The AAI ACR, a modified version of the previous AAI SBR rifle, as it appeared in the ACR field experiment. This rifle fired a 5.56x45mm subcaliber flechette round at 4,600 fps, at a cyclic rate of 1,800 rpm in the three-round burst mode. (U.S. Army)

By R. Blake Stevens

“Reorienting” the SPIW and Adopting the XM16E1

Again, as had been the case in 1964, the most charitable conclusion after the second generation SPIW trials was that neither of the “weapon concepts” was acceptable in its present state. The AAI SPIW was chosen as the better of the two: hardly a choice at all in view of the enforced termination of the Springfield program and the lack of any immediate civilian interest in its continuance.

Early in the fittingly gray month of November, 1966, the Infantry Board formally recommended to the Chief of Staff of the Army that the whole SPIW program be radically pruned back and relegated to the status of an exploratory program at AAI.

On November 7, the Office of the Chief of Staff accordingly directed that the SPIW program be “reoriented” from full-scale engineering development back to exploratory development, becoming in the process just one facet of a broadened, long-term small arms R&D program for the future. The same memorandum announced the formal intention to adopt the Colt XM16E1 rifle as standard for the U.S. Army everywhere but in the European theater.

With the Army having thus come full circle and now solidly behind the M16, the pressing need for the SPIW simply vanished. For the SPIW itself, the collapse of the second generation program marked the end of the lavishly-funded grande époque, the likes of which would never be seen again.

The AAI XM19 Serial Flechette Rifle (SFR)

Nevertheless, development continued at AAI over the next few years, funded largely from within the company. This led to a heady but temporary resurgence of interest in the flechette-firing SPIW.

The Army had seized on the limited but encouraging success of AAI’s 1967 nominal-fee contract modifications, authorizing an additional $500,000 in fiscal 1968 to step up produceability studies on flechette ammunition.

The Army’s new four-phase serial flechette rifle (SFR) contract with AAI became a reality in October, 1968. A field experiment had already been tentatively scheduled for April, 1970, wherein the new SPIW would be compared with the M16A1 under simulated combat conditions.

HQ Army Weapons Command (now called WECOM) publicly confirmed the awarding of the letter contract to AAI on January 21, 1969, “for continued development of the Special Purpose Individual Weapon (SPIW) and its associated ammunition.” A scant six months later in June, WECOM announced that the phase-two prototypes, now officially called the “XM19 Rifle, 5.6mm, Primer Activated, Flechette Firing,” were under construction. This first bestowal of an official “XM” number on a SPIW candidate was an important and long-awaited honor: it signified formal recognition that the SPIW had advanced one indispensable step closer to becoming the Army’s next rifle system.

Calling the SPIW to Account

If anything could have saved the SPIW program it was AAI’s improved XM19 rifle and its later, short-lived follow-on, the XM70, which fired from the open bolt. However, to an increasing number of observers, both in and outside the program, the curious and continued determination to ignore the fundamental gulf between the SFR (SPIW) requirements and the real world needed to be addressed. On July 30, 1969, Congressman Richard L. Ottinger of the House of Representatives wrote a formal letter to the Comptroller General of the United States. By this time, some aspects of the Future Rifle Program were already under investigation by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). An excerpt from Mr. Ottinger’s letter reads as follows:

… I am writing in regard to the Special Purpose Individual Weapon (SPIW) currently being developed by the AAI Corporation for the Department of the Army… It is my understanding that after seven years of research and development and the expenditure of some $20 million, the SPIW is still not ready for production and use. I further understand that some five different engineering deficiencies have been identified and that it is anticipated that some additional 12 to 18 months will be necessary to correct these deficiencies.

I would appreciate your advising me as to how much more it will cost to correct the five present deficiencies and whether any additional research and development funds will be spent; why is this weapon being developed in the first place, [and] when will the SPIW be ready for use by our Armed Forces personnel?

The XM19 is Snatched from Near Perfection

Ironically, it appears that by this time the AAI weapon was virtually at the point of perfection, and yet as the XM19 neared this tantalizing goal its detractors gained in voice and power, and the mood of good fortune, which had begun in 1967, began to slip away, never to return.

Withdrawal from Vietnam Pulls the Plug on the SPIW

In the midst of all these acrimonious thrusts and investigations, the 1973 end of the American military presence in Vietnam effectively “pulled the plug” on any urgent, large-scale development plan for a new U.S. individual weapon. Small arms research, development and engineering (RD&E) money dried up abruptly, adding an indisputable air of finality to the last SPIW developments. As stated in the Research, Development and Engineering (RD&E) Laboratory Posture Report for fiscal 1974, prepared by Army Armament Command at Rock Island:

… In December 1973, the decision was made to remove flechette ammunition from immediate consideration within the FRS (Future Rifle Systems) Program because of technical problems which may not be correctable in the time frame of the future rifle…

Summing Up the Failed SPIW Program

The point target portion of the AAI SPIW was designed to fire controlled bursts of 10-grain flechettes at 2,400 rpm, thus taking advantage of the flechette’s minimal recoil to achieve a deadly, ultra-tight mean burst spread. As regards the crucial characteristic of recoil impulse, the 10-grain flechette still reigns supreme, far superior to the M16 on full-automatic fire. As recorded in The Black Rifle, a comparison prepared by the Human Engineering Labs (HEL) at Frankford Arsenal showing the typical recoil impulse of several standard weapons reads as follows:

7.62mm NATO M14: 2.65 lb. sec.
.30 M2 Carbine: 1.18 lb. sec.
5.56mm M16 (w/muzzle brake): 1.16 lb. sec.
AAI SPIW (no muzzle brake): 0.65 lb. sec.
AAI SPIW (w/muzzle brake): 0.39 lb. sec.

For such a light projectile to be lethal, however, a muzzle velocity in the order of 4,800 fps was required. This in turn necessitated a chamber pressure approaching 70,000 psi.

In the frantic attempt to perfect weapons capable of attaining these pressures and velocities, many frontiers of knowledge had to be pushed back, all at the same time. This in turn uncovered a veritable host of new technological problems that could not possibly have been foreseen and which, ironically, were misconstrued as poor engineering. It was the previously unheard-of magnitude of these new problems – heat; erosion; muzzle blast; component overstressing and flechette cartridge complexity – which ultimately proved insurmountable within the overall timing and funding constraints set for the program.

A Brief Reprieve – in the ACR Program

The following is excerpted from the Collector Grade title Black Rifle II, written by Christopher R. Bartocci and published in 2004 as a follow-on to The Black Rifle, which had covered the early history of the M16 up to the time of its publication in 1987.

We begin with an overview of, and rationale for, the Advanced Combat Rifle (ACR) program from Black Rifle II, as follows:

Throughout the last half of the twentieth century, the U.S. Department of Defense initiated several programs aimed at replacing the M16 series rifles altogether with a new design.

When the AR-15/M16 was first adopted during the early 1960s, it was considered merely an interim weapon while development of the futuristic, flechette- and grenade-firing Special Purpose Individual Weapon (SPIW) was under way. At that time it was confidently predicted that the SPIW would be classified “Standard A” by June of 1965. Despite a great deal of costly effort, however, the SPIW concept was never perfected.

Twenty years later, during the period 1986 to 1990, the Department of the Army tried again, by funding the Advanced Combat Rifle (ACR) program.

It had been a hard but valuable lesson to learn that, due to the high levels of stress, fatigue and fear experienced during actual combat engagements, soldiers will not shoot as well as they were trained to shoot. The objective of the ACR program was to replace the M16A1, and the then newly-adopted M16A2, with a new rifle, which would increase both hit probability and combat effectiveness by 100%.

Excerpts from a voluminous retrospective prepared by the Army Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) at Picatinny Arsenal titled ACR Program Summary read as follows:

“The ACR Operational and Organizational Plan (O&O) was approved in January, 1985 [which] caused weapon concepts to be developed under contract and prototype hardware to be produced and evaluated with troops in a field experiment.

“In September 1982 contracts were awarded to AAI Corporation and Heckler & Koch, Inc.
“In 1984 – 1985, industry conferences were held at ARDEC and Fort Benning. Shortly thereafter, contracts were competitively awarded to AAI, ARES, Colt, McDonnell Douglas, and Steyr [calling] for the development and fabrication of the proposed rifle systems for evaluation in government tests. Both the ARES and McDonnell Douglas contracts were terminated before the final ACR field experiment took place, due to “lack of maturity” of their systems.”

The AAI ACR

“AAI was the repository of the equipment necessary to produce the flechettes needed for both their contract and the Steyr-Mannlicher contract. The production of flechettes was a cost, time and quality problem throughout the entire development effort. There is some controversy as to whether the flechette round is inherently less accurate and whether any amount of future development effort would result in equal accuracy to a standard bulleted round. The pace of technology today is such that it is unlikely that further development work on small-caliber flechettes will be funded for rifles.

“The AAI weapon is a 5.56mm modified version of the previously developed Serial Bullet Rifle (SBR) using a reciprocating bolt mechanism.

“The AAI round uses the standard 5.56mm M855 brass case with M41 primer. The projectile is a 10.2 grain sub-caliber flechette. The sabot is a liquid crystal polymeric compound (plastic), which is designed in four segments held together by a neoprene “O” ring at the rearmost point of the sabot segments.”

The Steyr ACR

“The Steyr system was similar to the ARES system in that it fired using a rising chamber mechanism. However the Steyr ACR fired a single flechette from a plastic case using a radial ring primer. Initiation of the ring primer was from the side of the case near the base.

“The Steyr gun is a true open-bolt mechanism in that there is a spent case normally in the chamber in the out-of-battery condition. A live round only enters the chamber after the trigger has been pulled.

An inherent drawback to the Steyr system lies in sabot hazard to friendly troops. This is a safety concern that exists in the AAI system as well.

The Colt ACR

The Colt ACR was essentially a product-improved M16A2, painstakingly modified to meet the criteria of increased hit probability and combat effectiveness. It was fitted with a new hydraulic buffer, a modified pistol grip, a flat-top receiver with an integrated rail, capable of accepting a detachable carrying handle embodying the A2-style adjustable rear iron sight or the ELCAN (Ernst Leitz, Canada) optical sight, plus a heightened sighting rib proposed by the Army HEL (Human Engineering Laboratory) mounted on a semi-beavertail handguard, and a proprietary muzzle brake/compensator designed by Knight’s Armament Co.

Conclusions of the ACR Program -Reaffirming the M16A2

None of the ACR contenders emerged as a replacement for the existing arsenal of conventional rifles. However, the unprecedentedly sophisticated data collection systems developed for the program, which included the ability to not only record hits but to actually measure the amount by which a shot missed the target as well, led to some highly encouraging conclusions regarding the ACR contenders, plus an upwardly revised opinion of both the M16A2 and the soldiers who participated in the program. The following is a further excerpt from the ACR Program Summary:

… The baseline performance of the M16A2 rifle was better than anticipated in terms of hit probability… No rifles showed a n increase in probability of hit over the M16A2 under the stressed conditions of the test.

The feasibility of caseless and lightweight plastic-cased ammunition has more than been demonstrated in this program. Few problems were experienced with the [H&K] caseless rifles in the test. The past technical barriers of cook-off and vulnerability have now been overcome…

The End of the Road (So Far) for the Serial Flechette

A final excerpt from the ARDEC ACR Program Summary reads as follows:

… Many advances in high-performance rifle flechette technology have been made during this effort. New engineering plastics and sabot designs have solved previous launch reliability problems.
Although significant advances were made in reducing flechette round-to-round dispersion, the dispersion of flechettes is still greater than that of bullets. It is unlikely that the round-to-round dispersion will be reduced further, which would likely preclude flechettes from further consideration as single shot rifle projectiles.

[However,] their high cross-sectional energy density and large length-to-diameter ratio make them very effective against all small arms targets. This, together with their flat trajectory and short time of flight, make them attractive for consideration in crew-served and area-fire applications…

When I answered the phone, I could sense the frustration in his voice. The caller was a friend of mine who head up small arms procurement in a Scandinavian country. His quick greeting was followed by the description of a small machine screw. As he gave me the dimensions in millimeters, I banged out a few numbers on my calculator, and realized he was describing a 6-40 screw – common in our inch-system. He told me it was for a U.S.-made gun sight. He had checked all of his sources in Scandinavia and even some in Europe, but none of these suppliers had any on hand. He asked if I would buy him some of these screws so he could pick them up when he visited me in Florida during the following week.

This episode started me to thinking about U.S. small arms. Is it time we consider going metric? I know we’ve been at this crossroads before, but it has never happened. Maybe there are good reasons now to reconsider. If you’ll allow me to present some facts, I’ll let you be the judge.

One of the first facts to consider, is that a “decimal-based measurement system” (the metric system) was proposed by Thomas Jefferson in 1790 and the U.S. mint was formed to produce the world’s first decimal currency with the U.S. dollar equal to 100 cents. Our system of measure did not go that way. As I’m sure you know, our inch-system is a carryover from our days as an English colony. The last major holdouts for the inch system were one-time fellow colonies: New Zealand, Australia, and Canada who switched over to metric more than 40 years ago.

Flirtation with a Metric Small Arm-the FN FAL

In 1953, the U.S. military had to decide what they would do if the 7.62mm Belgian FN FAL (U.S. designation T48) were to win the competition against the U.S. T44 (M14.) After beating out the M14 in several trials, the FAL was on the fast track to become the official U.S. service rifle, but the FAL did have one detractor: the design was metric. To assure there would be no U.S. production problems, Harrington and Richardson was awarded a contract to convert the design over to the inch system. H&R built a quantity of 500 inch-system FAL’s of exceptional quality. As this production was ongoing, engineers under the direction of Springfield Arsenal’s Roy Rayle, worked around the clock to correct deficiencies in the M14 design. In 1954 testing, the two rifles – T44 (M14) and the U.S.-made T48 (FAL) tested to a draw, and in subsequent trials the T44 went on to win.

Why the big exercise to make an inch-system rifle? To enable U.S. production of the T48-FAL in the 1953 timeframe, there was almost no choice but to convert the design and the drawings to the inch-system. Factories across America had manual lathes and milling machines that could produce weapon components, but these were all set up with inch-system controls. Screws, roll pins, solid pins, spring wire, and sheet metal stock were readily available in U.S. markets, but only in inch-system sizes. Similarly, measurement tools, like vernier calipers, micrometers, and gage blocks were configured for inch-system only measurements. Producing metric components in the U.S. without converting to the inch system was simply not a reasonable option. Success of the T44-M14 made the issue temporarily go away, with no need for further consideration of the metric system in small arms for a long time afterwards.

U.S. Government Mandates Metric

By 1968, most of the world had become metric so a Federal law authorized a 3-year study to determine the impact of increasing metric use in the U.S. Many of the major companies in the U.S. passed out conversion manuals for the International System of Units (SI) that was being adopted throughout the world and trained their workers to use the metric system. By this time, the newer Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) lathes and milling machines were capable of easily converting back and forth from inch to metric so there would be no major trauma when metric drawings reached the production floor.

The U.S. Metric Study was completed in 1971 and their published report recommended we should “go metric” on a carefully coordinated national program. Congress passed the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 and established a U.S. Metric Board, but a timeline was never established for metric conversion. U.S. arms producers like the General Electric Armament Systems Department, followed a government directive mandating that new guns should be metric. They complied in the next product they released, making the drawings for the newest Gatling gun totally metric. And what about the ammunition feed system that connected to it? It was produced using inch system dimensions. Why? Because the government directive said the guns had to be metric, but made no mention of the feed system, so it was a half measure at best. This was typical of the resistive mood of the country towards the metric system. After years of public apathy, spending money, and achieving only marginal results, the U.S. Metric Board was disbanded by President Reagan in 1982.

European Small Arm is adopted: It’s a Sweet Baby but it’s Metric.

In the mid 1970s an international shoot-off resulted in the adoption of the first metric weapon in modern U.S. military history, the 7.62mm FN Herstal Belgian MAG-58. The machine gun, U.S. designation M240, was designed totally in metric. The Army bought the manufacturing rights and the drawings with the intent to competitively procure the weapon and spare parts from manufacturers in the U.S. This required that the Army bring these 1950s era drawings up to current standards, meaning the ones outlined in a specification known as ANSI-Y-14.5 managed by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The Army converted the drawings themselves but left the metric system in place. They also left the drawings in first angle projection – the European standard – but more about that later.

It is important to note that by the late 1970s, the manufacturing scene in the United States changed dramatically. CNC machine tools were everywhere, with most of them easily capable of switching from inch to metric. Many conventional lathes and milling machines had digital readouts added to them, making them capable of inch/metric conversion with the push of a button.

FN Herstal won the 1979 production contract to make the M240 in the U.S, and built a factory in South Carolina. FN knew they would be faced with a challenge in finding qualified machinists and other factory help, but they had experience in setting up small arms factories in third world counties and reckoned South Carolina would be easy by comparison. They brought in their own manufacturing team to train the workers, hired manufacturing managers who had prior experience setting up manufacturing plants outside the U.S., and went totally metric on the manufacturing process. During the first full production year, a quantity of 4,509 M240’s was the production goal set by the Army. Guns from every production lot that year had to pass an interchangeability test with other M240s made on the same line. At specified intervals, U.S. made M240s were interchanged with FN Herstal-made guns and were required to pass the same acceptance test. In every case, the weapons functioned flawlessly and the production goals were achieved.

Five years later, the FN South Carolina plant submitted the lowest bid and won the manufacturing contract for the M16A4. If there was to be a metric/inch production challenge, this was it. There was no plan to change the M16 drawings to metric. In fact, it was never discussed. Rather, buttons were pushed on the CNC machines and machines that were formerly making metric M240 parts were now making M16 components. Not only were both inch and metric drawings on the shop floor at the same time but the U.S. drawings were in third angle projection and ones of European origin were in first angle projection.

First Angle – Third Angle: What is it and Who Cares?

The “projection of a drawing-first or third angle” relates to engineering drawings, or “blueprints” if you prefer that term. Since we must use a two dimensional drawing to define a three dimensional component, rules have been set up for where different views are positioned on the drawing – this is called the “projection.” Europeans set their drawings up in first angle projection while in the U.S. we prefer third angle projection. First angle and third angle drawings have one view in common but the rest of the views are in opposite locations. The differences between these conventions are explained in the illustration, and it all makes more sense if you consider the logic behind them. In the third angle system, the user moves his/her eye around the part 90° at a time to “see” another side of the part and the view is positioned accordingly. In the first angle projection system the part is “rotated” 90° each time for a new view. If you are familiar with one system and not the other, you’ll find the left side view where you expect the right side to be, the top where the bottom should be, and so on.

Textbooks describing these systems make the case that Americans find first angle projection illogical. To avoid confusion, drawing standards specify that a figure with two views of a truncated cone be placed in the title block of every drawing to show the part is depicted in first or third angle projection. There is little danger in confusing metric dimensions for inch dimensions; like making a firing pin 400 inches long instead of 400 millimeters. Not paying attention to whether the part to be made is described in first or third angle projection, however, can easily result in parts being made backwards.

By now you may be wondering how FN Manufacturing made out manufacturing with drawings in first and third angle projection as well as metric and inch. Surprisingly it didn’t cause them any problems. The U.S. Army eventually did convert the M240 drawings to third angle projection, fearing that small businesses making spare parts without understanding the application could mistakenly make the parts backwards.

Where Are We Now?

He we are today, 30 years after the metric M240 was put into U.S. production and where is our manufacturing technology? Essentially with the flip of a switch, practically every modern machine tool will operate in metric or inch. Electronic digital readouts on manual milling machines and lathes give even those machines dual capability and the opportunity for even the smallest machine shop to produce in either system. Even inspection equipment from Coordinate Measuring Machines to hand held vernier calipers and micrometers swap metric units for inch units at the push of a button. And what about first and third angle projection? Most good Computer Aided Design (CAD) systems that we now use to make our drawings can switch from either system by the mere selection of a “radio” button. Our military continues to procure metric weapons including the Beretta M9 pistol and the Heckler & Koch M320 grenade launcher and at the same time inch-system weapons like the M4 and M110.

It is the job of U.S. arsenals and military directorates to specify what small arms will be bought along with the drawing packages that define them. There is a directive in the Federal Acquisition Regulations that specifies metric dimensions should be used. Officially, the metric system is preferred, but there are open ended exceptions to the Metric Conversion Act. This means the military doesn’t really care if your drawings are inch or metric or if your hammer rotates on a 1/8-inch pin or one 3 millimeters in diameter. One of the newest small arms under consideration by the military is the LSAT designed by AAI. This light machine gun, firing cased telescoped ammunition, is designed in inch system and is likely to stay that way unless the military directs otherwise.

Pro – Let’s Do It

Just how difficult would it be to specify totally metric weapons from here on out? There would be changes to threaded fasteners, pins, nuts, spring wire, rollers, ball or roller bearings and other hardware. For the most part, the standard metric sizes are close enough to the standard inch sizes so that nothing is sacrificed in strength or durability. Sheet metal comes in standard metric sizes but this is one where direct substitution that could cause a problem causing the substituted part to be too thick or too thin. This change does require careful study and potentially some dimensional changes to mating parts.

Our NATO and other allies are all using the metric system and sometimes our weapons systems. If our small arms were designed with metric, components like pins, screws, and other hardware, would be available to them in their normal supply chains avoiding situations like the one my Scandinavian friend encountered. In short, metrification would make all U.S. small arms more attractive to the rest of the world.

Likely the best reason is that the metric system is incredibly simple. U.S. schools are teaching the metric system and students are finding it easier than our inch system. One high school teacher told me that when her students are required to make measurements, she gives them metric rulers. She switched from inch rulers because students became so bogged down with fractional inch conversions; they were missing the point of the exercise.

Con – Let’s Don’t

We’ve been making parts in inch system dimensions for a long time, now, and have a ready supply of inch system hardware and components. In many cases, metric components are more expensive. The easiest path forward is to continue to let small arms manufacturers produce weapons using any system they want.

Any change, no matter how small, always has an associated price. Not every machine shop is equipped with the latest machine tools and measuring equipment, and even those that do, will still find a certain percentage of their equipment will become obsolete.

The manufacturing success at FN aside, it cannot be denied, there is always the possibility of making manufacturing mistakes when using both inch and metric drawings in the same factory. Introducing metric drawings in first angle projection will only compound the problem.

Conclusion

It’s decision time. Do we make the change to metric in small arms now, or do we kick the can down the road and hope for the best? After all, we still have some allies who, like us, have not adopted the metric system – Liberia and Myanmar. If we hurry, we might at least say we’re not the last country to “Go Metric.”

By Jim Schatz

Each year, as the air turns cool in the Washington, DC metro area and the trees that line the banks of the Potomac River begin to turn to color, the Army rallies for the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) Annual Meeting and Exposition held in 2007 from October 8-10 at the Washington Convention Center. This year’s event was larger than any before it and is, as always, an excellent opportunity to see the latest military equipment on display from around the world; not to mention the small arms – the real focus of this report

Protestors

As one arrived at the site of the show, the AUSA banners flew high and proudly from the tall buildings in downtown DC. The day was clear and sunny, a perfect day for such an event and folks were in high spirits as they made their way to the convention center by taxi, the Metro and on foot. However, this feeling of slight elation was dampened by the chanting and insulting signs of anti-war/anti-America protestors roaming outside of the center and harassing the visitors and denigrating the soldiers and contractors entering the facility. Waving their “blood” stained hands in the faces of the attendees and harassing our brave men and women warriors making their way inside, one could not help but wonder if they realize that their very right to protest, to spout their anti-freedom rantings, has and was paid for with the blood of so many courageous military men and women who have sacrificed so unselfishly and so dearly for our freedoms. To their great credit, the proud and disciplined soldiers in uniform were seemingly not enraged by the actions and mindless rantings of the protestors.

Quietly and Professionally

The mood inside the building was positive, electric in a way and yet reserved. The “surge” in Iraq is clearly working. Civilian and U.S. military deaths are down and insurgent deaths are up. The Army has once again, as it has always done quietly and professionally, performed at its very best for America and for the Iraqi citizens who maybe do not yet realize fully what freedom, independence and a true self governing country is.

The Army gathers each year at the annual AUSA Meeting to celebrate its successes, recognize its heroes and in many quiet ways morn its irreplaceable loses. In 2007, there was much work to be done in all these areas.

The big news on the show floor, besides the hum about troop withdrawals and the success of the surge and the meeting and greeting of old friends and comrades in arms, was the then very recent announcement of the sizable contract awards for new armored vehicles called MRAP. The MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protection) translates to highly mobile but equally protected wheeled vehicles to provide improved protection against IEDs and RPGs. More than 6,400 RG31 MK5 MRAPs have been ordered thus far for the Army alone from just one of numerous vendor teams, BAE Systems through its partnership with General Dynamics Land Systems, while another 600 MK5Es, an extended version of the RG31, have been ordered on a separate $135 million dollar contract for the U.S. Marine Corps. These are huge contracts with the biggest defense contractors in the world. The show floor was awash with armored vehicles of all shapes, sizes and even colors (yes, there was one in British SAS desert “pink” as well). The MRAPs have proven highly effective in countering modern ballistics threats with U.S. and coalition forces. They have and will continue to save lives on the battlefields wherever they are deployed. Most countries involved in OEF/OIF are buying into them at the moment.

AAI
(www.aaicorp.com)

The U.S. Army’s LSAT (Lightweight Small Arms Technology) demonstrator program continues with further success with both its Cased Telescoped (CT) and Caseless Telescoped (CL) ammunition types. AAI reps reported that to date 6,000 rounds of CT ammunition have been fired in the LSAT LMG prototype 001 with prototype 002 testing to begin shortly. Various successful live-fire demonstrations had been conducted for U.S. Army officials at Fort Benning and elsewhere. The caseless ammunition firing weapon is further behind and is challenging the designers to solve the tough-nut chamber sealing issue that haunts all auto-loading caseless ammunition firing small arms. Reportedly, the firing mechanism is in final development with a two-part expanding chamber design similar to that of the ill-fated H&K G11 Rifle.

Thus far, 100 rounds of the rectangular DNAG G11-style ammunition, the basis for the LSAT caseless ammunition, have been fired on test fixtures only. The first cylindrical LSAT caseless ammunition was expected to be completed by end of CY07.

While still clearly in the early R&D stages of development, the LSAT program offers scalable technology that can be applied to other types of small arms such as 7.62mm rifles and machine guns. LSAT offers 35-50% system (weapon, links, ammo) weight savings, but only if system durability and soldier ruggedness can be assured. Watch this program carefully. Put your money on the CT ammo.

Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.
(www.barrettrifles.com)

The big news at the Barrett booth this year was their 240LW, an in-house development to reduce the overall weight of the U.S. M240 GPMG. The Barrett 240LW (LW for Light Weight) employs a fluted barrel and one-piece CNC machined steel receiver. Offering a weight reduction of 5.5 pounds, this brings the outstanding reliability of the otherwise heavy M240 machine gun into a more portable, maneuverable weight range of 21.5 pounds, and along the lines of lighter GPMGs like the M60 and HK21E, without the need to employ more exotic materials with questionable durability. While there is no official program for this Barrett-funded creation, one can only wonder, “Why not?” Barrett also announced at AUSA that the “BORS” (Barrett Optical Ranging System) is now available for commercial sale at $1,500 each with mount; $2,700 with the L&S MKIV telescopic sight.

Beretta Law Enforcement and Defense Group
(www.BerettaLE.com)

Beretta Firearms Company may be the longest running small arms exhibitor at the AUSA event, continuously supporting the U.S. Army Annual Meeting for more than 23 years. The newest product on display at the Beretta booth this year was the new Px4 Storm Subcompact Pistol. Available in calibers 9x19mm Luger and .40 S&W, the Px4 Subcompact, with 3-inch barrel, weighs only 26 ounces and holds an impressive number of cartridges (thirteen 9mm rounds or ten .40 S&W rounds) for such adiminutive pistol.

Colt Defense, LLC
(www.colt.com)

This year Colt came to the AUSA Show to impress the attendees with new and long awaited developments in the M4 family of weapons. This includes the open public display (and even disassembly) of thehighly secretive M5 Advanced Military Carbine with piston operated gas system, Colt’s new patented aluminum rail system offering 100% return to zero capability and redesigned front sight assembly. Other unique features include barrel heat sink and airflow grooves to help cool a hot barrel and reduce the occurrence of cook off. Colt claims the new op rod M4 has fired over 12,000 rounds without cleaning or stoppages. It is even fitted with proprietary drain system to allow for over-thebeach use wherein the operator can safely fire the weapon without the need to first fully drain water from the interior of the weapon.

In addition to the Colt LE1020 Law Enforcement Carbine with piston operated gas system, Colt representatives were also showing SLA models of various prototype folding stocks for use with the M4 and M5 Carbines to reduce the overall length of the weapon to compact PDW size. The Colt 5.56mm PDW, as it was being referred to, sports a 10.3-inch barrel, new buffer and spring built into the back of the bolt carrier, 3-position QD sling attachment points and LaserMax vertical foregrip with green aiming laser. Firing at 700-900 rounds per minute, the Colt 5.56mm PDW stands ready for the release of the long rumored requirement from the U.S. Army for a rifle-caliber Personal Defense Weapon. At the time of writing, little additional information was available on any such release by the U.S. Army for such a weapon. However, according to sources within PEO Soldier, this requirement is still being written by the user proponent.

FNH U.S.A, LLC
(www.fnhusa.com)

The big news at the FN booth was, of course, SCAR. If reports from both company representatives and from U.S. officials are correct, the SCAR Light and Heavy models and the 40mm EGLM grenade launcher could enter series production as early as March 2008. Reportedly production, fielding and logistical funds have been programmed for full SCAR (12-16 thousand units) and EGLM fielding within USSOCOM once the full production Milestone C decision is made. This is expected to come after the final Operational Test (OT) report is completed and reviewed. At the time of writing, the USSOCOM was finishing up the last of the OT phases with U.S. Army Rangers and Special Forces, U.S. Navy SEALs and U.S. Marine Corps MARSOC personnel. One interesting note was that the BOI (Basis of Issue), which was originally heavy on the SCAR-L (5.56x45mm NATO) side, has now been revamped and it shifted to the SCAR-H (7.62x51mm NATO) variants at the request of the user community. Maybe someone in the SOF world knows something we don’t? An 85% commonality of parts between the SCAR-L and SCAR-H certainly will help to reduce the logistical burden on the organization, especially when one considers just how many different weapons the SCAR family will eventually replace.

The SCAR-L was also involved in the congressionally mandated Extreme Sand/Dust Tests at Aberdeen in 2007 wherein it competed against its potential rivals in the U.S. DoD rifle market. This included the XM8, HK416 and Colt M4. Reportedly, the SCAR-L completed the test with good results but not before a change in the lubrication cycle was required to insure reliable function and test completion. The op rod SCAR-L did reportedly finish ahead of the direct gas operated M4 along with the other two operating rod carbines tested.

General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products
(www.gdatp.com)

(GD) announced that the .50 caliber XM312 is now a separate effort split from the Army’s Future Combat System program and has received some close attention from the U.S. Army and USSOCOM recently for potential replacement of the venerable M2HB heavy machine gun. The XM312 has been modified to accept the standard U.S. M9 disintegrating metal link belt common to the U.S. M2HB. Due to the light weight and reduced recoil of the XM312, it can be mounted and employed anywhere a 7.62x51mm M240 GPMG can be used. Under the current schedule, Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) of the XM312 is anticipated to begin in 2010 with full production to begin in 2011.

GD representatives also stated that M2HB and MK19 production is “maxed out” at the moment with series production ramped up to meet U.S. and foreign friendly requirements. Approximately 1,800 to over 2,000 of each will have been procured during CY07.

NAMMO
(www.nammo.com)

If you want to witness ammunition and ordnance perfection and innovation, the NAMMO booth at AUSA is the one to visit. Makers of some of the finest high performance small arms ammunition in the world, to include the armor piercing M995 (5.56x45mm NATO) and M993 (7.62x51mm NATO) rounds, they also have an IR Tracer round now in final U.S. Navy qualification testing for use with passive night vision devices. Most notably the progress of the preprogrammed air bursting 40x53mm HV ammunition for the U.S. MK47 Striker ALGL (Advanced Lightweight Grenade Launder) is now in final type classification in the U.S. 90,000 rounds will have been delivered to the USSOCOM by December 2007 for combat evaluations by USSOCOM and other U.S. Army units.

Night Vision Systems
(www.nightvisionsystems.com)

NVS had on display the clip-on Knight’s Armament Company Universal Night Scope Thermal (UNST), or model M890. The maker claims this small 23-ounce device, mounted forward of a variety of optical and reflex sights, can provide human target detection up to 1,000 meters. The UNST can be quickly detached via the throw lever mount, fits on most any rifle or scope and can even be used in a hand held mode when detached.

ST Kinetics
(www.stengg.com)

Singapore based ST Kinetics had on display in their booth a series production sample of their new Air Bursting Modular System (ABMS) for any 40x53mm grenade machine guns. This bolt-on system can be added to the weapon in minutes by the operator and allows for the use of preprogrammed air bursting ammunition to attack targets hidden behind cover, in the defilade, using their quick attach Fire Control System. Using time-of-flight technology, the ABMS ammunition contains 300 tungsten balls within its warhead and costs approximately $350-400 each. Each round has a self-destruct feature and when programmed for air burst will detonate 2 meters above the target and at any location before or after a barrier as determined by the gunner. The ammunition programming “coil” attaches to the muzzle of the grenade launcher and therefore requires no permanent modification to the host weapon. The entire system costs $50,000 at this time. ST Kinetics is also currently working on a 40x46mm LV air burst system as well.

Part 2 of the 2007 AU.S.A Show Report appears in the next issue of SAR and covers current U.S. Army small arms programs and the results of the recent U.S. Army Extreme Carbine Sand/Dust Tests.