resultant wounds were occasionally almost humane. Clara Barton (1821-1912) founder of the American Red Cross and actively engaged in nursing the wounded on the battlefield commented that, “this [Mauser] wound was a small clean perforation, with very little shattering or mangling, and requiring only antiseptic bandaging or care.” She went on to add that wounds to the abdomen were another matter, the risk of infection being significant in that case.

Of the 17,000 soldiers that deployed for the Cuban land campaign in June 1898 most were regular Army. However, included in this number were two Volunteer infantry regiments, as well as Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) and his soon-to-be famous “Rough Riders.” Individual weapons carried by these soldiers were a part of the 51,000 Krag rifles and 11,000 Krag carbines that were shipped from the Springfield Armory between April 1 to June 30, 1898. The regulars carried Krags as did the Volunteer Rough Riders. However, most of the Volunteers were armed with the Trapdoor Model 1884 Springfield single-shot .45-70 caliber rifle. Several weeks into this brief war, some Volunteers were issued the Krag. Despite the arming of combatants with the new service rifle, affording them even rudimentary training was another matter. For example, until the first fight of the Campaign, a skirmish at Las Guasimas, not one of Roosevelt’s Volunteers had ever fired their Krags.

Battlefield Lessons-Learned

Following the American Army’s redeployment from Santiago, a board of Ordnance officers visited the troops at Camp Wikoff, (Long Island, New York) for the purpose of interviewing officers and soldiers and to assess comments regarding the performance of weaponry. Some of the officers interviewed who had fought at Santiago indicated that the Krag was used almost exclusively as a “single-loader” with the contents of the magazine being held in reserve. These officers concluded that magazines must be kept for emergency usage only. Other infantry officers took an even more conservative stance as they argued that the Trapdoor rifle was preferable to the Krag rifle because the former has a rate of fire of fifteen rounds per minute and, as such, was expected to be adequate for most combat engagements. In addition, they said that the simpler breech-locking mechanism, on the Trapdoor rifle, was less likely to break given rough treatment by inexperienced Volunteers. However, by the conclusion of all interviews, the board’s findings indicated that many officers from the Cuba campaign stated their desire to have a clip for the service rifle – a clip that facilitated rapid charging of the magazine.

The inequality of Spanish and American service rifles was both real and imagined. For example, the Mauser’s 7mm bullet, had a muzzle velocity of 2,230 f/s and possessed 2,589 Joules of energy. Correspondingly, the Krag’s .30-40 caliber bullet, had a muzzle velocity of 1,755 f/s and possessed 2,045 Joules of energy. During tests conducted at Springfield Armory in 1899, the terminal effects (penetration) test outcomes were fairly close. Bullet penetration of pine butts (alternate sections of pine and air, one inch thick) was the measurement employed. When fired in a side-by-side comparison at a distance of 2,000 yards, the Mauser bullet resulted in 4.06 inches of penetration as opposed to 5.3 for the Krag. Given the slight performance gap between the two rifles, the difference between the Mauser and the Krag might appear as easy to bridge. However, the single lug bolt system on the Krag lacked the requisite strength. That is, in order to increase the muzzle velocity of the bullet to the additional 200+ feet per second, 40,000 pounds per square inch (psi) tolerance was required. The Krag’s structural strength was simply not up to the task; whereas the Mauser rifle with its two-lug bolt easily accommodated the higher pressure.

American attitudes towards the Spanish Mauser likely crystallized in response to the heavy casualties suffered by U.S. soldiers in the battle for San Juan Hill. Many veterans felt that the Mauser was largely responsible for the costliness of that victory and that belief contributed to the movement toward the American development of a Mauser-type service rifle. Another enabling occurrence came in the way of the 20,000 or so M93 Mauser rifles that fell into American hands at the close of hostilities. Without doubt, the availability of rifles for study at Springfield Armory helped American Ordnance officers to better understand the technology that underlay Mauser rifle performance. Soon thereafter, the Ordnance Department began its own efforts to develop a new service rifle. As a first step in that direction, the Ordnance Department entered into an arrangement with the Mauser company and began to develop a modified Mauser rifle at the Springfield Armory. For this, the American government paid $200,000 for the manufacturing license.

1900: The Experimental Rifle

Per the order of Brigadier General Adelbert R. Buffington (1837-1922), Chief of Ordnance, a one-of-a-kind experimental rifle was designed and built at the Springfield Armory and completed on August 25, 1900. That rifle, designated the “Model 1900 Experimental Rifle,” was a combination of both the old and the new and, as such, it took advantage of many on-hand Krag parts. For example, it had the same 30-inch barrel, 10-inch rifling twist, buttstock (with its 13.4-inch “pull”) as well as a similar forestock. Both the safety rib on the bolt and the firing pin component were reminiscent of the Krag’s functional architecture. The Experimental Rifle sighting system employed the Krag front sight. The M1898 rear sight included an aperture that allowed for wind deflection of the bullet and could be positioned for elevation. When the leaf was down, an open notched “battle sight” was adjustable out to approximately 400 yards. No doubt Springfield Armory’s large investment in machine tools and substantial inventories of Krag parts drove this eclectic mix of weapon hardware. Nevertheless, there was a substantial new departure happening. The Experimental Rifle’s receiver was based on the Mauser model, as were its magazine, and bolt mechanism. These included the critical two locking lugs near the head of the bolt. This feature gave the system the strength needed for a modernized high velocity cartridge.

Perhaps not unexpectedly, the single-loader concept still held sway over the Experimental Rifle’s architecture. Present on the rifle was an Enfield-type magazine cut off. It consisted of a thin sheet of steel that hinged so that it would swing over the magazine thereby enabling the rifle to be used as a single loader. The single-column magazine held five rimmed cartridges and projected well below the stock. The rifle’s magazine used the Mannlicher system entailing a follower, flat springs, and an arm. The trigger and sear were like that of the Krag. This arrangement worked rather poorly and resulted in the rifle having an exceedingly long trigger pull.

The Rimmed Prototype Cartridge

The Experimental Rifle was a possible prototype of the future service rifle. As such, its primary object was to test the feasibility of firing higher velocity bullets than had been possible with the Krag rifle. Such a bullet would result in better accuracy than could be realized by the Krag. Experiments were carried out at the Frankfort Arsenal in early 1900 in order to develop a caliber .30-bullet that would have a velocity of over 2,000 f/s. The initial product of this effort (for the Experimental Rifle) resulted in little more than the standard service caliber .30 (Krag) rounds loaded to a special pressure and velocity. Some 11,985 rounds with a chamber pressure of 48,000 psi were made for the test. This rimmed bullet did use a sharper shoulder (advanced approximately .056”) and a greater length of .56”. The retention of the rimmed case served to minimize the problem of proper head-spacing in the manufacture of both rifles and ammunition. Moreover, the rimmed case added strength in the cartridge head, thereby reducing the possibility of failure when the rifle was fired. The primer for this cartridge was known as “H-48.” It employed a non-mercuric mix invented by Lt. C.L. ‘H. Ruggles in 1899. Rimmed cartridges have a rim which seats against the breech face and aids in extracting the case as opposed to rimless cases. They have an extraction groove in the case body, leaving a flange at the base of the case. The bullet utilized in this cartridge was a round-nosed, 220-grain bullet. This modified cartridge afforded 2,300 f/s at the muzzle of the 30-inch barrel. Tests conducted in October 1900 by the Small Arms Board resulted in the board members complaining about the round’s rimmed case. The rim made it feed poorly in the Mauser-type clip. Most importantly, the board was unsatisfied with this initial effort and wanted higher velocities than this first attempt had yielded.

The Test of the Springfield Magazine Rifle

The Experimental Rifle was submitted to the Board on the Springfield Magazine Rifle on the morning of 2 October 1900. The board had gathered at Springfield Armory and its members included (the Board’s president) Major John H. Greer, and captains, Frank Baker, John T. Thompson (of later Thompson submachine gun fame), and Odus C. Horney – Ordnance officers all. The test entailed several phases during which the rifle was subjected to a series of trials in which the harshness of a combat environment was approximated. These subtests included rapid fire at close-quarters (100 feet) against a man-size target – the emphasis here being on the “single-loader” feature. During one firing, forty-one shots were fired in 2 minutes; 29 hits were made. Additionally, an endurance test included the firing of 500 rounds without cleaning the rifle. For the most part all went well, but on the forth string of firing 50 rounds the magazine mechanism failed to feed and the test was suspended until the difficulties could be remedied. Another subtest entailed the intentional fouling of the rifle. For two minutes a fine sand dust was blown over and around the rifle. The bolt was then cycled to ensure the weapons remained functional. Despite this impediment, the rifle continued to function satisfactorily. And then, intentionally defective cartridges were fired to see if such firings would damage the rifle. This time an extractor was broke. The broken part was replaced and the test continued. Next, excessive charges (64,000 psi) were fired with no negative effect. The bolt continued to operate as easily as was the case prior to the firing. Last, an ease of manipulation subtest was successfully completed as each member of the board efficiently worked the bolt and trigger.

The board concluded that the rifle, excepting some minor difficulties, had successfully passed the test. The major advantages of the rifle were cited as its strength and simplicity relative to the Krag. The former quality would serve as a plus for battlefield ruggedness and the latter for ease-of-manufacture. A negative pointed out was the weakness of the magazine, in that it extended well below the rifle-stock and was thereby exposed to being damaged. Additionally, the magazine cut-off was not liked because the magazine could not be filled while the cut-off was in the “OFF” setting. The board submitted its final report with recommendations on 8 December 1900. They recommended that the magazine be modified in order to make it flush with the bottom of the stock. This modification would permit a more compact staggered column of cartridges and make the rifle more like the Spanish M93 Mauser. And, since the rimmed cartridge would not feed in a Mauser-type clip, they recommended the changing over of rimmed cartridges to rimless types. General Buffington approved the report on 18 January 1901. Shortly thereafter work was begun at the Springfield Armory on a new rifle, a rifle incorporating the modifications recommended in the board’s report.

1901: The Modified Experimental Rifle and Cartridges

The 1901 Experimental Rifle was intended to possess all the good features of the M1900 rifle as well as the added improvements resulting from the board’s recommendations. Perhaps the most important revision was that it was the first Springfield rifle to employ the Mauser staggered box magazine, that is, a magazine fully enclosed within the rifle-stock. The weight of the rifle including its rod bayonet was 9.47 lbs. Moreover, there were several minor changes of detail whereby the cost of manufacture were to be lessened.

Aforementioned, the Frankfort Arsenal’s first attempt at developing a new cartridge had resulted in only marginally greater velocities than the standard Krag .30-40 cartridge. Moreover, the rimmed configuration of the new cartridge case did not feed properly from a clip. And so work continued at Frankfort in search of a significantly improved cartridge. In November 1900, they developed another new cartridge with a velocity of 2,500 f/s. However, new problems replaced the old. Along with its high velocity came a correspondingly high chamber pressure of 49,000 psi. And the rimed cartridge was retained despite the earlier protests. The rimmed bottlenecked case was 2.752 inches long and possessed a rim diameter of 0.58 inches. It was loaded with 48 grains of service propellant. In January 1901, the rifle board members expressed their concerns about the excessive recoil resulting from the high chamber pressure as well as the feeding difficulties attending the rimed case. And so, Frankfort developers resumed work. Within 30 days they had developed yet another cartridge. This rimless cartridge yielded a velocity of 2,300 f/s. Additionally, it possessed a chamber pressure of only 45,000 psi. The propellant was 44.5 gr. charge of Whistler-Aspinwall double-based (nitroglycerin type) powder. The bullet was 220 gr., round-nosed, jacketed with cupro-nickel and lubricated with Japanese wax and graphite. The first of these cartridges were fabricated in February 1901.

More than 10,000 rounds were tested in the M1901 Experimental Rifle. These were probably a mixture of the single or three lubricating grooved (also known as “cannelured”) bullets – the Army service bullet was in transition at this time. In September 1902 it was noted that the gas seal of these bullets was poor. And so the so-called “Cole” bullet was tried—it had smooth sides. This bullet had no grooves and was slightly more pointed. The rifle board found this bullet superior in perhaps every way to the standard M1901 cartridges and its predecessors. And so, the board recommended that the three-grooved, cupped-base, round-point bullet, and that the “Cole” bullet should be adopted.

The Trial of the Model 1901 Rifle

Unlike the M1900 Experimental Rifle of which only one was made, the M1901 Experimental Rifle was planned for a much more expansive form of testing. On 6 November 1901, a limited production of 5,000 M1901 rifles was approved. These were to be issued to soldiers for actual day-to-day testing in the field. It was planned that by 1902, production levels at Springfield Armory would be up to 125 per day. Assuming that the M1901 performed well in the field with troops, plans were made to have that production rate upped to 400 per day, with another 250 per day being produced at Rock Island Arsenal. However, once again scarce dollars as well as manufacturing difficulties foiled the plan. Soon after formulating the project, then Chief of Ordnance, Brigadier General William Crozier (1855-1942) decided that this massive test simply was impractical. He scaled it back substantially. On 7 April 1902, Crozier secured $1,700 for the shop model production of 100 experimental M1901 rifles. A board of officers convened at Springfield Armory on 16 February 1903. And following some limited firing at the local test facilities more extensive testing was completed at Sandy Hook Testing Grounds. Additionally, trips were made to ten Army posts during which the rifles were demonstrated and comments of testers and observers solicited.

The board of officers delivered their final report to General Crozier on 28 March 1903. Within the report they summarized the testimony of 223 officers. Further, it incorporated the input of 4,669 enlisted men. The report indicated that the majority of these men overwhelmingly supported the rifle becoming a candidate for the new service rifle.

The board of officers recommended several modifications to the rifle. One of the more significant entailed support for General Crozier’s recommendation that the barrel length be shortened from 30 to 24 inches. He had made this directive the previous year when the 100 prototypes rifles were being produced. This action proved quite important since it eliminated the need to have a full-length shoulder weapon for the infantry and a carbine for the cavalry. This improvement standardized the service rifle and reduced the need for specialty small arms in the Army. Two other recommendations addressed ergonomic improvements. The hand guard was changed to better protect the shooter’s hand from barrel heat, and modification to the lower sling swivel enhanced carrying comfort. However, not all the recommendations worked out completely. The shortened barrel resulted in greater muzzle blast. The rear sight was moved further rearward extending the sight-radius. This change placed the sight too close to the shooter’s eye resulting in a poor sight picture.

With regards to the candidate service rifle’s ammunition, the 10,000 rounds of M1901 cartridges fired by the board were deemed adequate as the service cartridge. But a small lot of the Cole bullet was held to be quite superior. The Cole cartridges (they lacked cannelures) afforded an excellent gas seal. This difference significantly improved accuracy over the three-cannelured M1901 cartridges. The M1901 rifle was chambered for the rimless .30 caliber M1901 cartridge, the same cartridge that the M1903 rifle would be chambered for when it was initially produced. As a bizarre footnote to the aforementioned, and after all their efforts to increase the velocity of the service rifle, Ordnance officers took a step backward. In October 1905, the Ordnance Department ordered the Frankford Arsenal to reduce the velocity of the Model .30 ball cartridges from 2,300 f/s to 2,200 f/s – eight million rounds would be reloaded to this new velocity. The reasoning of the Ordnance Department was that an increase in rifle barrel life would be secured. Once again the fixation with seemingly dubious economies overrode other considerations.

The Enabling Spitzer Bullet and The .30-06

The classic round-nosed bullet, although still very much in vogue during the testing of the M1900 and M1901 Experimental Rifles, was soon to be replaced and a new innovation in bullet design was about to begin. In 1898, the French had adopted a bullet known as “Balle D.” And in early 1904, the Germans developed a flat base, 145-grain, “spitzer” (pointed). Such European technological change was not lost on the U.S. Ordnance Department. Soon thereafter they developed their own flat-based, jacketed “spitzer” bullet. Whether the Americans were simply copying their European counterparts still remains somewhat unclear. In 1894 Lieutenant Colonel J.P. Farley of the Ordnance Department had apparently invented a “spitzer”-type bullet. However, the utility of the concept remained speculative until German advances in high-speed photography captured drag waves on film and thereby displayed its ballistic efficiency. Farley’s sketches were later used as proof that the German “spitzer” bullet was not copied in the development of the .30 M1906. Unfortunately, these sketches served only as part of an unsuccessful defense strategy to a lawsuit bought by Deutsche Waffen-und Munitionsfabriken (DWM) against the Americans over the use of this type-bullet. World War I delayed the legal proceedings. But in 1921, DWM received $412,520.55 as settlement for infringement. Legal issues aside, the “spitzer” bullet would be central to the development of the M1906 cartridge, a cartridge nearly immortalized in 20th century military and sporting usage and better known as the .30-06. When this cartridge was perfected in October 1906, some 150,000 M1903 rifles were called back to the Springfield Armory and chambered for the new round. With the addition of this enabling technological development the combination of the M1903 rifle and the .30-06 bullet became a reality.

Summary: Object Fulfilled – the U.S. Magazine Rifle “03”

The rifle-bullet combination of all the aforementioned efforts became a reality on 19 June 1903, when then Secretary of War Elihu Root (1845-1937) approved General Crozier’s recommendation regarding a new service rifle. The Mauser-like Springfield rifle was designated United States Magazine Rifle, Caliber .30 Model of 1903. It weighed 8.68 pounds, fired the .30-06 (7.62×63) cartridge, the muzzle velocity being 2,800 f/s and it held five rounds in an internal box magazine. The “03” rifle met the requirement of rapidity with accuracy, and yet it still retained the “single-loader” mechanism. The Ordnance officers had done their work well albeit slowly.

In conclusion, the Spanish American War experience coupled with late 19th century military technological change and improving defense budgets served to promote Army service rifle modernization. However, it was the U.S. Army Ordnance officers of the era that provided the catalysis of planning and testing. They deserve the credit for the development of a truly efficient and effective instrument of war – the “03” Springfield rifle. The accomplishment is more impressive given that Ordnance officers of the Gilded Age tended to be punctilious rather than visionary. Small arms firepower in the Spanish American War was a mere foreshadowing of that yet be in 1918 France. Few of those men even dimly imagined what was coming. Rather they possessed outlooks that were fully commensurate with the budgetary and doctrinal realities of the old frontier Army. All of which made them men of their time.

Generations

The M1 Garand is a product of a different time. Soldiers who trained with and employed the Garand in WWII had endured the deprivations of the Great Depression and looked at life in a way that we contemporary Americans cannot even imagine. A friend of mine, who hit the Normandy beaches around 1400 on 6 June 1944, carried a Garand for nearly a year in combat. He used his M1 to shoot an SS soldier through the head at long range on the grounds of Orly airport outside Paris. The perforated black German helmet with its SS runes attesting to the feat hung forgotten from a nail in the barn behind his house for decades – mute testimony to this humble soldier and the wartime exploits he would discuss only when pressed.

During the early days of the Battle of the Bulge my friend and his rifle squad were cut off from the rest of his unit. When trying to cross back into American lines, GIs made trigger happy by stories of Otto Skorzeny’s commandos operating in U.S. uniforms challenged his disheveled mob. Dissatisfied with the fact that my friend knew the current challenge and password the picket asked him who won the World Series in a given year. My buddy responded with some juicy profanity and the observation that he had no idea. He pointed out that when this man was comfortably watching baseball in New York he was hunting opossum in southern Mississippi forests to feed his family. The picket let them pass.

The point is simply that soldiers of this generation had to make do with less than is the case today. The M1 Garand used in this article exemplifies that axiom perfectly.

Touching the Past

This M1 is a rack grade Springfield Armory example purchased years ago through the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP). The CMP is itself a throwback to a better time in America when the government trusted civilians enough to sell them surplus military small arms. Suffice it to say that such a program would never survive the legislative process today. The finish on this rifle is about gone but it is mechanically serviceable. What is remarkable about the weapon is the condition of the forward hand guard.

At some point in the past the walnut hand guard split under hard use. Had this happened today the broken component would have been discarded and a new one installed. However, as previously mentioned, this was a different time. The hand guard on this rifle has been meticulously repaired by ripping slots cross-wise across the crack and filling the slots with wooden blocks before sanding the whole affair back to its original geometry and refinishing. The resulting component is still serviceable but now has character.

Meanwhile, in the Land of Darkness, Slavery, and Oppression…

The Nazis launched the Blitzkrieg that overran Europe in the opening weeks of World War II armed with what was essentially a WWI-era rifle. The KAR-98K employed the classic Mauser action that was arguably the finest manually-driven firearm design ever fielded. The KAR-98K fired a 7.92x57mm cartridge as fed via 5-round stripper clips. Despite the remarkable success of the German military juggernaut it soon became apparent that the KAR-98K bolt action infantry rifle was badly outclassed.

Design work began on a semiautomatic replacement for the KAR-98K in 1940 and eventually birthed the G-41. As was typical of wartime German design dogma, two companies produced competing designs that were tested in limited combat troop trials on the Eastern front. Walther and Mauser produced their own versions denoted G-41W and G-41M respectively.

The G-41 employed a novel gas trap design that was fairly effective but involved a great many precision machine parts and was only marginally reliable in the face of battlefield mud. It was also fairly nose-heavy in action. When confronted by the more utilitarian Soviet SVT Tokarev autoloading rifle the Germans were duly impressed and redesigned the basic G-41 action to make it more reliable and more easily manufactured.

The resulting G-43 employed a conventional top-mounted gas piston design copied directly from the Soviet SVT. The locking system incorporated into the bolt involved steel wings that were cammed into recesses milled in the receiver in the manner of the Degtyaryov DP-28 machine gun. A similar locking system lives on in the Combloc RPD light machine gun.

The G-43 was produced under unimaginably arduous conditions. Adolph Hitler’s megalomaniacal leadership had stretched German manufacturing and raw material reserves to the limit. In contrast to the objects d’art that the Germans produced in the 1930s, weapons and equipment produced in the final years of the war were roughly machined and in many cases shoddily produced.

One entire production facility used to produce this line of weapons was purportedly serendipitously destroyed during a strategic bombing raid intended for a V-1 rocket production plant. The plant in question was never rebuilt and that production variant ceased to be as a result.

Making Sense Out of Chaos

In the case of the G-43, the design was tweaked and adjusted throughout its production life in an effort to simplify manufacture and conserve strategic materials. The final iteration was termed the Karabiner or K-43. The transition in nomenclature from G-43 to K-43 was a change in name only purported to be at the direct command of Hitler himself. The G-43 was slightly shorter than the previous KAR-98K rifle and was deemed deserving of the Karabiner or Carbine title as a result. All G-43 and K-43 rifles incorporated a scope rail on the receiver though some were not finish machined. While there is a great deal of overlap in technical features among variants, the K-43 does typically have a larger stamped steel trigger guard than corresponding G-43 versions. This feature was incorporated to facilitate gloved use in the harsh winter conditions typical of the Eastern front.

By the end of the war the K-43 incorporated laminated Beechwood or even occasionally synthetic Bakelite stocks and maximum use was made of high-volume stamping and casting processes to minimize machine time. Markings were austere compared to earlier German designs and niceties such as threaded muzzles and detents on the sight adjustment ramp were gradually phased out in favor of volume production.

The K-43 series rifles employed a detachable 10-round box magazine and could also be loaded from the top via standard stripper clips. Troops were only issued with three magazines to go with these weapons as most loading was expected to be undertaken via strippers. Current estimates are that about a quarter million G/K-43 rifles were produced by the end of the war.

Boys and Their Toys

The weapon used in this article has itself a fascinating history. Picked up on the battlefield in 1945 by an American GI back when the country was sane enough to allow this practice, this particular K-43 was brought back home as a war trophy. In its original condition the rifle included a 4-power Zf4 scope. Finding that German 8mm ammunition was too scarce to allow the rifle to be used for deer hunting, the vet in question gave the gun to his young son. For years this fully operational German sniper rifle resided in the young man’s toy box and was regularly used in neighborhood mock combats with other young friends. Apparently none of the parents involved gave the practice a second thought. As there was no available ammunition the rifle was deemed safe enough to be used as a toy. Suffice it to say such behavior would likely raise a few eyebrows today.

During the course of countless neighborhood battles the front sight hood, magazine, and Zf4 scope were irrevocably lost. The hood and magazine have been replaced with late production versions. Combat abuse notwithstanding, it is a tribute to the German design that this rifle could endure nearly two decades of mileage on the imaginary battlefront while being stored in a toy box and remain in such good serviceable condition. Even the original leather sling is still in good shape.

Practical Tactical

On the range comparisons between these two well-used and high-mileage military weapons resulted in some interesting conclusions. For starters both old rifles were still completely reliable despite the fact that the K-43 was firing fairly vintage ammunition. This in and of itself was rather remarkable considering both these rifles rolled off of wartime production lines some 68 years ago. Both rifles weigh about the same and occupy a comparable geometric envelope so maneuvering indoors is a comparable chore with both rifles.

The K-43 is the more advanced design and tactical drills including reloads and immediate action were simpler and faster than those same exercises executed with the Garand. In both designs the bolt locks to the rear after the last round is fired but the removable magazine of the K-43 makes it easier to top off from under cover. The side mounted sling on the K-43 more readily lends itself to tactical use than the bottom-mounted version of the Garand. Additionally, the charging handle on the K-43 is on the left so the bolt may be dropped on a fresh magazine without taking the firing hand off the stock or rotating the action. Recoil is comparable with both weapons but they are heavy beasts so the experience is not unpleasant.

The sights on the Garand are the American military standard wide peep rear and winged blade front. Windage and elevation adjustments are embodied within the rear sight and are undertaken via large thumb wheels with positive detents.

By contrast, the sights on the K-43 have a more European flavor and consist of a hooded front blade and a ramp adjustable rear V. The K-43 sights are more difficult to adjust for elevation and there is no windage adjustment provision. In practical use the sights on the Garand are much quicker on target and easier to acquire.

The Garand is an overtly more solid design that feels more robust in actual use. The K-43 has a much sloppier feel. However, in this regard the comparison has a more apples-to-oranges flavor. The Garand was produced under secure conditions thousands of miles from the battlefront by a nation blessed with near-limitless natural resources. By contrast, the K-43 was produced in a nation bereft of young, skilled male workers under daily threat of aerial bombardment. Additionally, the inexorable allied advances had cut off the Third Reich from much of its natural resource base. Had the K-43 been produced under 1939 conditions it might feel yet tighter.

The trigger on the Garand is crisp and tight and readily lends itself to precision riflery. The same design has been used in both the Garand and its offspring, the M14, for match shooting since its inception. By contrast the trigger on the K-43 is sloppy, creepy, and long, no doubt the result of harried production and strategic materials shortages.

Despite the trigger disparity, bench accuracy was comparable between the two rifles and was still adequate for combat usage even after more than six decades of hard use. The two cartridges these rifles fire are ballistically comparable and are quite devastating out to the limits of the rifles’ accuracy capabilities.

Philosophical Musings

There are several conclusions that can be drawn from these two rifles, their backgrounds, and a practical comparison on the range. First, they really built quality firearms back in the day. The Garand in particular began life as an enormous block of ordnance steel and the action is nigh indestructible as a result. M1 Garands were still used in U.S. Army National Guard units well into the 1960s.

Additionally, for all their incontrovertible moral depravity, the Nazis made superb weapons. It has been said that wartime German engineers made the best weapons for the worst users and there is great truth to that axiom. Surplus G-43s were actually used as service weapons for years by the Czech Army long after World War II ended. Considering the circumstances under which they were produced the longevity of the G-43 design is remarkable.

The resulting cultural and societal commentary is all the more remarkable. Our nation is unrecognizable from what it once was and the transition has been so gradual that many who lived through it have been oblivious to the change. Like the classic boiled frog, the transformation has been so incremental that the enormity of it is not apparent unless observed from a detached point of view.

In World War II, young men, who in many cases were more familiar with horses than cars, or out houses and well pumps rather than indoor plumbing, donned uniforms and sacrificed to rid the world of a tyrannical dictator preaching a diabolical diatribe of hate. When they came home they brought with them the weapons of a vanquished army just as have warriors in every other culture since the beginning of time. These trophies, all operational and many of them full auto, hung above mantles, adorned veteran’s halls, and, in some cases, resided in toy boxes all across the country.

Members of the Greatest Generation darned socks, patched holes, and repaired equipment as needed to keep things going and useful in a time when dropping by Wal-Mart to pick up a replacement on the drive home from work was not an option.

Today’s warriors can be prosecuted for bringing so much as an enemy bayonet home as a memento of their combat tours overseas and American youngsters are suspended from school for chewing stylized handguns out of their Pop Tarts in the lunch room. In such a draconian, politically correct America, crime and general societal deterioration are made manifest on a scale literally unimaginable sixty-five years ago.

Six and one half decades ago the entire planet was locked in the most stark and overt battle between the forces of good and evil that the world has ever seen. As a result of the incalculable sacrifice of millions of American, British, Australian, and Canadian soldiers as well as those from dozens of other participant nations, evil was thrown back and crushed to allow the unquenchable spark of freedom to take light in areas previously smothered in darkness. As an ultimate result my son now drives a car produced by the same Japanese company that built A6M Zero fighters in World War II and the Germans remain some of our staunchest European allies today.

There is a great deal we can learn from the tools our forefathers used to determine the fate of the world. If we took the time to repair more and discard less the world might be a slightly better place. It strikes me as a healthy exercise to disassemble, assess, and compare these weapons to glean their cultural secrets. At the very least, it gives us cause to pause and ruminate on the sacrifices and triumphs of those who left their homes to go off to a foreign land and fight for freedom. We are the daily beneficiaries of their sacrifices today.

Visitors will begin in the front entrance/reception area and will immediately notice the uniform display. Here a number of period uniforms and accessories are on display within walk around glass containers so the uniform in its entirety can be viewed in detail. The next room is the dedicated arms room and apart from the standard arms displayed has a number of interesting pieces. Of special note is the number of anti-tank and rocket launchers on display. Such a variety is rare for a museum of this size and well appreciated with a number of different tubes from various countries.

Moving on, visitors will walk through a complete World War One trench section, with a command bunker and uniform display. This room is darkened and has audio in the background to try to give a realistic feel for the battleground. A good majority of the museum after this is dedicated to World War Two, with the various theaters being represented by different static displays and rooms. The Pearl Harbor and the South Pacific room have a mock-up of a control tower on an aircraft carrier and a representation of Japanese Zeros diving in on scale model battleships. In the far corner were also a guard hut and some displays showing Japanese infantry equipment and weapons used during World War Two. Of special note was a rifle grenade on a Type 99 and one of the training model machine guns that are so rare to find today.

The next displays are of a LCVP being loaded up with Marines off a net and also a submarine periscope that visitors can peer through and view their cars from the roof of the museum, complete with sighting wire and handles. Transitioning into the European Theater of Operations, displays of Utah Beach landing, paratroopers, and a French town being liberated are all very well done and highly detailed. Weapons displays are either integrated with the main displays or are in their own separate sections of the rooms. The World War Two rooms take up almost half the museum, clearly illustrating the social and economic impact the war had on the United States.

One of the most iconic images of the Korean War was of a Marine leading the way over the Inchon seawall during MacArthur’s daring amphibious landing to halt the stalemate at the Pusan Perimeter. The Marine was a 1st Lt. by the name of Baldomero Lopez who was killed shortly after that photo was taken as he was leading his platoon against an enemy bunker by sacrificing his own life. Why show this particular Medal of Honor recipient in a museum encompassing almost 200 years of American military history? Because Lopez was from the local area and the museum is representing a home town hero to bring the reality of the war closer to home.

Right next to the Lopez memorial, are two displays indicative of the war, the landing at Inchon, a MASH field hospital, and the Chosin Reservoir with the Marines huddling around in the snow because of how unprepared they were for the Chinese onslaught and the frigid winter they experienced. Down the line, a number of other conflicts are represented but much less to the extent that World War Two was. Of particular note is the Vietnam section which has a number of vehicles from the Vietnam War and a side hallway that represents a patrol creeping through the jungle with a full combat load. This hallway is hardly lit up at all just like the World War One trench to simulate what the actual environment would have been like to the men fighting and dying in these wars. The Vietnam section also had a video on repeat that showed interviews with various Vietnam Veterans about the war and their experiences. Also of a side note here was an interview with a veteran from the 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment, so notoriously nick named “The Walking Dead” which happens to be the author’s current active duty unit.

There is a whole panel dedicated to Operation Desert Storm but none yet on Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, although these sections are in the planning and development stages. Apart from these large displays, there are a number of miscellaneous items for view to the public that include a virtual flight simulator that puts a visitor in control of a fighter jet, one of the original Ford vehicles used by the Army and a temporary display of bayonets from all over the world. Outside, and around the parking lot are a number of vehicles to include a Patton tank, some radar equipment and a fighter jet in the center of the parking lot.

What is such a treasure trove doing hiding along a highway on the Florida coast? Due to Florida’s good portion of senior citizens, there is also a good portion of veterans in the area. Apart from filling its role as a museum, it has a dining room where any sort of gathering can be reserved, but military reunions are the primary venue. Much of the collection itself was personally donated by veterans in the area cleaning out their war chests to be viewed by a much younger audience. The museum is also a living history participant, taking out some of the vehicles and letting visitors ride in them on specific days. In addition to all these additional tasks, the museum works with schools on tours and interactive teaching tools. So much more than a museum, the Armed Forces History Museum is certainly a community pillar and is certainly worth a visit if a reader should find himself in the St. Petersburg/Largo area.

Armed Forces History Museum

2050 34th Way North
Largo, FL 33771
(727) 539 8371
www.armedforcesmuseum.com

Admission Prices

Active Duty or Veteran: Free
General Admission: Adults $17.95. Seniors 65+ $14.95. Children (4-12) $12.95. Children 3 and under are Free.
Parking: Free

Operating Hours-

Tuesday through Saturday:
10am to 4pm
Sunday Noon to 4pm
Closed Mondays and major holidays