(This is a multi-part series. Click here to read Part I.)

In the last chapter of this story, we talked about the conversions patented and made during the interwar period. The United States had set out requirements for a new semi-automatic rifle, one of them being to re-use as much tooling from the M1903 Springfield as possible. Brand new nations rose up after the end of the first world war, like Czechoslovakia and Poland, who had to scavenge as much equipment their former overlords had left behind while trying to keep up technologically with the other great powers, leading them into the “conversion” route. Italy followed a similar route as the United States, having interchangeability/ease of manufacture in mind.

With the ascension of Germany and the threat of war looming again, some countries resorted to drastic measures to arm themselves. By the start of WWII, semi-automatic rifles had progressed to a point where they were viewed viable as an army’s standard issue rifle, like the M1 Garand. However, their importance was neglected by other nations like the United Kingdom, who, even though ran many trials throughout the interwar period, failed to adopt a semi-automatic rifle in time for the Second World War.

Others tried to capitalize on this issue, companies like A/B Snabb marketed a way to convert “obsolete” bolt-action rifles into semi-automatic ones for a fraction of the price. Though an attractive proposal, these usually came with a few caveats. Most conversions, however, came from private inventors trying to help their countries in such a time of need.

THE SUN NEVER SETS

The Commonwealth had a rough start in the Second World War. Despite many trials conducted in the inter-war period, they never settled on adopting any kind of semi-automatic rifle or submachinegun, finding them superfluous. With Germany’s Blitzkrieg catching the British by surprise in Dunkirk, the advances made in Africa and the Japanese threat in the Pacific, it was realized that there was a need for desperate modernization of small-arms in the Commonwealth forces.

The most successful attempt out of all of the conversions submitted was the Charlton Automatic Rifle. In fact, it is quite likely the most successful conversion ever made. This system was the brainchild of inventor Philip Charlton, who noticed his country’s dire situation when Japan declared war while most ANZAC troops were fighting on the North African front. The rifle was tested and passed with flying colors, which was followed by an order of converting 1,500 rifles, mostly obsolete MLEs and Lee-Metfords left over from the Boer war.

The Charlton operated very similarly to other Lee-Enfield conversions, with a gas-tube being precariously attached to the right side of the gun. However, the New Zealand model was unique in a sense, since it was one of the few conversions that allowed for fully automatic fire. The other Charlton manufactured in Australia was a more conventional rifle, having most of the inner workings covered up and being semi-automatic only.

Another less well-known rifle from the Oceanic colonies was the Ekins, however there is no evidence that his rifle went farther than a surviving draft dated to 1944.

The Rieder was another proposal from the colonies, this time from South Africa. Henry Rieder, who tinkered with radios and televisions, proposed a simple conversion of the SMLE to the South African authorities in early 1940. 18 rifles were then modified, and some were sent to England for formal trials. It seems that by 1944 with the war almost at an end in Europe the Rieder rifle was finally set aside, with a single rifle being returned to Rieder on behalf of the Admiralty.

Also from South Africa, the curious Howard-Francis carbine, chambered in 7.63x25mm Mauser. It was shortly trialed by the Ordnance Board in London where it failed to meet even the most basic expectations. The feed system malfunctioned, had to be manually fed every shot, and the rifle was noted to have extremely poor accuracy. The Ordnance Board concluded that there was no point in any further interest due to its poor results in the tests. Information about other submissions from the Empire are, unfortunately, hard to come by. Included is the Brown machine-pistol adapter for the No.1 and No.4 rifles, apparently it was very similar to the American Pedersen device of the First World War.

Designs from other countries were also considered. Rehnberg and his company offered to convert an SMLE to the SNABB system, which as far as the author knows was never undertaken. The other was the Scotti system being applied to a P14 Enfield rifle, which was completed and sent to the British for testing before the start of the Second World War. The rifle had a rough start, as when it arrived from Italy, some parts were already broken off and certain accouterments requested for testing were not present, such as spare barrels. Nevertheless, the British continued trials of this rifle until 1941 when it was finally deemed unacceptable. Meanwhile in Canada, a curious SMLE conversion by the American Russel Turner was being tested against the M1 Garand. Unfortunately, even though in some aspects it performed better than its competitor, it still lost out because it was deemed too complex.

MISCELLANEOUS COUNTRIES & CONVERSIONS

By the time the Second World War started, most countries had already written out conversions as a possibility, instead opting for brand new semi-automatic rifles, like the SVT-40 in Russia, the M1 Garand in the United States, and the G41/43 rifles in Germany. Despite this, some minor nations still considered the idea viable. As I couldn’t locate many from a single country like I’ve done in prior entries in this series, this part is going to be an amalgamation of what I was able to identify.

In Greece, we have the Rigopoulos conversion. Being tested shortly before the German invasion of the mainland, it was apparently approved for adoption and requests were sent for its production. Despite this, the author has not been able to identify much information about this rifle.

In Russia, at least two conversions were tested before the adoption of the SVT-40; these are the Mamontov and the Goryainov. Both worked in a very peculiar way, by utilizing the slight movement of a cartridge between the bolt face and the chamber, comparable to earlier attempts by Georg Roth and Garand of making primer-actuated rifles.

In Sweden, during trials to adopt the Ljungman self-loading rifle, an inventor named Erik Wallberg submitted a few designs for converting the Swedish Mauser to be semi-automatic. They all utilized a simple gas piston. Wallberg would go on to build SLRs from the ground up instead of conversions using the same principle.

And finally, China. In 1944, engineers named Wen Chengding, Wu, and Liu developed an automatic rifle based on the Arisaka by simply attaching a gas-piston to the left side of the gun. It seems that the rifle was tested against a M1 Carbine, which the designers remarked that their rifle had a better muzzle velocity and range.

by Pierangelo Tendas

One of Italy’s oldest firearms manufacturer and potentially the oldest dedicated barrel maker in the world, with over 300 years of experience, Sabatti S.p.A. introduced its first line of dedicated bolt-action rifles in 1993: dubbed “Rover”, the product line would remain in production for approximately twenty years and establish itself as one of the first European examples of what American companies had done with the likes of the Remington 700, that is, a basic action iterated in a number of variants, each conceived for a specific use or set of uses.

The Sabatti Rover rifles were built around a Mauser type action, with two sturdy locking lugs, and an all-steel receiver, cold hammer forged barrel, and bolt. While some variants of the Rover series were conceived for sport shooting, the main focus of the line was hunting: calibers available included all the most popular north American and European hunting cartridges, and some versions were available in African big game calibers. Production quality was so good that most original Sabatti Rover rifles are still out there, on the line, in the hands of countless hunters and shooters who bought them originally when they were in production.

In the past fifteen years, however, Sabatti’s business focus shifted from hunting rifles and shotguns to long-range rifles for competition shooting and tactical applications. Fifteen years is a long time to build and consolidate a full new background and know-how: new technologies, new materials, new engineering, the pursuit of new technical solutions in search for greater accuracy and performance. When the time came to distill such a treasure of experiences in a new series of rifles that would get all users’ needs covered – from hunting, to sport shooting, to patrol and tactical, the closest anybody in Europe ever got to a Remington 700 type of experience! – it just made sense to homage the Sabatti tradition by giving it a classic name, an official appointment as the heir of the Sabatti tradition of gunmaking.

The New Rover

Sabatti introduced the new and improved Rover series on the European market in the second half of 2021, and on the U.S. market at the 2022 SHOT Show in Las Vegas. Featuring an entirely new action, precision engineering and manufacture, and a slew of other Sabatti signature features, the new Rover family includes, as of today, 13 different variants – definitely something to please everybody.

Of these 13 variants – or to be more specific, of the ten out of 13 entries in the family that are solely or partially intended for hunting purposes – three are dedicated to a specific breed of hunters, those who don’t want to give up elegance and style even in the toughest hunting scenarios: the Sabatti Rover Hunter, Rover Hunter Classic, and Rover Hunter Classic Pro.

Like all the entries in the new Sabatti Rover series, the Hunter, Hunter Classic, and Hunter Classic Pro are based on the same barreled action. First and foremost, the common feature of all the new Sabatti Rover rifles is the barreled action: gone is the old Mauser-style action, in favor of a bolt very similar to – but not exactly the same as – those found on Sabatti’s modern long-range shooting rifles based on the Blizzard action. These are machined out of special steel, with three sturdy locking lugs, and heat-treated, hardened and tempered, quenched, the chrome-lined to the exact level of thickness to match the tolerances of the receiver, itself machined out of a solid billet of 7075-T6 aluminum alloy and hard-anodized in black.

A departure from the all-steel construction of the Mauser action of the early Rover rifle, this makes the new rifles lighter, extremely fast, smooth and silent to operate, and offers a superior level of resistance to corrosion and wear.

Features

Like Sabatti’s long-range rifles based on the Blizzard action, the new Rover actions offer a 60-degree bolt throw to keep the shooter’s hand well away of the eyepiece of any scope when chambering a round, and a threaded charging handle allowing the bolt knob to be removed and replaced with compatible aftermarket alternatives at the shooter’s will.

Other features include a bolt stop located to the left of the receiver and a safety right behind the charging handle, at thumb reach, providing three positions – one of which blocks the trigger and sear while still allowing the bolt to be cycled, so that the chamber can be cleared in full safety.

Unlike the Sabatti Blizzard action, the Rover action cocks the striker on opening and features a cam located on the front of the bolt, interacting with a screw for primary extraction. That screw is arguably the most wear-prone part of the bolt, but easily replaceable. A separate extractor, manufactured out of a special steel alloy – which special steel alloy, exactly, is a Sabatti industrial secret – is located on the bolt face.

Barrel

The Sabatti Rover Hunter, Rover Hunter Classic and Rover Hunter Classic Pro come with the shooter’s choice of 20-, 22- or 24-inch cold-hammer forged, blued barrels, manufactured entirely by Sabatti, all with a 5/8-inch diameter, threaded muzzle for accessories such as flash hiders, muzzle brakes, or sound suppressors. Indeed, the Rover Hunter Classic Pro model comes from the factory with a pre-installed, easily removable muzzle brake instead of a simple thread protector, more specifically the company’s own Jet-Brake, of Sabatti’s own design and manufacture. As of today, none of the Rover rifles feature Sabatti’s world-famous, proprietary MRR multi-radial rifled barrels, opting for standard rifling profiles instead.

In all models, the barrel and the action are held together by a set of three screws, which makes rebarreling of the Rover action very easy – even more so since headspacing is provided by the interaction between the locking lugs and the barrel extension, so that a rebarreled new-generation Sabatti Rover rifle will not need a headspace check or adjustment.

Changing the barrel of your new Sabatti Rover rifle (to change caliber or shift to a different barrel length, given how unlikely it is that you’ll ever shoot the rifling out on these barrels) can be done by any shooter with the right equipment, including a good quality torque wrench. Sabatti, however, recommends that shooters wishing to rebarrel their Rover rifles seek the assistance of a competent gunsmith, as the screws holding the barrel and receiver together are manufactured out of steel and tightened to a very specific level of torque, and over tightening them could cause damage to the alloy receiver.

Stock

Aside from the barrel length and the presence of a factory muzzle brake on the Rover Hunter Classic Pro model, the Sabatti Rover Hunter rifles can be told apart by the factory stock. The baseline Rover Hunter comes with a dark grey fiberglass-reinforced polymer stock; the Hunter Classic model features an oil-finished walnut stock; the Hunter Classic Pro model is built around a walnut stock with a patented Optowood coating, a unique feature of the Italian gun industry.

All stocks are of the same style, with a straight pistol grip and checkered, slip-proof surfaces on the grip and handguard; a slight lightening on both sides around the magazine well area for easier reloading, and a black synthetic pad and cheek riser that allows the stock height and length of pull to be adjusted through a set of shims and inserts.

Other features of the stocks include two standard sling swivel studs, and two M-LOK slots carved in a steel plate embedded underneath the handguard, for bipod mounts.

The stocks are secured to the barreled action with a set of two screws located respectively behind and ahead of the action. The stock features an embedded bedding – the new Rover family does without the quintessential “suspended action” of Sabatti’s long-range tactical rifles – but with no pillars. This technically means that stock interchangeability is total across the line, not just between the three Rover Hunter models, but among all, or almost all,the new Sabatti Rover family of rifles.

The screws are tightened to a specific level of torque depending on the version – 53.1inch-pounds for the rear screw and 62 inch-pounds for the front screw for the wooden stocks; 70.8 inch-pounds for the rear screw and 79.7 inch-pounds for the front screw for the polymer stocks – and as long as those levels of torque are respected, changing your Rover rifle stock will not result in loss of accuracy or even loss of zero… even more so because the three Rover Hunter rifles do not come with iron sights, opting instead for a pair of Picatinny rail segments machined directly on top of the alloy receiver, providing a sturdy mounting platform for wide array of optics.

Shooters should, however, know those two Picatinny rail segments are not precisely spaced, as they would be if the rail was a continuous segment. This means that, should a shooter remove a scope from their Rover rifle and install it to another firearm that has a full-length, continuous rail, one of the two rings may have to be moved slightly ahead or rearwards to make it fit.

Calibers

At the time of this article, the Sabatti Rover Hunter, Rover Hunter Classic, and Rover Hunter Classic Pro rifles are available in eight popular European and north American hunting calibers: 243 Winchester; 270 Winchester; 6.5×55 Swedish; 6.5 Creedmoor; 7mm Remington Magnum; 308 Winchester; 30-06 Springfield; and 300 Winchester Magnum.

Two additional calibers – 222 Remington and 223 Remington – will be made available in early Summer 2023; quite the news, considering how those two light varmint calibers have been noticeably absent from Sabatti’s production for a number of years now. All the Sabatti Rover Hunter rifles feed through a proprietary detachable magazine, offering a capacity of three, four or five rounds depending on calibers, with the capability to hold an additional round in chamber.

Trigger

The Sabatti Rover Hunter, Hunter Classic and Hunter Classic Pro come from factory with a two-lever trigger of Sabatti’s own design and manufacture, assembled using precision laser-cut components. A set trigger (or stecher, for those who like to use European terminology) is available as an option.

The factory trigger is set at a maximum break weight of 2.6 pounds. By removing the barreled action from the stock, the shooter can access the trigger assembly and lighten it to approximately 1.3 pounds. Sabatti, once again, strongly recommends that shooters wishing to adjust the trigger on their Rover rifles seek the assistance of a qualified gunsmith.

Wrap Up

As of today the marketing of Sabatti rifles in the United States has temporarily been halted, pending the selection of a new importer and distributor, which should take a few months. There’s no doubt, however, that when the moment comes, the Sabatti Rover Hunter rifles will prove a success on the U.S. market as they’re proving themselves to be in Europe, where they are sold at a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of 990,00€ for the baseline Rover Hunter, 1.300,00€ for the Rover Hunter Classic, and 1.470,00€ for the Rover Hunter Classic Pro.

Specifications:

Bellator is designed with the modularity of the AR platform. It uses drop in AR trigger, selector, take-down pin, grip and magazine release. It has a user changeable barrel system, bolt and magazine well. The bolt is designed with a forward located left hand handle and right hand eject. To convert from 338 Lapua Mag to 300 Norma Mag is simply done by changing out the barrel. These 2 calibers use same bolt and 10 rd box magazine. Conversion from 338 Lapua Mag size to .308 size is done by changing out the barrel, bolt and magazine well. When converted to .308/6.5Creedmoor it uses standard AR10 metal or Magpul Pmags. Rifle comes with a folding fully adjustable stock or non-folding fully adjustable Magpul PRS stock.

Available in Hard Coat Anodized Black or FDE finish, all versions come in custom cut high density foam hard-case with wheels. Button rifled barrels are made from 416SS and come in the following lengths: 338 Lapua Mag and .308 in 24-inch length, 300 Norma Mag and 6.5 Creedmoor in 26-inch length. MSRP: $5000 for non-folding stock and $5600 for folding stock models.

Rifles are in full production at the time of this announcement and in-stock ready to ship.

About 21st-Tec

21st-Tec has been designing and manufacturing patented weapon systems for other companies for 20 years in US commercial market and export contracts. 21st-Tec uses only US raw material to manufacture our rifles in our modern CNC factory. All our products are 100% made in the USA. At 21st-Tec we have a passion for designing new products with outside the box thinking.

Learn more at: 21st-tec.com

Dealer/Distributor inquiries email: sales@21st-tec.com

International inquiries email: export@21st-tec.com

In my last article, Early Bolt-Action Rifle Conversions – Automatic Service Rifles on a Budget, I began exploring the world of bolt-action rifle conversions into self-loading ones. However, as this story continues on after the end of World War I, the SAR team gracefully allowed me to continue on our journey. To recap, semi-automatic rifles were conceptualized in the late 1800s, mainly in Austria-Hungary (Mannlicher & Karel Krnka) and Italy (Cei-Rigotti). Other European powers of the time were also interested in the concept, although military doctrine at the time hindered the progress of this new invention. Nevertheless, trials and tests were carried out. Denmark, being one of those countries, was in the process of renovating their sea fortifications. At the same time, partners Julius Rasmussen & Vilhelm Oluf Madsen presented the Danish military a self-loading rifle of their design. The commission found that it was not suitable for army adoption, however, they saw a potential in arming their newly recommissioned forts with Madsens’ rifles, making the M1896 Rekylgevær the first self-loader to be ever adopted by a military power.

Skipping a few years to World War I, the French encountered themselves in a war of attrition and stagnation, where the machine guns of the German Army prevented any kind of frontal assault by allied troops. It was then that a portable, automatic rifle to suppress German machine guns whenever troops would infiltrate the enemy trench was requested by the French army. Chauchat, Paul Ribeyrolles, and Sutter quickly responded with a conversion kit for the old, obsolete stock of Lebel rifles that was permeating French stocks, although not many parts were re-used from the old rifles, the RSC rifle was still a success. After the end of the Great War, most co-belligerent countries were war-weary and therefore not interested in spending or giving attention to new matters and technologies developed during the conflict.

The Sleeping Giant Awakens

Colonel Isaac Lewis, of Lewis Gun fame, reported to the Board of US Ordnance that the United States was behind all the European powers by at least 10 years. During the World War I, the United States certainly came to realize that Lewis’s statement was correct. The U.S. Army lacked both machine guns and rifles when it declared war on the Central Powers in 1917, which led to a push for rearmament after the end of the war. Around 1919, the Army set out requirements for this new rifle which included manufacture using Springfield 1903 machinery, it should fire .30-06, and have a maximum weight of 4.3 kilograms (9.5 pounds). Even though the Springfield Arsenal and others considered that the conversion of the 1903 was a moot point, other inventors still threw their hat in the ring for the trials which would soon follow.

Thompson and Garand, both well-known names nowadays, submitted rifles for trials in the early 1920s, other designers, however, like Franklin Knowles Young (previously discussed in part I) were still attempting to save costs by converting stocks of Springfields which would soon be obsolete. He founded his own firearms company named “Young Gun Company” and got a patent in 1921 which described a gasiInertia operating system applied to a Springfield M1903 rifle. No records of it have surfaced, however, Franklin did not give up. He made one last attempt in a patent filed in 1929, a primer-actuated system that mostly used 1903 parts and a BAR magazine. One example surfaced in 2016 when it was sold by a popular firearm auction website.

At the same time as Young’s first patent, two others were also patenting their conversion systems for the Springfield 1903, Creedy Sheppard, mentioned in the last part, and John Pedersen, of Pedersen device and rifle fame. Pedersen’s patent was an underbarrel secondary firearm, closely resembling his 1918 device that allowed the soldier to have both short-range, semi-automatic fire, or 30.06 as a normal Springfield. In 1929, the final competition of semi-automatic rifles for the army would take place, and as its victor, the famous M1 Garand. The cost of tooling and manufacturing of this new rifle would heavily weigh against adopting another rifle, as it happened with the Johnson rifle controversy. However, one last attempt by Halvor Olsen Eiane would be patented in 1938 (. It described an M1903 rifle with two gas pistons attached to both sides of the receiver.

Also of note, a mystery M1903 conversion with a slanted bolt was sold in February of 2021, It’s my opinion that said rifle might be the work of either Edmund Browning or David Marshall Williams.

From the Ashes of Empires

After the Great War, many nations, like Poland and Czechoslovakia, were carved out of the German Empire and Austria-Hungary. These new countries had to muster new armies from the remnants left behind by their old overlords, including weaponry and personnel. Lieutenant General Tadeusz Rozwadowski was a distinguished officer in the Austro-Hungarian army during the first world war and in 1918 was made commanding officer of the newly formed Polish Army. In 1920, he recommended the creation of a new self-loading rifle based on old stocks of Mannlicher straight pull rifles, mainly the model of 1890 to be completed by the major state arsenals in Poland, being praised for this endeavor by the then Minister of military affairs, General Kazimierz Sosnkowski. This new rifle was named the Wz. 1921 and nicknamed the DOG after the General Region Command “Lwów” (Dowództwo Okręgu Generalnego “Lwów”) who manufactured this prototype, operated with a very simple gas piston attached to the right of the receiver which operated the bolt directly, which could be turned off to return the rifle to manual fire. A wireframe pistol grip was added to make handling better while retaining the 5-round magazine which still used Mannlicher clips.

Czechoslovakia, also gaining independence from the Austro-Hungarian empire, had the same problem as Poland, with large quantities of outdated Mannlicher rifles which they tried to replace as soon as they became a state in 1918. Following trials of rifles submitted by Josef Netsch and Rudolf Jelen, a reserve lieutenant by the name of Josef Holub presented a Mannlicher M1888 operated by a gas piston on the right side of the receiver, with a front grip and a pistol grip attached to the magazine which retained the old five en-bloc clip design but now sported a cartridge counter mechanism. The rifle could be operated either as semi-automatic or fully automatic, hampered, of course, by the lackluster capacity of the Mannlicher clips. It was tested in 1921 but rejected in 1923 by the Minister of National Defense František Udržal.

A Hungarian inventor by the name of C. Bessemer offered a conversion system for the later Mannlicher rifle, the model 1895. However, the Czech army at that point was less interested in adopting a self-loader. Also in Hungary, a patent in 1939 by Karolý Wolff consisted of a conversion system similar to the Holub rifle, however, applied to an M1895 rather than the older M1888.

The Italian Job

Italy, being one of the few countries which recognized the importance of submachine guns as a way to give more firepower to their assault troops, decided to experiment with the predecessor of the assault rifle concept in 1921. Another article written for this same magazine has gone more in-depth about these guns, however, they are important for our subject today because Marco Morin, one of the most important authors about Italian firearms, described the Terni model 1921 automatic rifle as being a Mannlicher-Carcano conversion. It’s my opinion that this is a very far-fetched claim, however, Morin examined an example of this rifle closely and came to this conclusion, so it is difficult to determine the veracity of this claim.

Nevertheless, other rifles are worth talking about within this subject, those being the Scotti, the Castelli rifle, and Maefassi carbine.

Alfredo Scotti-Douglas, a descendant of Scottish and Italian nobility, was a firearms inventor in the interwar period. He designed machine guns, aircraft-mounted cannons, and, most importantly, self-loading rifles. His Model T.S. Carbine, dated to the tenth year of Mussolini’s fascist regime, was developed as a response to Italian requirements for a 6.5mm semi-automatic rifle that used as many Carcano parts as possible; utilizing the barrel, sights, and magazine housing of a standard Carcano bolt-action but with the caveat of having the bolt, receiver, trigger mechanism, and stock being all brand-new parts. He followed his carbine with the Scotti Model X, which also tried using as many common parts as possible with the Carcano. Outside of Italy, Alfredo would offer to three other countries his rifle system as a means of the conversion of their bolt-action rifles, those being Germany in 1934, the United Kingdom in 1938, and Switzerland at an unknown date. Recently, more information has surfaced about another conversion, as well. A Swiss archival report describing the Scotti system mentions some rifles that were worked on by Scotti, including the previously mentioned Mauser and Mannlicher, but also a previously unknown Arisaka conversion.

The Maefassi and the Castelli rifles are less documented. Carlo Maefassi was an Italian officer stationed in Addis Ababa after the Second Italo-Ethiopian war. While being posted there, he and a few colleagues designed the Maefassi self-loading rifle, which was a simple modification of the Mannlicher M1895, which now had a gas tube under the barrel. Vittorio Castelli, of Brescia, allegedly presented, in 1930, a rifle of his design to the semi-automatic trials that were happening in Italy. I was not able to locate any drawings or patents of this gun, however, I do have a decent guess on what it might’ve been. There is a patent under Breda, which Castelli worked for, that contains a possible conversion system.

Intermission & Addendums

A fellow researcher, Bas Martens, contacted me about a visit to the St. Petersburg Arsenal Museum in the 1990s where he photographed many unknown rifles, even some conversion systems! Seemingly of German origin, since they use Gewehr 98 parts. Next time, we’ll be looking into the emergency conversions developed due to the outbreak of the World War II and other posterior designs.

Click here for Part III of this series.

The first documented attempt at making a self-loading rifle comes from Austria-Hungary when Czech designer Karel Krnka attempted to convert one of his breech loading firearm designs into a self-cocking and ejecting firearm by the means of a primer-actuated system, in which the primer of the cartridge would return the firing pin back to its cocked position and then extract the spent cartridge. Later, in 1884 and 1885 respectively, both Maxim and Mannlicher made attempts at self-loading rifles of their own. Mannlicher made the first original design of what he called “Handmitrailleuse,” which is called a semi-automatic rifle today.

The last decade of the 19th century saw various inventors tinker with automatic repeating systems; Ferdinand von Mannlicher in Austria, Paul Mauser in Germany, Julius Rasmussen & Vilhelm Oluf Madsen in Denmark, Paul Darche and the Clair brothers in France.

Military theory of the time valued accuracy over any other attribute, therefore the trials of the Darche in France and the Griffiths & Woodgate in the UK were negative as they were not as accurate as the service rifles of the day, the Lebel and Lee-Metford respectively. Denmark tested the Madsen-Rasmussen self-loading rifle, finding similar problems as France and Britain had, as well as many problems with reliability and weight. Though they did see potential on the rifle as a supplement to their newly built coastal fortresses along the Copenhagen port, since they had cleaner environments and didn’t have to be carried on the march by troops. As such, 110 rifles of the 1896 pattern were bought by the navy and artillery departments, making the M1896 Rekylgevær the first self-loading rifle to be used in a military scenario.

Cost cutting is the way to adoption

While some inventors were busy with creating automatic mechanisms from the ground up, others took a different approach. If it was possible to convert the standard, already manufactured, bolt action magazine rifles of any country, it would be more attractive for adoption as new machinery and especially new rifles wouldn’t have to be manufactured.

However, modifying certain types of bolt actions was a complex, difficult task, and the resulting rifle was often not good enough by the military standards of the time. The biggest hurdle being the four-step movement of the bolt, with its vertical and linear movements. Systems had to either perform those four actions automatically, usually with a gas system plus a camming surface to guide the bolt, or they could be modified to run with only linear movement, akin to straight-pull rifles. These could be of any automatic system, including gas operated, recoil operated, primer-actuated and even chain-operated.

The first attempt, Italy

Amerigo Cei-Rigotti, at the time lieutenant of the Bersaglieri, presented his rifle on the 10th of October 1886 to the colonel of the general staff Gandolfi, head of the 19th Army Corps and to Deputee Palizzolo. It consisted of a modified Vetterli rifle, built to fire in semi-automatic using a gas-piston attached to the right side of the rifle. Cei-Rigotti also regarded that it was of such simple construction that it could be fitted to a Gras or even a Mauser rifle. The response of the attendees was very positive as they found it to be extremely cheap to modify said rifles, only costing one lira each, and it functioned very well in testing.

In 1895, he presented a more refined version of his rifle to the Prince of Naples in Florence and to the Minister of War in Parma. Both were very impressed and went ahead with ordering 2000 rifles for the Royal Italian Navy, to be used against enemy torpedo boats, just like the Danish Artillery Corps. Although, for reasons still to be uncovered, the adoption did not go through and the 2000 rifle order was never completed. Still, Cei-Rigotti persevered.

At the same time however, Count Gaspare Cesare Freddi also had been modifying the Vetterli rifle, except his system would only extract the spent casing automatically, the soldier would have to rechamber it manually. Freddi, nevertheless, persevered as he would provide another rifle for testing in 1900 which was properly self-loading, using a long recoil system. He presented it as being able to chamber any cartridge and being able to adapt it to fit in any magazine-fed rifle of the time.

Cei-Rigotti, now a captain, submitted a new rendition of his rifle again to the Italian officials on the 13th of June 1900, this time around they weren’t so impressed as the gun quickly overheated while being fired at around 900 rounds per minute. In the same year, Cei-Rigotti was in talks with the British small arms committee over having one of their service rifles, at the time the Magazine Lee-Enfield, sent to the Glisenti small arms company to convert it to the Cei-Rigotti system. It is unclear if this conversion was ever done. However, he proceeded to present one of his standard rifles to be tested anyhow. The British found it to be highly inaccurate while being fired in full automatic and they had problems with the reliability of the firearm, as they were provided with faulty ammunition.

Other countries, like Russia and Austria-Hungary, also tested his rifle. Recently an M95 Mannlicher converted with Cei-Rigotti’s system was uncovered in Russia, it is unknown how it got there but it clearly shows the interest of the Austro-Hungarians in this new system. There have been reports of a Mosin-Nagant modification as well, but no pictures have surfaced. It was even tested in the Americas, where there have been reports of the Cei-Rigotti in Argentina and Brazil.

As much attention as Cei-Rigotti got, he had a problem in his own home country. The Genovesi-Revelli rifle, a short-recoil conversion of the M91 Carcano, had recently been offered to the Italian government for a million lira. It was put to the test in the Terni state arsenal where it failed miserably. However, the Italian war minister did not reject the rifle outright. He instructed the Terni factory to fix the problems with the rifle, which they did after two years. The redesign was so different from the original Genovesi-Revelli system that the million lira price, paid for the original patent, was deemed worthless.

From Russia with Self-Loaders?

The Berdan was a breech-loading, 10mm rifle that Russia adopted in 1868. It proved to be remarkably advanced up until the advent of smokeless powder and automatic firearms were introduced in the 1880s. However, some entrepreneuring officers of the expansive empire took notice of the developments going on outside of their borders and worked on advancing this Russian rifle up to the modern age. One of these was a woodsman by the name of Rudnitsky, who presented a modified Berdan Rifle, now utilizing a short recoil system that had a tube magazine under the barrel. He began to work on this project in 1883. By 1887, he was ready to present it to the Russian artillery committee, although they were interested, the rifle did not perform well when tested.

After a couple of years and some other failed attempts at standalone self-loading rifles, a private and blacksmith by the name of Yakob Roschepei presented in 1905 a Mosin-Nagant modified to be delayed blowback. It worked well enough that he got employed at the Sestroryetsk Arms Plant where he continued to develop his concept until the Russian Civil War.

Vladimir Fedorov also presented one of his plans for converting the Mosin with an unknown operating mechanism in 1907, however, it did not function well. He would go on to improve his design and some of his rifles, now converted to fire from fully automatic, would serve in WWI and later, his model of 1919 would be used in the Winter War.

Another well-known Russian designer, Fedor Tokarev, would also start his lengthy firearm career by tinkering with the standard Russian service rifle. In 1909, he presented his first model for testing, which was outright rejected. His 1912 model fared better as 10 units were ordered for formal testing, though, they did not manage to get past the three sets of rigorous trials that the Russian commission had stipulated.

His final design in 1913 saw the best reception of them all, the commission indicated that his rifle deserved serious attention as it worked better than all other rifles submitted. However, in 1914, the war had been declared and further work would not be continued as Tokarev would be sent to the frontlines.

Also present in those same tests was Karl August Bräunings’ rifles, an engineer working for Fabrique Nationale in Belgium. They were both converted using the same action as his standalone automatic rifle from 1906, one of them having Braunings’ rotary magazine design and the other the standard of the Russian rifle.

The results were favorable enough that 10 rifles were ordered to be converted in 1913. Although with WWI beginning one year after, there was not enough time to properly test and adopt these rifles.

Another Inventor would be Pyotr Frolov, master of arms of the Tula State Factory, who in 1912 converted two Mosins to fire the Nagant M1895 cartridge in semi-automatic. Frolov also tried unsuccessfully to adapt his self-loading system to work with the Mosin-Nagant’s original cartridge. No reports have surfaced about any testing carried with this conversion system, so it is unknown why it wasn’t developed any further.

In 1916, having captured some Mannlicher rifles from Austria-Hungary, one Russian captain by the name of Yasnikov, added a gas-piston to one of those rifles and offered it for testing. The Russians found that with the added weight of the gas piston, the rifle became awkward and heavy and the rifle, now fully automatic, was seen as another negative.

The British Empire looks for a suitable self-loading rifle

The Small Arms Committee was formed in 1900 as a way for Britain to experiment and determine their own standing in the modern military world of the time. That included testing the growing numbers of semi-automatic systems developed across Europe. However, Britain had already tested a design dated to 1892 by Captain Herbert Woodgate and financed by William Griffiths. Tests of the Griffiths-Woodgate rifle would be favorable, though it was described as being too complex and too fragile in its current state. Griffiths’s financial support quickly dropped after realizing the rifle would go nowhere. Woodgate, the inventor, would later patent a conversion system for any magazine repeating rifle in 1895, however with no financial support, the project seems to have gone nowhere.

One of the other rifles tested by the SAC was the “De Faletans” rifles, named after its inventor’s title the Marquis de Faletans. The two rifles would be presented for testing in 1902, with the Marquis remarking that his proposed system of a semi-automatic system could be readily adapted onto the standard British service rifle, the MLE.

Franz Kretz and Edmund Tatarek, colleagues working for FÉG, both presented rifles for testing in March of 1914. Both rifles were gas operated conversions, utilizing a gas-trap system similar to the later General Liu rifle. Kretz’s submission utilized a complex chain mechanism to cycle the bolt, which when examined was found to be bulky, weak, excessively heavy, badly balanced, liable to break down, difficult to strip, and even more difficult to re-assemble. Tatarek’s rifle was of simpler construction, being compared to a combination of the Farquhar-Hill and Bang systems, however it was seen as never being able to be practical for field service.

During the Great War, Joseph Huot provided a machine gun that he built from a Ross Mk.III. It fared very well in tests and was sent abroad to the U.K. for trials against the Lewis gun, the Farquhar-Hill light machine gun, and the Hotchkiss Portative where it was formally rejected by the British Army.

Austria-Hungary stumbles into the scene

Austria’s standard service arm was the M1895 Mannlicher rifle, a straight pull bolt-action invented by Ferdinand von Mannlicher. As soon as 1900, patents would be taken out by one Franz Tobisch for a recoil-operated, gas delayed machine gun which utilized the bolt of the Mannlicher rifle as a savings cost method. It would also be applicable to Mauser-type bolt-actions. Although, until the later Franz Kretz conversion, as far as the author is aware, none of these conversions were ever produced for testing.

The next designs would only emerge in 1911, as Austria-Hungary would be having a competition for semi-automatic rifles. Siegmund Martineks conversion consisted of a gas-system attached to a Mannlicher M1895 fed by an offset magazine using Mannlicher’s clips. It was of relatively simple construction as the straight-pull bolt system of the Austrian rifle would lend itself well to semi-automatic actions. The other inventor, Michal Karl, had patented a semi-automatic rifle of his own design in 1910. In 1912, he built a hybrid gas-operated recoil system attached onto another service rifle which used gas pressure to lift a flap on top of the barrel to cycle the weapon. Franz Kretz, previously mentioned, would in 1913 also provide an M1895 converted to use the same type of system that he used on the Lee-Enfield rifle.

Finally, on the 28th of July 1914, Austria would declare war on Serbia which ignited WWI. With that came a realization that the stockpiles of machine guns weren’t enough to support such a modern conflict. Designers like Kretz and Ignaz Shrnitsitsa would provide the Austrian Army with machine guns based on older Mannlicher rifles which were outdated at that point, mainly the Mannlicher M1888.

The United States joins the semi-automatic craze

At the turn of the 20th century, the commanding officer of Springfield Armory contacted the Chief of Ordnance to suggest that the United States should buy and test examples of semi-automatic rifles being developed in Europe at the time. This attracted the attention of many civilian inventors who thought they could develop a capable semi-auto rifle for their country.

One of them was W.D. Condit who submitted a patent in 1905 for a Gas-Operated M1903 Springfield conversion. His rifle would be tested in the same year and feedback was promptly given, however for some reason Condit did not re-submit any modification of his system in the following years.

The American next attempt would be by Franklin K. Young who dabbled with a more unique form of semi-automatic mechanism. He would patent a Springfield 1903 conversion in 1902 that used a primer-actuated system to cycle the firearm, although, only in 1910 was the rifle actually tested by the Ordnance department. The rifle was subsequently modified to remove 23 parts of the original design and it was noted that his system used three fewer springs than the standard 1903 rifle. Young continued developing his rifle and in 1913 his final prototype was tested by Springfield Armory.

The third conversion would be the Hammond & Darlington, a gas operated, modified M1903 Springfield. The Ordnance Department tested their rifle in 1909 and found many negative points. To add to that, it was seen as too expensive of a conversion, costing about $35 per rifle.

Despite the previous failed attempts, the Rock Island Arsenal presented a rifle by a foreman named Woodbury which modified the standard M1903 with a gas piston attached to the side of it. The rifle was tested in 1913 and it failed after firing only two rounds. Then came the Murphy-Manning, built in Springfield as a competitor to the Woodbury rifle, tested in 1915 – although I have not been able to locate any information about its performance. Later in 1916, Rock Island would again attempt to convert the U.S. magazine rifle and now Springfield Arsenal would join in the trials. Both guns were gas operated and would be tested in Springfield. John Moses Browning remarked to Julian Hatcher after he was shown the two conversions that they reminded him of two mouse traps rather than semi-automatic rifles.

In 1917 and 1918, two more rifles would be made. Joseph C. White, working for the White-Greenman Arms Company, patented his means of converting the standard American service arm of WWI in 1917. Tested in the same year, the results were promising for his semi-automatic rifle. Pedersen’s device for the Mk.I Springfield rifle, the M1917 Enfield and even the Russian Mosin-Nagant is the most well-known conversion of the period, as it was planned on being used in the 1919 spring offensive that never came to be. The standard bolt mechanism of the Springfield M1903 would be replaced with a straight-blowback system, in .30 Pedersen, when the command to attack was given.

Honorable Mentions & Addendums

Other countries, while interested in developments of the conversion ideas, were more interested in adopting a newly developed semi-automatic rifle. France, for example, started their trials in 1894 and finished them in the 1910s with the limited adoption of the Meunier rifle. Not many were produced and when push came to shove in the Great War, Gladiator provided a partial conversion of the Lebel rifle with the RSC 1917 rifle and Delaunay-Belleville manufactured a Berthier conversion using a gas impingement system.

Germany, hoping that Paul Mauser would provide them with a suitable semi-automatic military rifle, did not incentivize other weapon factories to submit their own rifle systems. They were however, interested in testing developmental self-loading rifles of other European countries, those including Gewehr 98 conversions like the Swedish Sjögren around the 1910s and the Austrian Franz Kretz rifle in 1913.

Neutral countries like Sweden and Switzerland also developed their own self-loading rifles. The Friberg-Kjellman rifle and the Sjögren were top contenders in European automatic rifle development. Sjögren, in 1909, modified an M/1894 Swedish Mauser carbine to work with his inertial system. Switzerland had the Stamm-Saurer rifles, the Mondrágon being produced at SIG and the Rychiger rifle which was a short-recoil M1911 Schmidt-Rubin conversion. The Rychiger, even being tested abroad in the United States, being further modified by Major Elder.

Click here for the second story in this series.

In the design process for several years, and released just a few short months ago, Ruger’s new, rear-locking bolt gun is a carbine that the class II world has been waiting fifty years for. Very closely proportioned to Ruger’s popular 77/22, the rifle weigh only 6 pounds and is a compact 38 inches long. It has been said that the action is very similar to its little brother, chambered in .22 rimfire.

Background

Before we talk about the 77/44’s potential Class II role, it would be good to discuss the general characteristics of this finely proportioned carbine. In his middle years, Bill Ruger was a sportsman with fond and pleasant memories of time spent afield. As a designer he has an appreciation of small, trim, accurate carbines with enough pep to easily handle medium-sized game. His collective experience of hunting in Africa and America with the semi-auto, 44 Magnum carbine of the 1960s taught him that a 240 grain, .43 caliber slug moving along at a brisk 1,700 fps has penty of penetration and sectional density. It is a round with more lethality than its paper ballistics would seem to indicate.

As we shift forward in time to the 1970s, Ruger’s semi-auto .44 carbine became too costly to produce. It was dropped from production years ago. Shifting forward a little more, a number of atrocities (instigated by gun control zealots and perpetrated by weak-minded individuals who, curiously, seem to have had the same psychologist) have caused a number of countries to either restrict or totally ban semi-automatic (self-loading) firearms. Like it or not (and we really don’t) the day of the manually operated rifle is upon us. Seeing that trend, Sturm, Ruger & Co. is expanding its line of lever and bolt-action rifles with small magazine capacity.

Receiver

The 77/44RS is a traditional rifle with a number of innovative features. The receiver is an investment casting. It is cleverly shaped, machined, surface ground and heat-treated. The versatility of the casting process allows a number of components which have formerly been typically attachments (like the trigger group and scope mounting rail) to be integrally found. While some castings are often bulky, porous and brittle, Ruger’s investment castings tend to be carefully heat treated, strong and ductile. They sometimes allow for a modest amount of weight reduction.

Barrel

The 18-1/2 inch barrel is hammer forged, and it is later turned to finish profile and dimension on a lathe. On the specimens we have examined there is a moderate dovetail slice taken out for the rear sight, a traditional but less than ideal way to mount the sight. In addition to that (and to our great surprise) another rather large dovetail slice has been taken out of the barrel where it is hidden inside the stock. Why this breach of integrity exists remains a mystery to us. If anything is sacred in this world, it is a barrel without dovetail slices and screw penetrations, as these tend to mess up harmonics and spoil inherent accuracy. While on the subject, Ruger has traditionally favored an 18 -1/2 inch carbine barrel for many of their rifles. In this case we feel that a rifled tube, a touch over 16 inches would deliver plenty of velocity, yet will reduce the carbine’s overall length by 2-1/2 inches a worthy goal. The factory barrel has rifling with a full right-hand turn in 20 inches, which is adequate for most .44 Magnum bullets driven to factory velocity. For longer, heavier bullets driven to subsonic velocities, a twist as fast as a turn in 10 inches would provide more stability.

Magazine, Trigger & Safety

The standard 77/44 factory magazine is rotary, removable and holds 4 rounds. It is a very good magazine, feeds well, and I would expect that no trouble will come from it. The trigger is a bit stiff, but that is common and to be expected in this age of litigation. The trigger can be improved by careful stoning and buffing from a competent gunsmith. The lock time is fairly quick, at 3 milliseconds or less. Ruger’s standard bolt safety is proven, convenient and effective. Still, a rule that we lived by in Alaska is to never chamber a round until we were about to shoot. To this day, I will not hunt with a man who carries a round in his rifle’s chamber, and I don’t trust any safety.

Sights & Mounting System

The rifle comes equipped with iron sights which are adequate for young (but not old) eyes. It also comes with a set of low scope rings, which mount in two of three integral depressions molded into the top of the receiver. The factory rings are available for the standard 1-inch tube, and are so low that they only accommodate scopes of fairly low power with small objective lenses. Scopes with a 30mm barrel and/or larger objective lenses will require that another set of rings be ordered at increased cost from the factory. A tough, compact scope of about 4 power would be the appropriate choice for this weapon.

Stock

The standard stock is plain, checkered American black walnut, fitted with a rubber butt pad of medium density. The stock is traditional in appearance, well-formed, properly fitted and quite nice in proportion. It is neither too large nor too small for this trim, handy carbine. As an old stockmaker, I can find no area where material could either be added or removed.

Accuracy

The complete rifle functions quite well for its intended purpose. Most of the specimens we have examined will bench a 3-shot group of 2 to 2-1/2 inches at 100 yards. It must be remembered that this is a carbine, not a sniper rifle. Undoubtedly some rifles will shoot better than this, and some will shoot worse. This is a light rifle intended for carry in a canoe or in the woods.

The .44 Magnum is an adequate 100-yard cartridge. For the handloader, a cast lead, 300-grain, Keith-style bullet has a ballistic coefficient of .213. Starting at a comfortable 1,500 fps, it holds the record for penetration in ballistic gelatin. This bullet will retain a velocity of 1,240 fps at 100 yards, 1,100 fps at 200, 960 fps at 300, 890 fps at 400, and 826 fps at 500 yards. Once reaching subsonic velocity, the flat-nosed bullet loses very little additional velocity. Clearly, the .44 remains lethal at extreme range, but a rainbow-like trajectory makes a first round hit difficult much beyond 100 yards. The bullet will penetrate deeply and effectively at any reasonable range.

Suppressed Use

The first effective suppressed subsonic rifles produced in quantity were the famed British De Lisle carbines of World War II. These were made from reject Enfield rifles, reject .45 ACP submachine gun barrels, and 2-1/4” steel or aluminum tubing. Of varying quality, these rifles quietly drove 230 grain, .45 caliber bullets along at roughly 950 fps. Some were very accurate. Some were not. The most famous use of the De Lisle involved a small contingent of British commandos shooting into a convoy of Japanese soldiers. Shooting from a concealed position on a hillside, the commandos took turns, each shooting a single silenced round at a single soldier in the back of each truck as it drove by. This went on for hours, to the continued amazement of the Brits. For the period, the De Lisles were very effective suppressed carbines. They have been issued and used in many covert and overt engagements since World Ware II, and as recently as the war in the Falklands.

While silencer technology has improved greatly since World War II, the concept of driving a heavy, large caliber slug from a rifle at subsonic speed continues to intrigue. The most recent suitable host rifle has been the Remington 788. Occasionally chambered in .44 Magnum, these rifles were briefly available during the late 1960s, and were then dropped from production. While other repeating rifles have been available, most have tubular magazines that preclude the use of a suppressor. A bolt gun with a magazine beneath the action is the easiest to deal with. Conversions to .44 Magnum, .45 ACP and .45 Colt (the most desirable) have been made from time to time, but these tend to be costly and time consuming to build. They are also plagued with function problems, as they are typically cobbled from something else. Failures to feed, fire and extract are the rule, not the exception. Over the past 60 years a great variety of rifles has been tinkered with and suppressed, with very little success. Until now.

Ruger’s 77/44 finally brings a suppressable bolt-action rifle in a reasonable caliber to the table, where it can be used by police departments, animal control officers, drug interdiction groups, special operations people, and by qualified private citizens.