A race car goes fast but cannot take your children to school. A flight-certified computer supports a mission to Mars but cannot play Call of Duty. Different jobs require different tools; and tactical lights are no different.

CANDELA VS. LUMEN

Instead of choosing a light based on a single specification, be it candela or lumen, we should first understand the job. Do we need to search rooms and attics, long hallways, or someone sitting in a car with tinted windows? A flood beam provides even illumination across a wide angle and is best for situational awareness. A spot beam concentrates light to project it farther, just as putting a thumb over a garden hose propels water farther.

Since there is no industry standard for describing beam pattern, we consumers are only left with bewildering marketing terms like “MaxVision”, “TLR”, and “Turbo”. Comparing across manufacturers can be even more daunting; but never fear, since a combination of candela and lumen specs describes a lot… if we understand their definitions.

In very broad strokes, lumens are the raw material which the lens shapes into candela. A laser has high candela but low lumen because it is extremely bright at a very narrow angle. A bare lightbulb has low candela but high lumen because it evenly projects light everywhere. Neither is inherently good or bad; a light bulb cannot designate targets while a laser pointer cannot illuminate a room. The job determines which measurement is more important.

With lumen as the undirected output of the LED emitter, candela is the light projected in a specific direction. At a scientific level, candela varies from dead-ahead to the edge of the spill; that shape shows how tight the hotspot is. Unfortunately, marketing material usually oversimplifies that into a single number representing the peak hotspot. While it’s a stretch to call it misleading, this forces us to infer a beam pattern. However, we can still make an objective comparison in its ability to penetrate photonic barriers. Whether we are looking into a shadow caused by a streetlamp or defeating window tint, higher candela is better.

It’s trivial to say higher lumen is better, but reality is more nuanced due to size constraints. Just like how a V12 engine requires a large chassis, a large and high-output emitter requires a large lens to produce a spot beam. To achieve a reasonable size, manufacturers sacrifice lumen with smaller emitters. Even then, accompanying photos show the spot patterned SureFire M340DFT Turbo has a wider diameter and longer lens than its SureFire M340C cousin. The smaller LED of the Turbo is also reflected by the 350 vs. 500 lumens of the M340C when using CR123 batteries.

Now, let’s look at some real-world examples. The table below arranges lights from low candela (left) to high. SureFire’s M600DF has the highest lumen but the lowest candela, indicating a flood pattern. The Cloud Defensive REIN and Modlite PLHv2 have almost the same lumen as M600DF but significantly higher candela, hinting at a trade of spill for throw. The higher candela and lower lumen of the Modlite OKW indicates that a smaller emitter is used to further tighten the beam. Now knowing how to decipher these ratings, we can choose the best tool for the job.

PHOTONS DOWNRANGE

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here are a few thousand words. All photos within each series are taken with the same exposure setting. Inside our garage, the spot-patterned 95000 candela M340DFT hotspot is so bright as to overexpose the wheels. With only 7600-candela, M340C widens the hotspot at the cost of brightness. Despite a raw output three times that of the M340, the 16000 candela M600DF spreads out that light to create an evenly lit scene that promotes situational awareness.

High candela is indispensable for pushing through vehicle window tint or projected light at a distance. Despite being only 150-lumen more, M340DFT could easily allow identification at 25m and into a tinted vehicle cabin. No pattern is inherently better or worse; mission dictates equipment.

BATTERIES

We prefer rechargeables for high performance, backed up by long shelf-life primary cells. As we dive deeper, a lack of standardization bewilders consumers and can potentially lead to unsafe choices.

First, we shall dive into the fuel that powers our lights. Until recently, most lights were powered by primary (non-rechargeable) CR123 cells; their high drain delivers high lumens. These cells have a long shelf life, with SureFire and Streamlight branded batteries advertising a 10-year shelf-life. 18650 and 18630 rechargeable batteries support even higher drain, and high-performance lights have migrated to using these. SureFire exploited this on its M600DF to deliver 1500 lumens with an 18650 while producing only 1000 lumen with CR123s. Another unfortunate lack of standard terminology haunts consumers, as all “dual fuel” SureFire products use both rechargeable and primary cells while such Modlite products use both 18650 and 18350. In fact, Modlite have separate heads for rechargeable (OKW and PHLv2) and primary cells (Legacy LED-T and LED-F). So, while heads can move between different sized bodies, you cannot use long shelf-life primary cells as backups in the field. For this reason, we prefer SureFire’s interpretation of dual fuel.

Despite performance advantages, rechargeables do have pitfalls. Rechargeable CR123s can reach voltages much higher than the 3V of primary cell and damage electronics; SureFire recommends only using their branded cells for this reason. RCR123s also have lower capacity compared to primary cells; SureFire branded rechargeables only have 450mAh compared to 1550mAh of primaries. For 18650 and 18350, some cells handle protection against abuses like over-charging, over-discharging, and reverse polarity. Using non-approved cells can remove such protection and lead to fires. Not all batteries are created equal, so we recommend following manufacturer recommendations.

FORM FACTOR

Firearm accessories are like Barbies for men. Sometimes, there is no telling whether a handbag goes with a dress until you put everything together, and there is no telling whether a light fits ergonomically until you put it into service.

For example, the need to mount a clip-on night vision device forced our laser aiming device to the side and necessitated a tape switch for ergonomic activation. Said tape switch pushed the light too close the muzzle. While a single cell light (e.g., SureFire M340) would mitigate muzzle blast concerns, we ultimately decided the reduced output and restricted situational awareness was not acceptable. There was no predicting the interference until we assembled everything.

To combat that unpredictability, SureFire Pro series lights pivot around the mount for ergonomic positioning and accommodate different handguards or laser devices. Traditionally, lights mount atop Picatinny rail sections and require aftermarket mounts for vertical or lateral offset. Different mounts are required for different positioning. The SureFire Pro provides an OEM solution that can mount directly to M-LOK and is hinged for infinitely adjustable offsets. Bobro Engineering’s pivoting mount (BM2-FP-000-003) upgrades legacy SureFire style bodies to have the same capabilities. This flexibility prevents the spare parts bin from expanding during the quest for ergonomic compatibility.

SWITCHOLOGY

Activation mechanism is another vital ergonomic piece. Switches fall into either momentary-only or constant-on (aka, “clicky”). Lightly press with a clicky gives momentary-on, while a firm push ‘till a click activates constant-on. SureFire only ships weapon lights with a clicky tailcap, but Arisaka Defense offers an aftermarket momentary-only replacement.

Remotely mounted tape switches allow you to ergonomically fire the light or laser when the units are forced to suboptimal locations by other accessories, or to utilize the visible override feature on lasers. Beware that some tape switches only support SureFire leads; the Streamlight Protac HL-X requires a tailcap adapter, and the Cloud Defensive OWL cannot accept any aftermarket tape switch at all. Mirroring tailcaps, light activation for the Modlite ModButton and the Unity TAPS are momentary-only while the Unity Hot Button and the Unity AXON are clicky.

There is no wrong choice as long as you can maintain light discipline. At home, with a clicky switch, we had no problems modulating pressure to select momentary activation. During class with some adrenaline, we mashed the button and accidentally selected constant-on while thinking we were momentary-only. This lack of light discipline caused us to backlight ourselves during a rifle-to-pistol transition drill. Our lesson learned was to use a momentary-only tape switch along with a DS00 tailcap to maintain the constant-on option. We found the latter useful for relieving finger strain while holding a light on a hallway for long periods. The goal is to maintain light discipline, equipment just makes that easier.

CONCLUSION

You should not select a light based on a single specification. The job dictates the ideal beam pattern while ancillary concerns such as battery and form factor considerations also play a part. Understanding concepts like candela and lumen helps us cut through confusion caused by marketing terms. Until we get wearables with augmented reality exploiting other spectrums, we must augment our vision with photons the best we can.

By David M. Fortier

Since the Communists came to power Chinese small arms development has always been “A riddle wrapped in a mystery behind the Bamboo Curtain”. All we in the West suspected was that the Chinese military was mostly armed with domestic copies of various obsolete Soviet designs. While there is truth in this, the rest of it may surprise you. The Chinese began extensive research and development on domestic designs as early as 1958. This led to the 1st (Type 63 and Type 74) and then 2nd (Type 81 and Type 87) generations of Chinese small arms. In the last 20 years, especially since the Open Door policy, China has made significant progress in small arms development. This has culminated in the design and adoption of their unique 5.8x42mm weapons complex. A system, they claim, that outperforms both the current NATO 5.56×45 SS109 and Russian 5.45×39 7N6 cartridges.

China historically had relied on foreign designed weapons to equip her vast armed forces. Germany in particular was a major player in China from the turn of the century until signing the Anti-Comintern Pact with Imperial Japan in 1937. After 1937 another country’s influence was strongly felt in China, that of the Soviet Union. As early as 1932 the Soviets began supplying weapons to the Communist forces in China. Over time this aid greatly expanded. However, relations began to sour between the Chinese and Soviets after the Korean War and took a nose dive after Khrushchev came to power.

Using their experience with the Soviet designs, the Chinese undertook extensive research and development work beginning in 1958 to improve their small arms. It was based on their combat experience with full power battle rifle cartridges, as well as the less powerful 6.5 Arisaka and 7.62×25 sub-machineguns. They recognized the potential of the new intermediate 7.62×39 cartridge and admired the reliability of the Kalashnikov design. However they were not impressed by the AK-47’s accuracy or ergonomics. To fit their tactical needs they wanted a rifle as reliable as the Kalashnikov but with increased accuracy. It was intended to be used primarily in the semi-automatic mode for ammunition conservation. They also felt it must be useful with a bayonet for hand to hand combat. This was due to their doctrine calling for fighting very close to an opponent to negate his superiority in artillery or air support.

The result of their efforts was a weapon that outwardly resembled the Soviet SKS-45 carbine. Internally however it was quite different from Simonov’s design. It was adopted for service in 1963 and designated simply Type 63. The Type 63 rifle (incorrectly identified in the West as the Type 68) and the Type 74 Squad Auto represent the First Generation of domestically designed Chinese small arms. Not a battle rifle nor true assault rifle, it was outclassed by the M-16 during combat operations in Vietnam. It remained in service up until approximately 1974.

Seeing the changes in modern warfare, the Chinese went back to the drawing board. The Second Generation of Chinese small arms is seen in the Type 81 weapons series. The goal of the design team of the Type 81 rifle was to provide a modern assault rifle with the reliability of the Kalashnikov but with superior accuracy and ergonomics. After studying in detail the Soviet SVD Dragunov sniper rifle (Chinese Type 79) the Chinese came away quite impressed with its system of operation. They eventually used a modified short stroke gas system and a bolt/carrier system gleaned from it. It should be remembered however that the bolt/carrier system of the SVD is itself derived from the Kalashnikov. The culmination of their work was a rugged and reliable rifle with a few features not offered on the Kalashnikov. Unlike the AK-47/AKM the Type 81 features a bolt holdopen, a selector lever accessible by the operator’s thumb, an integral capacity to launch rifle grenades, and an adjustable gas system. The Type 81 weapons series includes the standard rifle weighing 7.49 lbs, a 7.7 lbs folding stock model, and an 11.4-pound squad auto. These three weapons maintain a high degree of interchangability with 64 parts common between them. Overall they are a well thought out and reliable design chambered for the venerable 7.62×39 cartridge.

However just as the Chinese were quick to appreciate the 7.62×39 intermediate cartridge they were also quick to take notice of the 5.56×45. As soon as the M-16 rifle appeared in Vietnam, the Chinese noted the advantages of the 5.56×45 cartridge. They appreciated that it allowed a compact and lightweight weapon, produced a low recoil impulse, was controllable on full auto, and allowed a larger basic load of ammunition and supplementary equipment. This increased a soldier’s survivability on the battlefield. What the Chinese were not impressed with was the reliability of the M-16 rifle itself, compared to their experiences with the AK-47.

Noting the advantages of the small, high velocity round, they began extensive research and theoretical studies based on their combat observations of the war in Vietnam. Their goal was no simple one. They desired to find the ideal caliber to satisfy the Chinese military requirements for use in assault rifles out to medium ranges (400m) as well as in the supporting role of a machinegun (up to 1000m). Their intention was not just to build a series of weapons based on an existing cartridge but rather to build a weapons complex using the ideal cartridge. This “Universal caliber” had always been a Holy Grail for which many have sought but none had found.

After extensive calculations they concluded that the ideal caliber would be 5.8mm, 6mm, or 6.2mm. They then designed a vast assortment of prototype cartridges for use in comparison testing. This is similar to our own SAW project which tested over 1000 configurations in calibers ranging from 5.56 to 7.62. Our final result was the 6x45mm SAW round which was never adopted due to logistical reasons. This shows that the U.S. and Chinese designers came to a similar conclusion as to the ideal caliber. Based on their test results the Chinese came to the final conclusion that the 5.8mm best fit their needs. The result is their new small caliber, high velocity 5.8x42mm cartridge. Designed from the ground up to fit the needs of their weapons complex, this cartridge is produced in 3 different ball loadings: a standard loading for use in assault rifles, a heavy projectile loading for use in their GPMG, and a specialty loading for use in sniper rifles.

The standard loading features a 64-grain FMJBT projectile with a 22.6-grain AP core loaded into a copper washed steel case. The overall cartridge length is 58mm, case length is 42.2mm, and the projectile is 24.2mm long. The cartridge case somewhat resembles the Russian 5.45×39 in that it is tapered; however, the case neck is shorter. It bears no outward resemblance to the 5.56×45. While straightwall cases like the 5.56 are inherently more accurate, tapered cases aid feeding and extraction. The projectile also exhibits a substantial sectional density, although not as great as that of the 5.45×39. Muzzle velocity from the Type 95’s 18.2-inch barrel is 3,050 fps. Out of the Type 95 Squad Auto’s 21.9-inch barrel it clocks 3,182 fps. The Chinese have tested their new cartridge extensively against both the 5.56×45 SS109 and the Russian 5.45×39 7N6. They claim their 5.8x42mm outperforms both cartridges with penetration superior to the SS109, a flatter trajectory, and a higher retained velocity and energy downrange.

Although the Chinese had developed their ideal cartridge they still had one major hurdle to overcome, the Chinese military. During the last Sino-Japanese war the Chinese had made extensive use of captured 6.5 Arisaka rifles and machineguns. From their combat experience they felt that this cartridge performed poorly, lacking penetration and killing power. They felt this was especially true when it was used from machinguns firing at long range. Recent combat experience, on the other hand, had proven the effectiveness of 7.62×39 assault rifles and 7.62x54R GPMG’s and sniper rifles. Due to this the Chinese military wanted nothing to do with a small caliber cartridge intended for use in machineguns as well as rifles.

So in order to convince the military, the Chinese Armament Bureau produced a quantity of transitional 5.8×42 assault rifles. These were based upon the Type 81 and were designated the Type 87. They were then submitted to the military for extensive testing and field trials against the existing 7.62×39 weapons. During these trials the 5.8×42 weapons outperformed the 7.62×39 weapons in every way. They proved superior enough for the Chinese military to adopt the new cartridge for use in the next generation of Chinese small arms.

With the problem of a suitable cartridge out of the way, during the late 1980’s the Chinese set to work designing the weapons to use it. The result of their work is not just a new assault rifle but an entire weapons complex. This includes an assault rifle (Type 95), Light Squad Auto (Type 95), Sniper rifle (Type KBU88), and surprisingly, a belt fed GPMG (Type QJY88). Obviously following the current trend in small arms development, they chose to use the bullpup configuration (except for the GPMG).

I was told that in designing the Type 95 they again took a long hard look at the SVD Dragunov design. This can be seen in the Type 95’s 3 lug rotating bolt, carrier, and adjustable short stroke piston gas system which is similar conceptually to the SVD’s. The main features of these new weapons are their extensive use of high tensile aluminum and modern high impact synthetic materials coupled with improved human engineering. In addition they feature cold hammer forged barrels for superior accuracy. The design emphasizes keeping as close as possible the distance between:

1. The center of gravity of the whole weapon and the center of gravity of the axis of the barrel.
2. The center of gravity of the bolt assembly and the axis of the gas piston.
3. The center of gravity of the barrel and the axis of the gas tube.
4. The center of gravity of the bolt carrier and the center of gravity of the whole gun.

They state, “This design brings a combined effect of compact structure, minimizing the supplementary force of inertia, ensuring a stable and smooth movement of the bolt carrier, minimizing the overall weight of the rifle, increasing shooting accuracy, and promoting reliability.” It is also interesting to note that they claim a reliability rate equal to that of the Kalashnikov. That in and of itself would be quite a feat.

These weapons were designed to use the following accessories:

1. Fixed or variable power telescopic sights with quick detachable mount.
2. Their latest star light night vision scope with quick detachable mount.
3. Quick detachable 35mm grenade launcher that mounts to the forend.
4. Multi-purpose bayonet which can be used as a bayonet, field knife, wire cutter, or a dagger.

While I personally do not care for bullpup style rifles, the Type 95 appears ergonomic and well balanced. The rear sight is mounted on an M-16 style carrying handle, which also accepts optical sights. The front sight assembly reminds one of the familiar AK unit. The charging handle is located inside the carrying handle, AR-10 style, and is ambidextrous. Feed is from 30 round synthetic magazines. The Type 95 Squad Auto shares the same bolt assembly, trigger assembly, upper and lower receiver, and magazines with the rifle. For its fire support role it’s equipped with a longer, heavier barrel to which a bipod is directly mounted. To increase its practical rate of fire, 75 round drum magazines are issued for it, although the standard 30 rounders will also work. In my experience Chinese drums are usually quite noisy though, as they allow the rounds to slap back and forth. Weighing in at just 8.7 lbs it is more of a machine-rifle, along the lines of the L86A1 British Light Support Weapon, rather than like our own M249 SAW.

For reaching out and touching someone, there is the KBU88 sniper rifle. It’s equipped with a 25.1” hammer forged barrel, and the carrying handle has been replaced with a 3-9x variable telescope. The optics feature an illuminated reticle with aiming holdover points in 100 meter increments. Fold down backup iron sights are also provided. An integral folding bipod, with legs individually adjustable for height, is attached to the barrel just in front of the handguard. Feed is from 20 or 30 round magazines. When tested against the Type 85 7.62x54R sniper rifle (SVD Dragunov) the KBU88 outperformed it in accuracy, higher hit probability at long range, was quicker to get into action, had less recoil, had a larger ammunition load capacity, and was lighter in weight -thus increasing the mobility of the sniper. We would consider it a Designated Marksman’s Rifle, rather than a true sniper rifle. In this role it would prove quite useful on the modern battlefield.

The latest member of the 5.8mm family is the QJY88 GPMG. This project began in July 1989 and after extensive testing in freezing cold, hot desert, windy, and sandy conditions to eliminate defects, it was formally adopted in July 1999. Feed is from 200 round belts. The feedway is equipped with 3 rollers, and the feeding pawl also has a roller, to minimize friction during feeding and to aid reliability. It’s equipped with a bipod for use in the LMG role but can also be tripod mounted for sustained fire use. The tripod is equipped with a recoil-absorbing device to enhance accuracy and quickly converts for A.A. use. For long service life the core of the barrel is hardened more than the rest during heat treating. Also a special pattern of rifling is used and the chrome plating carefully kept to .18-.28mm to increase barrel service life. The Chinese claim it to be very simple, reliable, and mobile due to its light weight, coupled with long range and a high hit probability.

So the question is, exactly how well does this new Chinese 5.8×42 round stack up against our 5.56×45 and the Russian 5.45×39? The Chinese have tested their new cartridge extensively against both the 5.56×45 SS109 and the Russian 5.45×39 7N6. They claim their 5.8x42mm outperforms both cartridges with penetration superior to the SS109, a flatter trajectory, and a higher retained velocity and energy downrange. I was recently able to get my hands on some documents containing some of their test results. Testing was conducted using a 5.45×39 AK-74 and 7N6 ball ammunition, a 5.56×45 FNC and SS109 ball and P112 AP, and a Type 95 with 5.8×42 ball. Accuracy testing was conducted out to 600m between the three weapons. Projectile Time of Flight was recorded out to 800m. 3.5mm NATO spec hardened steel plates were shot at 640m and 700m. A 10mm hardened steel plate was shot at 310m. Finally, anesthetized livestock between the weight of 26-44 pounds were shot at a distance of 90m. All the information recorded from these tests is contained in the accompanying charts. For comparison I also included one chart on the performance of typical military rifles against NATO 3.5mm steel plate from tests performed by the USMC Firepower Division in Quantico, VA in the early 1980’s.

The Chinese test results indicate that their new 5.8x42mm cartridge is intended to provide an increase in effective range and penetration. The difference is that it is now possible for the high velocity small bore military cartridges to place fire at medium ranges without the weight and recoil penalties of the older full power cartridges. While obviously lacking the punch of a 7.62×51 at long range the 5.56×45 has none the less proven itself to be capable of superb accuracy at 600m. This has not been lost on the Chinese. Their 5.8×42 ball round is designed to surpass the performance of the 5.56×45 SS109, including at long range. That the Chinese wish to be able to extend the practical effective range of their small arms can also be seen in the Type 95’s ability to easily mount optical sights. While we don’t yet have any specifics on the dedicated sniper load for the KBU88 sniper rifle, that it outperformed the 7.62x54R SVD out to 1000m speaks for itself.

Against steel plate the 5.8 easily outperformed the 5.45 7N6 ball loading as well as the 5.56 SS109. It equaled the penetration of the 5.56 P112 AP loading while providing greater retained energy. It should be remembered though that the 5.45 7N6 loading has a mild steel core and a more even test would have been to use the newer 7N10 High Penetration round. While the 5.8 retained more energy and velocity downrange, there is a downside to a light weight, small diameter projectile with high penetration. Such rounds can zip right through a man without doing significant damage. This was first seen on the Italian Front during World War I when it was common for soldiers hit through the lungs at long range by 6.5mm rounds to recover in a matter of weeks. Recently American troops witnessed this first hand in Mogadishu when close range hits on rebels with SS109 ammunition produced no immediate visual results. This was verified in the livestock testing performed by the Chinese. Here the 5.45 7N6 load showed what it was designed to do and produced significantly larger wounds than either the 5.56 SS109 or the 5.8×42. However the range here was short, only 90m. While the Chinese were impressed by, and commented on the tremendous close range wound capacity of the 5.45 7N6 loading, they also stated that by 600m its accuracy, penetration, and wound capability had dropped off significantly due to its lightweight 52 grain projectile. However they also felt the 5.45×39 to be a very economical cartridge to manufacture. The Chinese were impressed by the 5.56×45 SS109 and felt that it was effective up to 600m. However they felt that it had the disadvantages of high chamber pressures, and because it utilized brass cartridge cases, was not economical to produce.

While the 5.8 was superior in penetration to the 5.56 SS109, the same was not true of accuracy. That the new Type 95/5.8x42mm combination was more accurate than the 70’s vintage Russian AK-74/5.45x39mm combo is really no great surprise. While the AK-74 is more accurate than the 7.62×39 AKM, at the time of its design Soviet doctrine relied on massed automatic fire rather than accuracy. By switching to a short stroke gas system, the Chinese intended to gain an increase in accuracy over the Kalashnikov while maintaining the same level of reliability. It appears that they have accomplished this. However the FNC/5.56x45mm combo easily outshot the new Chinese system. Straightwall case designs, such as the 5.56×45, tend to be more accurate than tapered case designs such as the 5.45×39 and 5.8×42. The trade-off being that tapered cases feed and extract easier. While troops complain about the M-16A2, it can not be faulted for its accuracy. Also keep in mind when looking at the Chinese data that the average muzzle velocity of an SS109 round out of an M-16A2 is higher than that listed for the test FNC. However they are within NATO SS109 spec’s which call for a 61.7 grain bullet at 3025fps 25m from the muzzle. While the 5.8 exhibits higher retained velocity and energy in their test results compared to the 5.56 SS109, the difference is small.

Why did the Chinese bother with developing an entirely new assault rifle cartridge when they could have simply adopted the 5.56×45 is a question I’m sure many will ask. The only reason I’ve been given is that the PLA has a defensive doctrine and if China were invaded their unique caliber weapons would prohibit an attacking force from utilizing captured weapons against the PLA. I will let you decide for yourselves on the effectiveness of this new cartridge based on the accompanying data. How China’s new 5.8x42mm series of weapons fares in service or combat remains to be seen. One thing is certain though, the Kalashnikov’s service with the PLA appears to be coming to an end. While the Type 95 was officially adopted in 1995 and is standard issue with the Hong Kong garrison force, it will be some time before it is in wide spread issue simply due to the size of the PLA.

Acknowledgments:

Much thanks to Dave Brown at Sierra Bullets for his patience and help making sense of the ballistic data in its original form and to Mark Vorobiev for a Russian point of view.

References:

Bolotin, David. SOVIET SMALL ARMS AND AMMUNITION. Finnish Arms Museum Foundation, Hyvinka, Finland. 1995.
Cutshaw, Charlie. THE NEW WORLD OF RUSSIAN SMALL ARMS & AMMO. Paladin Press, Boulder, CO. 1998.
Harris, C.E.. “The M-16A2: New World Standard For Infantry Rifles” GUN DIGEST, 40th Edition. DBI Books Inc, Northbrook, IL. 1986. SLIDE CAPTIONS

By Dan Szatkowski

The War in the Pacific

More than half a century after the momentous events of the war in the Pacific, it is difficult to come to terms with the sheer size of the war and its overwhelming geography. It was more than just a war between Imperial Japan and the United States, it was a vast war in which Japan continued the European struggle to dominate China. It was a war to displace European colonialism and condescension, a war to allocate the wreckage of French, Dutch, German and British imperialism. It was a war of little wars within the global struggle. While the European powers were locked in battle with Japan’s Nazi allies, Thailand went to war against a weakened France. The Australians saw their manpower and equipment drawn off by a desperate England. The Filipinos saw the opportunity to displace a decadent foreign army of occupation, as did the Indonesians, Malaysians, Indo-Chinese, and other subject peoples. Between 1941 and 1945, the years of American involvement, enormous political as well as technical changes altered the world forever.

More than anything else, the Pacific war was a war of logistics. The focus of Western powers on the war in Europe led to an amazing variety of weapons in the Pacific theater. The sheer number of governments involved, and the level of desperation late in 1941, assured a remarkable variety of armaments for the modern researcher to discover. As the war progressed, the impact of logistics was overpowering; Garrisoned stores throughout the theater were swept away by the early Japanese advances. Only the US Navy and Japanese Imperial Navy could move arms and men into battle; all other players were pushed to the sidelines. There was near-total change after 1942. Old World War I weapons inventories swept away by Japanese success were replaced by newly manufactured tools of war, and the overwhelming effectiveness and massive availability of new American equipment after Guadalcanal ensured the decline of British and European influence.

Searching for Reliable History

At this distance in time, the interested student of Pacific war weapons has limited options for truly understanding the war. The region is so vast that a lifetime could be spent exploring the battlefields, and many are accessible only by submarine and helicopter. New governments have arisen, and the ardent researcher is apt to find himself in the middle of a shooting war, if he is not careful. Most of us are limited to researching literature, museum and private collections, and talking to old soldiers. Inexorable demography is reducing the number of veterans able to tell the tale first-hand, and, as one Okinawa veteran put it, you have to decide whether you prefer the “good” story or the “true” one. Private collectors tend to follow a theme to the exclusion of competing points of view, and it’s up to you to sort out the bias, omission, and fact. Museums are little better for reliability, infected as they can be by revisionist, politically active “interpreters.” Equally distressing is the incredible volume of printed material claiming to describe the war in the Pacific, since the paper refuses no ink…

Artifacts can speak for themselves, but they are often not allowed to. Recognizing and dealing with revisionist historians is a major problem for the student of Pacific war arms. We must realize that the wonderful Smithsonian collection is lost to us for now, and revisionism, as seen in the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry might lead you to think that the war never happened at all!

Three East Coast museums stand out from the politically correct crowd, the Marine Air-Ground Museum at Quantico, Virginia; the NRA National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, Virginia; and the US Army Ordnance Museum at Aberdeen, Maryland. In these repositories of history, you can see and examine unmolested artifacts without the drumbeat of Clinton-era distortion.

The Participants, a Thumbnail Sketch

Whole books have been written about each of the weapons, battles and politics of the combatants in the Pacific theater. For perspective, I will only touch upon the equipment of the major participants. All began the war with doctrines and equipment largely left over from the Great War. By late 1942, new American technology began to appear in the field, and new tactics arose to match the “island-hopping” allied strategy for victory. Nearly all of the weapons of late 1941 were passé by the end of the war in 1945. These facts may seem trivial to many readers, but there are now whole generations of Americans, victims of America’s cultural wars, who have not the faintest grasp of who and what were involved in World War II.

Great Britain lost much of her military hardware on the beaches of Dunkirk in the summer of 1940, and she was loathe to share much of what remained with the Far East. With an Army doctrine based on World War I SMLE rifles and Vickers water-cooled machine guns, the British were ill prepared to face the onslaught of their former Japanese allies. A few Brens and Stens went east before December 8, 1941, but most garrisons fought with whatever leftovers they had.. While “British” troops manned twenty-year-old Lewis guns, Indian troops were saddled with inferior weapons like the Vickers-Berthier, and a remarkable quantity of Boys anti-tank rifles found their way to Australia after finding no friends in North Africa. No heavy machine guns and precious little artillery were available

Australia felt abandoned, for good reason, and rushed to produce the inferior Austen and the remarkable Owen submachine guns. “Gangster Guns” had gained acceptance, if not respectability. America, home of the “Chicago Piano,” used the giant island as a huge ammo dump, and American largesse captured the Australian heart. British hardware returned after the crisis passed, but the Australians were never again quite so sure of the British. ’03 Springfields and M1917 Lee Enfields weren’t the cat’s pajamas, but they were very welcome in the dark days of 1942, even if they didn’t share the Empire’s standard .303 ammunition

The Netherlands East Indies met the Japanese invasion with turn-bolt Mannlicher rifles and Schwarzlose machine guns, but too few of either. Sauer pistols and cheap Imperial German surplus items were joined by motley “desperation buys” of United Defense, S&W, Thompson, Mauser, and various sporting guns. It was all too little and too late.

France fought Thailand in 1940 with many of her latest weapons, and modern pieces like the MAS 38 submachine gun would later reappear in the hand of the Viet Cong. Hotchkiss, Chatellerault, and Lebel joined the MAS 36 against the Japanese, but with no more success than against the Germans. Oddly enough, the Chauchat, pressed upon the Americans in 1918 in return for our Marines’ Lewis guns, had disappeared from the French order of battle.

China, dogged by corruption and collapse under foreign intrigue, could field only uncoordinated purchases by independent warlords. A few of everything have been encountered by researchers over the years, but the infatuation with the Mauser broomhandle endured and seemed to be transferred to the Japanese. Several Chinese Mausers appeared on Okinawa late in the war.

The major combatants, Japan and the United States, entered the war with remarkably parallel doctrines based on massed rifle-armed infantry. The Japanese approach was deeply enmeshed with cultural values, and the tactics and Mauser technology were well proved against the Russians and Chinese. Supported by organic mortar and light artillery, the Japanese soldiers applied an unprecedented confidence that was publicized in the West as the Bushido code and Banzai-fanatic mentality. However, the Japanese war machine was ground slowly under heel by American logistic might and new technology. America’s allies in the Pacific at first received largely obsolete World War I equipment via Lend-Lease. The Japanese army and navy went to war in 1941 with similar 1918 technology. When American 1942 technology arrived en masse, the outcome of the war was only a matter of time and blood.

Obsolete Murata 11mm rifles were replaced by 1941 for the most part by Mauser-style Arisaka 6.5mm and 7.7mm rifles and carbines. Hotchkiss-derived portatives also in 6.5mm and 7.7mm accompanied the troops. Small mortars, common in the Japanese army, amazed the Americans, as did the Japanese cultural dislike of pistols. Similarly, subguns like the SIG-made Bergmann MP18 and the home-grown Type 100 were rarely encountered. The impact of the M-1 Garand rifle cannot be overstated, and the Japanese attempt to copy it has left a few amazing examples for examination.

The American army, after 40 years in garrison as foreign occupiers, was slow to rise from its lethargy. Massive underestimation of Japanese resolve and ability led to enormous losses in the Philippines. Generally equipped with World War I vintage Springfield 1903s and water-cooled Browning M1917 machine guns, the American army had poorly integrated light artillery, and the Browning .50 caliber machine gun remained scarce. The Winchester trench shotgun and Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR M1918) were to become firm favorites of the American infantry, too many of whom would be sacrificed on Bataan. A remarkable collection of miscellaneous weapons had been passed down to the Filipino National Guard units, including trap-door Springfields, .30-40 Krags, Navy Lee rifles, and various Spanish leftovers and hunting guns. All would prove inadequate in 1942.

Like the heavy M2 Brownings, the M1 Garands were late in arriving. Once the Army got over its distaste for “ammunition-eaters,” the M1 would join the formerly despised Thompson to transform infantry tactics. Moving ever closer to modern assault-rifle doctrine, the relatively puny M1 carbine and air-cooled Brownings would gain lasting popularity with the troops. Oddly enough, the M3 submachine gun would never engender the affection soldiers and sailors developed for the Tommygun. Like the MAS 38, Thompsons would be found much later in Viet Cong hands, but the M3 was hard even to give away, despite its effectiveness.

In contrast to the polo club-style army preferred by the MacArthurs, father and son, the US Marines had a peculiar make-do culture developed by years at the end of the budget food-chain. Their innovative use of the BAR and Boys rifle revolutionized amphibious assault, when used in combined arms with amphibious armored vehicles, organic artillery, and novel applications of existing weapons. When supplies of the M1, arguably the best battle rifle in the world in 1941, lagged, the Marines made do with the less desirable Johnson. In addition to Boys rifles “obtained” in Australia, the Marines recreated French .75s and Army pack howitzers for the unique conditions on Guadalcanal. Stung by the failure of the Reising as an assault rifle, the Marines embraced the M1, M1A and the soon-to-be universal squad support air-cooled Browning .30s and .50s as they became available. Both the Marines and the Army rapidly recognized the new need for mortars in terrain and jungles that frequently defeated armor.

Finding History for Yourself

The accompanying photographs show a few of the many surviving publicly accessible artifacts of the Pacific war. Their variety and massive scope are far too great for a mere magazine article, but these collections make for rewarding research opportunities, both formal and casual.
The museums I visited display the guns in glass cases and in the open, allowing close examination. All have curators willing to assist the genuine researcher. All are under relentless cultural attack, and welcome honest students of history and support.

I alternated visits to the museums with discussions with local veterans. In the Washington, DC area old warriors are a dime a dozen, but the student of the Pacific War must search for Pacific War survivors. Time is rapidly claiming these heroes, so don’t wait to pursue an interest. There were more participants than most Americans realize, and the inexorable loss of first-hand knowledge reinforces the importance of the non-interpreted, genuine artifacts found in these three museums. The veterans can provide true depth to your understanding and illuminate the greatness of the country’s achievement, but don’t delay. I have yet to find a man without a story to tell.

The Jap 11 served as an incredibly well made and well thought out gun. Its solid feel and beautiful workmanship belie its weight of 22 and 1/2 pounds. The Japanese chose the 6.5 (0.256 inch) cartridge to conform the gun to their already extant Arisaka rifle cartridge. Unlike its successor, the Jap 96, the Jap 11 takes the standard 6.5 rifle round. The ‘11’ boasts a muzzle velocity of 2,440 feet per second. Its sight gradates from 300 to 1500 meters with no windage adjustment. The Jap 11 pounds out 500 rounds per minute in full auto only fire. All parts of the gun show excellent craftsmanship and attention to detail. The Japanese even made some heavy tripods for these guns.

The Type 11 possesses two interesting features, one of which is unique to the gun. On examining the gun, one immediately notices the short off-set stock. This feature later appeared on the Japanese Type 97 tank gun, a 7.7mm gun freely adopted from the ZB-26. One suspects that the 97’s off-set stock comes from the Type 91, a tank mounted version of the Type 11. The Type 91 distinguishes itself from the Type 11 by carrying a long focal length telescopic sight. The Type 91’s sight resembles the Type 97’s long focal length except that it necks down just before the front clamp and front optic.

The Type 11 contains one unique feature, the feed hopper. This hopper supplies the bullets to the chamber by way of five round 6.5 Arisaka rifle stripper clips. The hopper feed serves as a magazine for six stripper clips. The king size hopper feed first appeared on the modified Type 11 designated in 1931 as the Type 91 tank machine gun. The Type 91 also boasted the previously mentioned long focal length scope. Some guns registered as Type 11s may actually be Type 91 tank guns sans scope.

Some criticism of the Type 11 comes from its somewhat complicated internal parts. This criticism stems mostly from point of view, whether Japanese or American. The internals of the Type 11, though more complicated than American design, do work well. The reader shall learn this from the last Japanese soldier who fired this particular gun. He sat deep in the jungles of Burma finding no problem with his gun. The soldier’s bullets traveled straight and true. He found his problem to be the American bullets that were coming back. From the American bullets he did not escape.

Dolf Goldsmith, Ed Libby, and Kent Lomont

Two years ago, Forbes Mathews acquired the Type 11 and a Type 96 from a collector in other climes. Just after these two guns cleared to Forbes, Dolf Goldsmith came to Marietta to research his Browning book and witness the birth of his new grandson. As explained in greater depth in another article, Mr. Goldsmith met Mr. Mathews at a private shooting range in north Georgia. The newly acquired Type 11 became a major player in both of their meetings.

Inside the well-equipped machine shop, Forbes and Dolf examined the newly acquired Type 11. Mr. Goldsmith first examined the exterior and mechanics of the ‘11’. He found the weapon to be in excellent shape. Mr. Goldsmith then tore down the Type 11. He found the interior parts to be well oiled and in excellent condition. Dolf found the hopper to be another matter. Though the hopper appeared to be in the same condition as the rest of the gun, Dolf found a piece missing.

Prior to Mr. Goldsmith’s arrival, Forbes had consulted with Doug Hollberg and Herman Lisle about the ammunition. Mr. Lisle, a long time shooter and reloader, came up with a formula for making the 6.5 reloads. Then, as they say, it got down to cases. For the Type 11, Doug found that the Norma Japanese 6.5 cases work in the stripper clips. For the Type 96 he employed a different solution. Doug took a tip on the 96 cases from the shooters of the Banzai Society. He fabricated the 96 6.5 cases from 35 Remington. The 35 Remington cases neck down to 6.5 X 48. The Japanese and reloadable Norma 6.5 cases calculate to 6.5 X 50. Mr. Lisle calculated the load. Mr. Lisle’s load works well in either gun. .

Before assembling the ammunition, Doug placed a telephone call to Ed Libby. Ed complimented Mr. Lisle on his calculations. Mr. Libby explained that their 6.5 load would work in both the Type 11 and the Type 96, and also advised Doug of the previously mentioned different cases used in the Type 11 and Type 96. Mr. Libby then added this caution. DO NOT USE ANY WORLD WAR II JAPANESE AMMO IN JAPANESE LMG’s. Because the powder deterioration after more than 50 years can produce very hot loads. These hot loads not only can damage a prized war relic but also may do harm to the shooter.

Dolf Goldsmith reassembled the Type 11. He then took it to the firing range. Though the gun fired accurately, the missing part made it a single shot. Afterward, Forbes Mathews placed a telephone call to Kent Lomont. Mr. Lomont sent Forbes the needed part to fix the Type 11 hopper. Forbes, a master machinist, duplicated the part and sent the original back to Kent Lomont. Forbes Mathews later showed us the part and correctly remarked, ‘Don’t try this at home.’ With the gun fixed, Forbes and his son have spent many an afternoon ‘putting brass on the ground.’ In the following the reader will learn the history of this particular gun.

Merrill’s Marauders

The war went badly for the allies in Southeast Asia. Gen. Frank Dow Merrill had had enough of backing up. He vowed to take the fight to the enemy’s heart in Burma. Merrill’s Marauders, along with a unit called Mars Task Force, marched into Burma to take the fight to the Japanese. Both units on separate missions were aided by the Kachin. Even today, no matter what flag flies above them, the mighty Kachin walk free.

Capt. John K. Benfield Jr. joined Merrill’s Marauders early on. The Marauders arrived outside their main objective of Myitkyina Airfield on the night turning July 28, 1944. Capt. Benfield, Sgt. Patton, and Cpl. Wooten took bayonets to well dug in soldiers from the Japanese 18th Division. A night fight, both fierce and terrible, ensued. At battle’s end, only Capt.Benfield remained wounded but standing. His two incredibly brave friends and more than 30 of the Japanese soldiers had perished in the fight. The rest of the Marauders went through the gap to take the airfield. Capt. Benfield brought the Type 11 gun out of the fight. A piece of the Japanese defender’s shirt still remains embedded in the stock at this very hour. Just before his death several years ago, a photographer snapped a picture of Capt. Benfield holding the Jap 11. This photograph ran in Capt. John Benfield’s obituary. A copy of the article and a number of other authenticating documents came with the gun.

On a personal note, I found firing this particular Jap 11 to be extremely interesting. My uncle Will Howard served with Merrill’s Marauders. He knew Capt. Benfield. He very well may have seen this gun in the jungles of Burma so many years ago. Uncle Will did not come out of the jungle until 1946. Until the day he died Uncle Will had nothing but the highest praise for Gen. Frank Merrill and everyone who served with him. The United States Army agrees with Uncle Will. The Army Ranger School outside Dahlonega, Georgia proudly carries the name of Major General Frank Dow Merrill.

In the fullness of time, Forbes Mathews intends to pass this historic weapon to his son. This historic weapon fought battles long ago and half a world away. In time the old gun shall pass from one generation to the next. In the meantime, father and son will continue to shoot together. They have at their disposal a gun in wonderful condition that also embodies an almost incredible history.