M9 spare barrel cover and barrel assembled to barrel extension. The cover was designed to hold the entire assembly so that the barrel and barrel extension could be changed as a unit. (Charles Brown)

By Charles Brown

Canvas or fabric items created by or for various branches of the Army Services are an interesting study in themselves. While some of the accessories for the M1919A4 had other applications, the spare barrel cover and bolt case were weapon specific.

The variety is staggering as was the quantity in which they were produced during WWII. Both the spare barrel cover first produced in 1936 and bolt case in 1934 are quite common even today.

The M9 spare barrel cover is one of the items mentioned repeatedly in the 1941 Standard Nomenclature List for the M1919s. It was authorized as an accessory under the Equipment section for the M2 and M2A1, M3 tanks, M1, M2 and M3 scout cars, pack transport and ground and
train defense units.

Way back in February 1923, the Ordnance Committee took up Item 2684 concerning covers for machine guns and spare barrels. The Committee recommended that the Chief of Cavalry’s request for the expenditure of $198 for the fabrication of “34 machine gun covers and 24 spare barrel covers (experimental) under the supervision of Lt. Col. Albert E. Phillips, Cavalry, at Jeffersonville, Indiana” be approved. These covers were to be used in the testing of the Phillips standard pack saddles being developed at the Jeffersonville Quartermaster Depot. The Phillips pack saddle was adopted in 1924 after testing by Cavalry, Infantry and Mountain Artillery units.

So far the author has not been able to locate the drawings used to produce “spare barrel covers” mentioned in the Ordnance Committee Minutes.

It strains belief that the Chief of Cavalry, usually a Major General, had to get the blessing of the Ordnance Committee to spend $198 but then again, it was the interwar period with the Congress and the public longing for a return to pre-war isolationism, their near pathological fear of militarism and the desire for a defense establishment run on the cheap.

Col. Phillips was part of the Calvary Branch that built upon one of the lessons of WWI; namely that saber charges against a machine gun armed enemy weren’t going to cut it, no pun intended, but there were not quite ready to abandon the horse due to tradition and the perceived unreliability of motorized transport.

With horse mounted charges out of the picture this left the cavalry with the jobs of screening, scouting and becoming mounted infantry equipped with pack transported automatic weapons. The M3 Machine Gun Hanger for the M1919 series of weapons and the M8 Machine Gun Ammunition Hanger were also developed as attachments for the Phillips standard pack saddle.

The original design drawing of the M9 barrel cover dates from February 1936, which is near the time line of two events: the transfer of engineering and manufacturing responsibilities for the .30 caliber Browning ground guns from Springfield Armory to the Rock Island Arsenal caused by Springfield’s preoccupation with getting the M1 rifle into production and the growing feeling in the Army, especially the Cavalry, that a standard air cooled machine gun and light weight tripod, something missing from their TO&E, would change combat power for the better.

The M9 was designed to carry the barrel and the barrel extension assembled as a unit. This method of carry would speed up barrel changing and the required head spacing whenever barrel, barrel extension, bolt or lock frame was changed.

The M9’s original design reminds the author of the off told story of the military’s purchase of a $2,000 toilet seat. The lower end of the cover was lined with asbestos cloth and the upper part including the closure flap with latigo leather. Apparently the theory was that the hot barrel would not char the asbestos cloth and the leather prevented wear from the edges of the barrel extension. The linings added material expense, manufacturing cost and needless complexity to what was essentially a simple canvas bag with a fastener. The 1941 cost of a lined M9 spare barrel cover was $2.90 with the leather and asbestos linings accounting for $1.10.

After the U.S. entered WWII great emphasis was placed on material conservation and the simplification of manufacturing, which increased production and lowered cost while minimally affecting the utility of the item.

One pre-war change to the barrel cover was lightening the weight of the binding material; this may have been done because the lighter weight binding was a commercially available standard.

In March of 1942 the asbestos and leather linings were dropped in favor of a double thickness of No. 4 Olive Drab Cotton Duck, which was the original specification. In 1942, asbestos was not considered to be a significant health hazard and it was used in everything from brake linings to pipe lagging.

Regardless of the fact that these design changes occurred over 70 years ago, the lined barrel covers are surprisingly common. As with many WWII canvas products the dye shade of the material varies along with the binding.

No attempt was made match the binding color to the body resulting in some variation in appearance. The color of the body can vary considerably as the Army changed colors at least twice, but apparently used whatever material color at hand. The closure flap is secured with a “lift the dot” fastener.

The double thickness of cotton duck was stitched together in several places to prevent separation of the plies and add a little rigidity.
Typically, covers are stenciled or stamped “COVER, SPARE BARREL, M9-D30674” in ½ inch letters and various fonts were used. Most of those observed by the author are neither maker nor MRT (mildew resistant treatment) marked or have any sort of inspection markings.

The CASE, Spare Bolt, M2 dates from June 1, 1934, and the original drawing makes no mention of any previous versions that may have been left over from the WWI era Class and Division drawings for the Model of 1917 Browning or other weapons although the bolt assembly is common to the Model of 1917/M1917A1 and the various M1919 models. The case was fabricated from OD cotton duck with bound exposed edges and stitched together with No. 25 linen thread, 8 stitches to the inch. The closure flap was secured with a simple snap fastener. The face of the cover body was stamped or stenciled with ½ inch letters “BOLT”. The 1941 price of the M2 case was $.80.

The original drawing for the M2 has a “List of Contents” block that lists “Bolt, Feed, Assembly” with no drawing number or piece mark as the contents. Apparently there may be a nomenclature difference between the bolt assembly, which is the bolt and recoil plate, and bolt feed assembly, which the author presumes to be a bolt assembly with all the operational parts, cocking lever and pin, sear and sear spring, firing pin and spring, driving spring and rod and extractor assembly installed.

The M2 case was a convenient way to carry this field replacement component in useable condition in the field especially because the extractor assembly is readily dislodged and could easily be lost in a combat situation. Later versions of the drawing show just “Bolt Assembly” and list the drawing number B147299, which is just the bolt with the recoil plate installed. In the author’s view, attempting to assemble a complete bolt to return a malfunctioning weapon to service in combat conditions seems a little farfetched.

The M2 case appears in various dye-shade combinations like most other WWII era canvas goods and as with other fabric field items received MRT preservation after about mid 1944. Those cases with MRT mildew-proofing often have the treatment contractor’s name.

Although with a little care the case and bolt could be carried in the top of the M9 spare barrel cover by the machine gun section gunner along with the M2 tripod mount, the author does not know with much if any certainly if that was the prescribed method of transport.

The problem of muzzle flash and smoke has bedeviled warriors ever since the Chinese invented gunpowder. Black powder combustion is accompanied by a flash, some sparks and the release of large volumes of white smoke obscuring both the shooter and the target. France was the first major power to develop a replacement for traditional black powder and field a smokeless powder small bore rifle with the introduction of the 8mm Mle. 1885 Lebel. The propellant was “smokeless” only to the extent that it smoked less than black powder. This caused France’s current worst enemy, Germany, to develop an even more efficient smokeless propellant with a much reduced flash signature. Not only did Germany develop a better propellant, but also flash suppression devices for their automatic weapons.

The advent of large scale use of automatic weapons in WWI trench warfare drew considerable attention to the muzzle flash issue. While it would not be worthwhile to single out individual riflemen firing from entrenchments, the large volume of harassing fire from machine guns was a different story inviting counter battery fire from artillery. This development made machine gun troops something less than popular with riflemen occupying the same trench area. During low light conditions muzzle flash will compromise the operator’s night vision as well as making the location of the weapon more visible to the opposing forces.

The standard German automatic weapon was the MG 08/15 featuring a combination flash suppressor/recoil booster as standard equipment, the U.S. Model of 1917 water cooled machine gun featured nothing in the way of a flash hider except the ingenuity of the troops draping wet empty burlap sand bags over the business end of their Brownings in an attempt to attract less unwanted attention.

The Ordnance Department, up to its neck in every sort of difficulty during WWI, worked on developing a flash hider with little enthusiasm and less success.

Post-war the flash hider issue came to a head with a letter from the Adjutant General’s office to the new Chief of Ordnance Major General Clarence C. (“If the troops want elephants, we will get them elephants.”) Williams read for record into the Ordnance Committee’s November 4, 1919 meeting minutes. This letter enumerated “…machine gun improvements…” which were the “…consensus of opinion of our best machine gun officers…” and closed with a directive from the Secretary of War that the improvements suggested be “…carried out as far as practicable.”

High on the list was “Development of an efficient flash hider; flashless powder is not considered to be sufficient.” This was followed by requests for “Real smokeless powder and, if possible, a flashless powder is needed. Our powder is far from smokeless and discloses the position of the guns at once.” The letter stirred up a hornet’s nest of activity in the Small Arms Division as they tried to determine which of the “suggestions” had been carried out or were under research or actual development.

Apparently some flash hider development had already occurred because at the November 14, 1919 Ordnance Committee meeting they considered a report from the Springfield Armory on a flash hider and recoil reducing device for the Model of 1917 BMG designed by a Captain Thomas of the Ordnance Department. The report stated that this was the fourth flash hider of the “Thomas type” tested and that all had proved unsatisfactory and recommended no further testing of this design be made. The May 14, 1920 Ordnance Committee meeting shed more light on the shortcomings of the Thomas design: first, it did not suppress the muzzle flash and second, it was shot off the gun after extended firing.

Apparently the flash hider issue got pushed to the back burner until the Committee took up as Item 1966 a December 6, 1921 communication from the Infantry Board requesting that a project be initiated to study and develop flash hiders that actually worked. Mr. A. C. Gray, a civilian employee of the Ordnance Department, stated that he had seen several types of flash hiders and that “The German one (ostensibly the MG 08/15) reduced the flash by about 50%.”

Things picked up a little momentum. The September 15, 1922 meeting of the Committee discussed Item 2368, a flash hider design by Captain A. F. Gilmore of the Coast Artillery Corps, which was somewhat similar to the Thomas design and, while it was efficient enough, it was expensive to manufacture and suffered from the same basic defect, it shot off the gun because it plugged up after prolonged firing. Major Glen Wilhelm who read the report mentioned that Springfield Armory had “perfected” a new type that would be submitted to test in the “near future”. By November 1922 approval was obtained for “one modified German flash hider” together with one of the Springfield Armory type to be submitted to the Infantry Board for testing.

The March 23, 1923 Committee meeting reviewed as Item 2774 the report of the flash hider testing from Aberdeen Proving Ground. The conclusion of the proof officer, approved by the Commanding Officer, was that the modified German flash hider “gave the best results, and was superior in every way.” However, in a dazzling display of fancy foot work and buck passing, Aberdeen stated that “in view of the fact that the flash hider designed by the Springfield Armory gave fairly good results and in consideration of a statement from Manufacturing Services (Springfield Armory) to the effect that the cost of Springfield Armory type would be considerably less than the German type, it is believed that both flash hiders should be tested by the Infantry…”

By the July 27, 1923 meeting of the Committee the story had changed somewhat. Item 3149 considered at this meeting stated in part, “These flash hiders have been tested at Aberdeen Proving Ground and by the Infantry Board with results that show very little difference in efficiency, while both are very good.” The Infantry Board recommended adoption of the Springfield Armory type apparently based on cost and the fact that it was an indigenous design never minding the fact that the “German” type was superior.

The December 27, 1923 Ordnance committee meeting took up Item 3462 which was specification No.52-5-12 the flash hider for the Model of 1917 BMG. This specification was approved and result was the M1923 flash hider. The shooting off of the flash hider problem was solved by removing the muzzle gland from the end cap of the water jacket and screwing in the flash hider.

The M1923 flash hider resembled previous designs except that it had vent holes in the exterior and functioned by allowing the unburned combustion gasses from the propellant to swirl around a series of baffle holes between the chamber that the projectile passed through called the inner spool and a helically wound coil spring between the spool and outer casing finally venting into the air. This allowed cooling and gradual mixing of the residual combustible gas with oxygen in the air. The flash hider was piece marked with the drawing number D1804 and underwent a proof test signified by the “P” stamped on the rear. It appears that all of the M1923 flash hiders were produced at Springfield Armory until RIA became the Ordnance primary engineering support and production facility for the .30 caliber BMG’s about 1936. Although not often seen actually on the weapon, the M1923 was a standard accessory for both the Model of 1917 and its successor the M1917A1.

RIA produced experimental flash hiders for the .30 caliber air cooled BMG’s during WWII including an attempt to adopt the M1923 flash hider to the M1919A4. This whole series of “beer can” styles all suffered from the same defects. They were relatively large and difficult to maintain as the vent ports plugged up with carbon deposits after extended firing. Plugged vent ports would increase booster chamber pressure raising the rate of fire and the specter of damage to the air cooled weapons because their gas assist booster feature not present in the water cooled gun. In February of 1942 in an attempt to speed production an alternate design for the M1923 flash hider was developed its drawing number and piece mark was D1804A.

At least one, and likely several of this type were modified and attached to a M1919A4 barrel jacket by means modified front barrel bearing plug and sent to Aberdeen Proving Ground for testing in 1943. The tests were not successful and in 1954 a left over jacket, bearing and flash hider showed up in a scrap barrel in a salvage yard behind the Proving Ground Museum where it was rescued by Jon Wilkinson, a member of the 9701st Technical Service Unit stationed at Aberdeen.

The story of this find related to the author by Mr. Wilkinson goes like this: Jon saw the parts in the scrap barrel thought they looked unusual and wanted them. The guy running the scrap yard told him that the barrels were pre weighed for sale as scrap, and if he wanted anything he would have to come up with an equal weight in steel for replacement. Jon and his buddy Val Forgett, yes, the Navy Arms Val Forgett, were leaving the post that day and noticed some railroad track construction underway so they stopped and filled the trunk of the car with tie plates to swap for parts that they wanted from the scrap barrels. John displayed the A4 jacket/flash hider at an Ohio gun show in March of 2012 where Jeff Prater of Iron Creations, LLC spotted it and decided it needed a new home. Jeff took some pictures and sent them off to the author. You just can’t make up stuff like this.

Eventually, RIA’s flash hider R&D focused on the fairly obvious, the cone feature of the MG 08/15. The cone shape tended to minimize and direct the flash to the front of the gun, reduce the low light ball of flame display and somewhat diminished visibility of the flash from the flanks. The troublesome and complicated baffles and vent holes were eliminated.

The M6 design for the M1919A4 Fixed and Flexible models which would also fit the M1919A5 included an integral front barrel bearing and a booster chamber eliminating the one or two piece front barrel bearing and muzzle plug and screwed directly into the barrel jacket staked in place with the usual band (lock ring). The M7 flash hider for the M1919A6 replaced the cap style booster and the M8 design for the M1917A1 water cooled gun used a modified muzzle gland with the double male threads rather than the original gland. The drawings for M6 and M7 have an original date of July 7, 1945. It is not likely that any of these ever made it into combat in WWII. All of the cone style flash hiders could be machined from steel or cast from perlitic malleable iron alloy commonly called ArmaSteel, Saginaw Steering Gear’s Malleable Iron Division trade name.

A good portion of RIA’s immediate post WWII activity involved the overhaul and refurbishing of all manner of equipment, especially small arms, and preparing them for long term storage. This required the production of replacement and maintenance spare parts which they were doing in house. M6 and M7 flash hiders were being produced in small quantities as early as 1947. While the M6 design remained virtually unchanged throughout production, the original M7 design with a booster chamber diameter of 1.265 inches was apparently causing reliability issues in the M1919A6 so the chamber diameter was increased to 1.400 inches in August of 1948.

The first mention of any mass production of M6 and M7 flash hiders comes from RIA’s Manufacturing History for Fiscal Year 1950 (1 July 1949 to 30 June 1950) which also mentions R&D on an aluminum .30 caliber flash hider but does not indicate what .30 caliber weapon it was for. Fiscal Year 1950 flash hider production was 17,990 M6 and 8,961 M7 flash hiders followed by 10,900 M7’s in FY 1951, 14,014 in FY 1952, 19,194 in FY1953 and 3,277 unidentified types in FY1954.

In August 1949, the War Department issued a Modification Work Order (MWO) to replace all M1919A6 cap style boosters, M7 flash hiders with the 1.265 inch booster chamber, front barrel bearings and bipod retaining rings that were in the field with the new M7 having a 1.40 booster chamber and a redesigned front barrel bearing and thicker retaining ring. The MWO did not cover weapons in storage and for reasons not known the MWO was rescinded by Department of the Army Circular 310-66. The M6 flash hider is supposed to be marked 7162300 following the drawing/parts number naming convention adopted in late 1943 for new parts for either an existing or new weapon. Some M6s are mismarked C7162300 due to widespread confusion about including the drawing letter size in the imprint on the part. Birtman Electric Company produced M6s usually have the number near the open end of the cone, RIA production on the booster section. M7s are marked with the 7162303 drawing/part number there maybe mismarked C7162303 flash hiders lurking out there. Maker’s markings were not required. M6s have the standard .718 booster orifice and M7s the .812 opening, both designed for U.S. Caliber .30 ammunition. The M6 has 1 inch wrench flats at the base of the cone to aid in removal.

When the Korean War started RIA farmed out some M6 production to Birtman Electric Company, a Chicago firm that manufactured home appliances and had a production facility in Rock Island, IL. Packaged M6 flash hiders with Birtman labels are quite common, usually found with packing dates from 1951 to 1953. M6 packaging included a new band (lock ring) as the bands were not intended for reuse after initial staking. Birtman also produced 3.5 inch M20 rocket launchers (bazookas) along with toasters and vacuum cleaners. The company was purchased by Whirlpool, the appliance maker, in 1957. Every time the author loads the dishwasher, the heritage of the bazooka and the M6 flash hider makes pushing the start button much more interesting.

While the M6 and M7s were manufactured in quantity before, during and after the Korean War, most of the official wartime photos seen by the author do not show either of these parts. Documentation after July 1957 gets rather sparse as the air cooled BMGs were being elbowed out of the way by the M60GP machine gun and the primary source of Browning information, RIA, and by association the RIA Museum, lost engineering support and manufacturing oversight for machine guns when this responsibility shifted to back to the Springfield Armory.

The last official documentation known to the author of the air cooled BMG’s are the 1970 Depot Maintenance Work Requirements (DMWR) produced by the Army Weapons Command at RIA and the 1969 TM9-1005-212-25 for the M1919A4, M1919A6 and arguably the best of the breed the M37. These publications show only the M6 and M7 flash hiders as component parts, the M37 continued to use a booster bearing arrangement lacking any flash hider. Why the Army continued to produce a document, the DMWR, related to inspection and overhaul of a weapon displaced 17 years previously in combat ready units is not known.

Weapons designers are always challenged by Isaac Newton’s Third law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The action and forces generated by cartridge operation that expels the projectile from the barrel generates forces operating in the opposite direction. This physical force is known as recoil and is familiar to anyone who has ever fired a gun and it is directly relational to the energy produced by the firing of the cartridge.

In automatic or self-loading firearms, some of these forces are harnessed to provide a means to function the weapon. However, these same forces are transmitted to the weapon itself and if not mitigated in some way will eventually cause damage to the firearm.

John Browning’s Model of 1917 water cooled machine gun buffering system was required to absorb the rapid repetitive recoil forces generated by a cartridge that operates in the 50,000 psi range. The buffering system had to control excess recoil forces to prevent battering of the bolt against the back plate and either damage to the bolt or the slots in the side plates that hold the back plate in place

Recoil dampening or buffering systems for the M1919 family of Browning .30 caliber air cooled ground type machine guns stretch all the way back to the Model of 1917 water cooled.

Buffering systems, like many other M1919 component parts and assemblies, underwent a bewildering number of changes brought about by attempts to produce a better performing weapon or to make use of new materials or manufacturing techniques and to simplify the weapon and reduce costs.

With recoil operated weapons it is always a fine design balance between having sufficient recoil energy available to reliably operate the weapon under all conditions likely to encountered, and having the weapon batter itself into junk – undoubtedly, the worst case reliability issue.

The original water cooled Model of 1917 and M1919 Tank Machine Gun buffer system used a combination of 15 fiber discs, a cone shaped plug and a tapered brass split ring held in place by the adjusting screw at the open end of the buffer tube. The material these “fiber” discs are made from seems to be like old fashioned hard linoleum and the color shading varies somewhat.

Besides recoil forces having the potential to damage the weapon they have another downside; recoil disturbs the sight picture and more importantly point of impact of the projectile. When machine guns were first introduced into combat in WWI they were treated like artillery complete with plotting boards, firing tables, and much talk of “beaten zones.” Machine guns were mounted on heavy tripods sandbagged in place to provide a stable firing platform for indirect fire missions where it was absolutely critical that the point of projectile impact be controlled as the target was not visible to the operator. After nearly four years of static trench warfare on WWI’s Western Front, everyone pretty much agreed that the next war would be a war of movement. Though old ideas die hard especially in the hidebound inter-war U.S. Army where, other than the Cavalry who’s only prayer of continued existence was movement warfare, the machine gun as artillery concept hung on well into the mid 1930s.

The Cavalry, desperate for some method of increasing the combat power of mounted troops, decided that the M1919 Tank Machine Gun and the Emergency Tripod, Dismounted Mark 1 might be just the ticket for the train ride into the future of combat. The Mark 1 tripod, made from angle iron with a hinged circular clamp to attach it to the air cooled tank gun’s barrel jacket, was about one fifth the weight of the Model of 1917 tripod issued with the Model of 1917 water cooled Browning.

The reasoning behind the adoption of the Mark 1 seems in retrospect utterly fantastic. The Mark 1 was carried on a tank usually in a sponson box on the exterior. The thought being that if the tank was disabled, the crew would abandon the tank after removing the machine gun and ammunition, retrieve the tripod and set up some sort of base of fire. Though it is hard to believe that the crew of a disabled tank, possibly on fire, was going to take the time to do anything other than bail out and head for cover. Some U.S. tanks were still carrying a tripod for use with a dismounted M1919A4 as part of their assigned equipment well into in the Korean War.

In any event, as the Cavalry developed a modified Tank Machine Gun, which eventually turned into the M1919A2, a new lightweight tripod, the M2, was developed to replace the angle iron monstrosity Mark 1. From Ordnance Committee meeting minutes, and the existence of experimental devices like the muzzle “stabilizers” being developed and tested, it is apparent that there was much concern about the stability of the 15 pound M2 tripod. The old use of machine guns for indirect fire applications was still dancing around in some minds.

Ordnance had the thought that a different sort of recoil buffer system using a coil spring might provide sufficient recoil dampening to compensate for the supposed lack of stability in the M2 tripod. This feature if successful would perform double duty: provide recoil dampening to protect the weapon from excessive recoil stress damage and produce a more stable firing platform providing better accuracy.

As the modified Tank Machine Guns morphed into the M1919A2, the year 1934 saw the first of several spring and plunger recoil systems. While originally geared to the M1919A2, the idea spread to the M1919A4 Flexible BMGs that were also intended to be used on the new M2 Tripod mount, which was well on its way to adoption in the fall of 1934. The M1919 Fixed model while not intended to be used on a tripod appears in several pictures so mounted.

Between 1934 and the early part of WWII various types of springs, stops, fillers and discs were tried. The 1941 SNL contained a sort of narrative on how the M1919A2 and A4 were developing, it specifically mentions the elimination of the ring and cone for the M1919A4 in paragraph 1: The flexible back plate assembly has been modified by replacing the tapered buffer cone and ring with a straight buffer filler. This construction eliminates the “freezing” of the ring and cone, which condition retards the action of the buffer spring.”

Trouble was brewing with the whole concept of the springs and stops. Testing revealed that in order to be effective they had to be accurately tensioned or preloaded. RIA determined that the figure of 3/32 of a inch between the buffer and the stop produced the best results. This adjustment was made by the adjusting screw at the outside end of the buffer tube. The Adjusting screw in use at the time had only two “v” shaped detent cuts in the threaded portion, 180 degrees apart, which allowed a spring loaded plunger to hold the adjustment. In October 1939, RIA modified the part so it had 4 “V” detent cuts, 90 degrees apart, to be able to obtain and hold the necessary adjustment so that the spring and stop buffering system would function properly. The overly complicated and largely unnecessary buffering system featuring a cast of thousands i.e. cones, rings, springs, stops, fillers large and small requiring exact adjustment to function properly was finally replaced with the all fiber disc system. The four “V” detent cuts continued as part of the adjusting screw design until end of service life.

TB ORD 366, Overhaul and Rebuild Standards for Small Arms Material, August 1949, in a display of brevity not usually seen in Army Technical Bulletins stated: “Adjusting screw will not protrude more than one full thread beyond the end of the buffer tube and will be tightened to 24 +/- 6 foot pounds.”

Shortly after World War I ended, the U.S. Army found itself in possession of about 70,000 Model of 1917 .30 caliber water-cooled Browning machine guns, the majority of which were new in the crate. They also had to resolve the problem of bulged side plates, broken breech lock cams and bottom plates that cropped up during combat use in France.

Many fingers have been pointed in various directions attempting to fix blame for the failure to perform as advertised: bad steel, poor workmanship, inadequate inspection, etc., but the root cause of the problem was the method by which the bottom plate was attached to the side plates. The bottom plate slipped into grooves milled into the side plates and was peened or crimped in place. It was a design flaw, pure and simple, which likely would have been discovered had more extensive testing been done before fielding the weapon.

Post-war, the Ordnance Department promptly went to work on the problem and after extensive testing determined that the quick and dirty (not to mention cheap) fix was the installation of a “U” shaped reinforcing stirrup riveted to the side plates in the breech cam lock region of the casing. This retrofit could be accomplished without disassembly of the casing and at relatively low cost. The cost factor was extremely important as military budgets and manpower were slashed, and the political landscape shifted from rampant jingoism back to a decidedly isolationist bent and the traditional public fears of militarism and a large standing army returned. In 1920, the production of the stirrups began along with the installation on Model of 1917, Tank, and Aircraft Brownings being refurbished before being placed in stores and weapons being returned to depots for repairs.

Not everybody connected with the Ordnance Department thought the stirrup fix was the best approach. One such person was Captain Walter T. Gorton, an Ordnance Officer assigned to the Springfield Armory. Captain Gorton took the “big picture” view and designed a bottom plate that not only provided the required reinforcement in spades but also added an integral elevating bracket eliminating the separate bracket and the four attaching screws. In 1922 Captain Gorton applied for and later received U.S. Patent 1,509,401 on Sept. 23, 1924. Because of the Act of March 3, 1883, employees of the U.S. Government who developed patents in connection with their official duties could receive no royalties, and any person in the United States was free to use the design. Like John C. Garand, developer of “the greatest battle implement ever devised,” Captain Gorton never received a dime in royalties. Unfortunately, the Captain’s design would require manufacturing a rather complicated part and the removal of the existing bottom plate; something deemed overkill when the stirrup modification would do just fine for an army caught in budget cuts and growing increasingly stale at the practice of arms following the “War to end all wars.”

Gorton’s design continued to gather dust until 1936 when two seemingly unrelated events combined to bring the improved bottom plate design to the forefront. The first event was a change in the design of the elevating mechanism of the M1917A1 tripod which required that the elevating bracket be precisely located and perpendicular to the axis of the bore, something that the original Model of 1917 “dove-tail” bottom plate with its separately attached elevation bracket lacked. The second event was Congress taking the view that loosening the purse strings to allow upgrading and conversion of new-in-the-box Model of 1917s to M1917A1 and M1919A4 air cooled weapons was preferable and much less expensive than a new weapons development program which the Army had been hounding them for. An additional benefit was that any Model of 1918 Aircraft guns not required by the Army Air Corps or obsolete Tank Guns could also be converted to M1919A4’s.

Gorton’s design added the needed strength to the casing assembly and provided for a uniform location for the elevating mechanism attachment for both the M1917A1 and new M2 tripods. The Ordnance Department had completed the conversion of the Model of 1917 drawings from the old Class and Division system to the letter prefix system in 1931 and had assigned the drawing number C8464 to the dove-tail bottom plate.

For reasons not at all clear, and in violation of Ordnance Department regulation, when the drawing for Gorton’s plate was produced in September 1936, it was assigned the same drawing number as the dove-tail plate even though these parts were not in any way interchangeable. When the D35392 aka C8464 flanged bottom plate was being developed for the M1919A2 and the A4, the Cavalry requested that the rectangular boss on the bottom just ahead of the T&E attachment point be included. This modification was desired for use with the horse pack Machine Gun Hanger M3 for a more secure attachment of the gun to the hanger. It continued to be included in the design until the end of production even though pack transport of machine guns was mostly a distant memory. The original design for the new bottom plate was dimensioned to be used on new production weapons. It appears that as the rebuild process developed it was discovered that when the weapons were originally assembled the process of compressing or crimping the bottom edge of the side plates into the tongues of the dove-tail bottom plate produced very uneven results. The interior casing dimensions were consistent, but height of the side plates after assembly varied. Since the new bottom plate had side plate grooves milled to accommodate new side plates the random height side plates on the weapons being rebuilt caused changes to the interior dimensions of the casing assembly. Nearly every one of these weapons undergoing rebuild was slightly different.

The solution to this new problem was to mill the bottom of all the side plates of weapons undergoing rebuild to a standard height dimension and produce a bottom plate with side plate grooves specifically dimensioned for the milled side plates. It appears that these special purpose bottom plates were removed from the production line at some point before the side plate grooves were cut and finished with the necessary changes. From samples measured, it appears that the modified bottom plates had side plate grooves about .037 shallower than the standard bottom plate. In order to differentiate between standard plates and plates intended to be used in the rebuild process the rebuild plates were marked “MP” in addition to the standard piece mark. It is believed by the author that “MP” indicated “Modified Part.” However, it could also mean “Modified Plate” or none of the above, as there isn’t any documentation discovered so far explaining what “MP” actually meant.

By February 1938 it was decided that since the Gorton bottom plate was to be used on the M1917A1 and the M1919A4, the drawing would be renumbered to D35392 to end the confusion of having two different parts, the original dove-tail and the flanged Gorton bottom plate with the same drawing number. The practice of marking plates intended for use in the conversion process continued with the plates now being marked D35392 MP and the makers marking. Some MP bottom plates had piece mark suffixes which only indicate that the part is made to some revision specification; it has nothing to do with the fact that it is a special purpose bottom plate. No drawings of either of these two modified bottom plates have been discovered as of yet.

Now there were two differently marked special purpose bottom plates and things were about to take a turn for the worse. By July 1940, with a war on in Europe and the weapons rebuilding/conversion rebuilding process well under way, Rock Island Arsenal decided to create a new drawing of the special purpose bottom plate with yet another piece mark. This new drawing was numbered D37887 and contained only those dimensions needed to cut the special depth side plate grooves. It also contains notes indicating that all other dimensions required are to be obtained from drawing D35392 and the part is for modifications only.

Comparing the two drawings shows a difference in the side plate groove depth of .040 which could vary slightly for manufacturing tolerances. Now there were three differently piece marked special purpose bottom plates. Sometimes the more you try to fix something the worse you make it.

From what we understand about what actually went on, RIA did all the conversions of Model of 1917 to M1919A4 along with all the conversions of Model of 1918 Aircraft guns, Model of 1919 Tank guns and M1919A2’s to M1919A4’s. From what has been observed so far in the way of bottom plates, RIA made all the conversion bottom plates used by various ordnance facilities in the rebuild of Model of 1917 to M1917A1 guns. The 1943 and 1944 SNL (Standard Nomenclature List) List of All Parts for the M1919A4, A5, and A6 carries a notation for the ordering of bottom plates, “Note 1. Plate, bottom D37887 should be ordered for guns that have been modified. These guns may be identified by the marking C8464-MP, D35392-MP or D37887 which appear on the underside of the bottom plate.”

How one was supposed to order the D37887 bottom plate is left up in the air because there is no SNL listing of this plate and consequently no stock number with which to order it. While all this happened nearly 75 years ago, parts kits imported from Israel and elsewhere that were involved in the conversion process turn up with surprising regularity. Their new owners sometimes wonder about oddly numbered bottom plates and left side plates with the groove for the dove-tail bottom plate and a couple of extra holes where the reinforcing stirrup was riveted on or filled in cuts for aircraft synchronizers. Some of these weapons have been involved in more conversions than a tent revival meeting. These strange visitors from the past just make life and the Browning story more interesting.

Some wag once described a camel as a horse designed by a committee. If that’s true the M1919A6 is the camel of the light machine gun world. It looks like the small arms equivalent of a couple of kids building a dog house from scrap lumber. The combination of events that preceded the A6’s deployment in the fall of 1943 reads like a laundry list of what not to do in a weapons development program.

The U.S. Army concept of a rifle caliber, easily transportable automatic weapon for close support of high mobility troops originated with the Cavalry as far back as 1919. The Chief of Cavalry and his staff, drawing on WWI experiences, realized that in order to remain relevant in modern warfare the Cavalry would have to increase the combat power of mounted troops and proceeded to lobby the Ordnance Department for a suitable weapon. The Ordnance Department, up to its eyeballs with surplus everything, provided a weapon, the M1922 Browning Machine Rifle, which was a modified M1918 Browning Machine Rifle, later known as the Browning Automatic Rifle, with a barrel featuring a series of large diameter annular flutes or fins near the chamber end of the barrel in an attempt to improve cooling and increase sustained fire capabilities. The M1922 was also equipped with a bipod mounted on the gas cylinder tube and butt rest. The M1922 was accurate and reliable; however it had a couple of drawbacks. Even with the finned barrel it was unable to provide sustained covering fire because of overheating and the limited magazine capacity of 20 rounds.

In April of 1929 the Ordnance Committee acting on Item # 7613 responded to a request from the Chief of Cavalry and furnished two air cooled M1919 Tank Machine Guns with shoulder stocks and the emergency tripod, dismounted, and one tank gun with a “modified” barrel to Ft Riley KS for testing. While there is little detail as to the nature of the modification it appears from the test results that the “modified” barrel was some sort of lightweight barrel that was thought to be able to function without the use of the gas assist booster present on the M1919 Tank Machine Gun.

In the February 6, 1930 meeting of the Ordnance Committee, the test report was read into the record as Item #8086. In short, the Cavalry found that that the tank gun with the modified barrel was wholly unsuitable due to overheating, which caused loss of accuracy and got the weapon so hot that it was nearly impossible to handle or pack. They were not very enthusiastic about the unmodified M1919’s either, actually requesting that ground type Lewis machine guns be furnished from stores for further field testing. The Chief of Cavalry also requested the Ordnance Department to develop a weapon capable of sustained fire while maintaining accuracy, being hand carried, able to be readily transported on a pack horse, and equipped with a shoulder stock, carrying handle and a light weight tripod. The Ordnance Committee obliged and recommended shipment of 25 Lewis guns and 250 47-round magazines for further evaluation. It not presently known if these Lewis guns were ever shipped or not.

What was going on here was the Calvary was pressuring Ordnance for a newly designed weapon by finding fault with whatever was furnished. Given budget restraints due to the Great Depression, a parsimonious Congress, ever paranoid of a large standing army and with the huge store of weapons left over from WWI, chances of a new weapons development program were somewhere around zero.

When the harsh realities of the situation dawned on the Chief of Cavalry he changed his tune and on August 22, 1930 he requested that the M1922 Browning Machine Rifle be replaced by the M1919 Tank Machine Gun modified by removing the telescopic sight and brackets, front sight and the auxiliary trigger and grip along with a laundry list of other changes involving front and rear sights and the emergency tripod but retaining the M1919 shoulder rest. On August 26 the Ordnance Department forwarded this request to the Adjutant General adding the proviso that the request be held in abeyance until the Cavalry actually had time to test out this theory.

While all this was going on some enterprising Ordnance officers of the 1st Cavalry Division at Ft. Bliss TX had started tinkering with the 4 M1919 tank guns furnished for pack mounting tests by jury-rigging front and rear sights, removing the auxiliary trigger and grip and changing the clamp style barrel jacket mounting of the emergency tripod to a clevis style that attached the tripod by the front mount adaptor holes in the casing. When the Chief of Cavalry arrived for a visit he was suitably impressed and fired off a letter to the Ordnance Technical Committee attached to drawings prepared by the folks at FT. Bliss showing the necessary modifications that the Cavalry considered essential. One of the essentials was an adjustable shoulder stock “firmly and permanently attached.” The eight drawings dated 8-26-30 and one sheet of revisions dated October 14, 1930 was forwarded to the Ordnance Committee, where on October 30, 1930 all of this was read into the record as Item 8523.

In 1931 the Infantry got involved and what would lead to the M1919A2, M1919A4 and the M1919A6 began to gain traction. Somewhere along the line the shoulder rest got the heave-ho. The basic design for the M1919 Tank Machine Gun was the M1917 water cooled. Converting the water cooled design to air cooling opened several cans of worms. The closed-bolt firing system and field stripping for barrel changing in the water cooled M1917 were not a big deal, providing that one kept the barrel jacket filled with coolant. Loss of the water cooling efficiency of the original design required that the barrel mass be increased to help with the heat dissipation problem. This increased the weight of the recoiling parts, which required greater energy to function the weapon, leading to the development of the gas assist “booster” design. There was only so much to be gained solving the heat dissipation problem by increasing barrel mass before the Law of Diminishing Returns took effect. No matter what you did, the air cooled Browning weapon would run hotter leading to the danger of cook-offs and rapid wear of barrels. The cook-off problem in the M1919 Tank guns and its follow-on designs was mitigated somewhat by the installation of the bolt latch which when applied held the bolt to the rear preventing chambering a round in a hot barrel and provided more air circulation for quicker cooling.

The cold hard fact was that barrels on the air cooled ground guns were going to have to be changed much more frequently, which required the weapon to be field stripped and head-spaced for the new barrel. Something designed as an air-cooled infantry weapon from the ground up like the German MG 34 and its follow-on, the MG 42, would or should take changing barrels, shoulder stocks, carrying handles and mounts into account in the original design.

The Cavalry and Infantry apparently decided that something, the M1919A2 and the M2 tripod and the follow-on M1919A4, was better than nothing, but that didn’t keep them from grousing about barrel changing and other shortcomings of the air cooled .30 Caliber ground Brownings. All this grousing about barrel changing led to some experimentation at RIA.

Ordnance was not opposed in principal to acquiring a new light machine gun and even held field trials for the foreign manufactured Hotchkiss and Solothurn weapons. The Ordnance Committee meeting on March 29, 1934 discussed the results of the trial as Item # 11357 noting that the quick change feature of barrels was looked on favorably by the Infantry. The Infantry wanted a relatively light weight weapon that was rifle caliber and belt fed capable of some level of sustained fire and able to be deployed by one man. The M1919A4 needed two men to deploy, the Gunner carrying the tripod and the Assistant Gunner carrying the A4. The M2 tripod/A4 combination weighed in at 48 lbs and usually had to be separated into two pieces to change the weapon’s position. The Infantry was aware of the German MG 34, which featured a butt stock and a bipod mounted on the weapon along with a very effective quick change barrel feature. The weapon could also be mounted on a ground mount if the need arose. This appeared to be the style of weapon best suited to the perceived task. Ordnance wanted to purpose-build a weapon to serve the Infantry’s needs. However the system in use at the time to solicit designs, develop new weapons, and test, field trial, and mass produce took years. The Infantry, well aware of the time required to approve new weapons, needed something to satisfy their needs yesterday, not years down the road.

Much wrangling back and forth ensued with the Infantry suggesting that the M1919A4 currently in production could be modified at little cost using non critical materials to satisfy their immediate needs and some new weapon could be developed at a later date. By early 1943, Ordnance agreed to develop a kit of accessories to be furnished to adopt the M1919A4 to the configuration that the Infantry desired. During development and testing of the new accessory kit, Ordnance discovered that this was not going to be a stroll in the park due to design and parts logistics issues and decided to purpose-build and name the modified weapon M1919A6 Major Item 51-125 and declare it a substitute standard. The business of the quick(er) change barrel resurfaced and got incorporated in the design concept.

The whole business of changing the A6 barrel profile, which made it lighter, is usually wholly misunderstood. It was never about making the weight of the weapon lighter, which it did; it was about making the barrel and hence the recoiling parts lighter and solving one of the M1919A4’s design deficiencies. All of the air-cooled Cal. .30 Browning ground guns were makeovers from the M1917 water cooled design which was a pure recoil operated weapon. The M1917 design used a 3 lb. barrel that was changed by field stripping the weapon. When the air-cooled Tank gun was designed it was necessary to increase the mass of the barrel to aid in heat dissipation. Since the barrel needed support at the muzzle, a ventilated jacket with elongated slots was designed. This heavier barrel increased the weight of the recoiling parts and since the energy from the firing of the cartridge needed to operate the weapon remained the same, Browning had to come up with additional energy from somewhere. Browning developed the “muzzle attachment” later known as the front barrel bearing which besides supporting the end of the 18-inch long 5.6 lb. barrel provided a chamber closed off with a removable “muzzle attachment plug” having a hole that aligned with end of the muzzle. During the very short time the projectile was in this chamber expanding gas from the burning propellant applied rearward force to the end of the barrel adding additional recoil energy and making these weapons recoil operated gas assist.

Coming up with this solution, Browning reached back to his roots and his original “device” which used the combustion gasses exiting the muzzle to move a plate with a hole that the projectile passed through which was attached to a rod to cycle the action of a rifle. When the designers of the A6 lightened the barrel they were doing so to eliminate the need for the gas assist function. By shortening the barrel jacket and adding wrench flats to the muzzle which protruded far enough to allow the barrel to be unscrewed from the barrel extension from the muzzle end and withdrawn from the front and a new barrel to be installed in the reverse manner.

The decision to reduce the barrel mass attempting to get a front change barrel was probably not a good one. The M1919A4 with its 7.5 lb. barrel was already marginal on overheating during sustained fire and reducing the mass did not make a tenuous situation any better. The Saginaw Steering Gear Division of General Motors, the premier quality, low cost and high production manufacturer and, after July, 1943 the only maker in regular production of the M1919A4, was selected to be the producer/developer of the new weapon. Saginaw got busy and fabricated new parts that were cast using an alloy developed by Saginaw Malleable Iron, one of their subsidiary companies. This alloy, a perlitic malleable iron, called ArmaSteel, had been developed pre-war to cast certain automotive parts that were difficult to machine.

A review of the Ordnance Department drawings of A6 specific parts shows a common original date on the majority of the drawings of 7-23-43 and this author takes this to be a convenient date to cite for beginning of production. Other than the added parts, the weapon remains an M1919A4. And just like the A4 with the addition of a pintle, the A6 could be mounted on any tripod that would accept the A4. Like all the other M1919’s, the A6 could use either ammunition supplied in fabric belts or metallic link belts.

The first combat application of the 1919A6 occurred in the Salerno area of the Italian Campaign in the late fall of 1943 and later in the Anzio area in January of 1944. Things did not go well. While engineering assessments showed that the weapon as fielded lacking any booster would function, it failed its combat test. The principal shortcoming was a reliability issue, a lack of reserve power to function the weapon when dirty or firing with the muzzle depressed below horizontal. The lightweight barrel also made overheating even more severe. Ordnance engineers reviewed the problem and decided that even with the lightened barrel maybe John Browning with his idea of the gas assist booster was on to something. Back to the drawing board, literally. Not wanting to forgo the front change barrel concept the designers came up with a cap style booster removable without the need for a tool. This design required a different front barrel bearing and an even shorter barrel jacket.

The cap style booster solved the reserve recoil energy problem but as with all things one problem begets another. The clip that held the cap to the front barrel bearing was easily dislodged allowing the cap to fall off the bearing, and to make things worse, the retaining clip that held the bipod head on the bearing was prone to slipping off allowing the entire bipod to slide off the bearing.

In time all these problems and a few others were solved. A different style booster cap retaining clip with a locking feature replaced the earlier design along with a thicker retaining ring for the bipod head. Development of .30 caliber Stellite barrel assemblies and later chrome lined bores and front barrel bearing surfaces for the A6 improved the wear characteristics of the barrel. Another feature developed late WWII was the design of the flash hider/booster for both the M1919A4 and the A6. However this accessory was not in regular production until 1950.

Post-Korea the M1919A6 got a new look with the new carry handles, originally designed in 1944, which was clamped to the barrel jacket and the M7 booster/flash hider with the locking style clip. This style of wood carry handle was adapted to the M1919A2 BAR and the M1917A1 water cooled Browning.

The M1919A6 soldiered on past the introduction of the M60GP machine gun in 1957 and into the very early stages of the Viet Nam war and with Army Reserve and National Guard units until nearly 1970. The M1919A4 and A6 in stores became fodder for various military assistance programs, especially to Israel.

The Israeli Defense Force proceeded to convert these weapons to 7.62×51 NATO and decided to use the original concept of furnishing a kit of accessories so that any M1919A4 could be become more or less instantly an A6 wannabe. This allowed the use of the standard A4 profile barrel simplifying supply issues and helped with overheating. They re-designed and fabricated a new bipod with fixed length legs and a spring loaded plunger that engaged the holes in the bottom of the barrel jacket allowing the bi-pod to be positioned anywhere on the jacket. The IDF version of the carry handle has a solid plastic handle and the champing bolt is equipped with a wing nut for easier adjustment. The IDF butt stock is a near exact copy of the USGI stock except for Hebrew script on the upper right rear surface.

Total WWII production includes about 44,000 purpose built weapons produced by Saginaw Steering Gear along with an unknown number of conversions from M1919A4s and A5s. Post war and through the Korean War, RIA both rebuilt M1919A4s and A5s into M1919A6s and produced about 8400 new purpose built 1919A6 models. According to the RIA Historical Summary for the period 1 July 1955 to 31 December 1955 the last 3 new built M1919A6s rolled off the RIA production line. The last mention of RIA’s connection with the M1919A6 was the rebuilding of 432 M1919A4 to M1919A6 configuration between 1 July 1957 and 31 December 1957. Following the transfer of engineering and support activities for these weapons back to the Springfield Armory on 12 July 1957 Saco-Lowell Shops produced a small number of purpose built M1919A6’s along with maintenance parts.

When the U.S. Army decided to adopt the M1919A4 air cooled .30 caliber Browning machine guns for use by Calvary, Infantry and Armored units it was felt that it should be in two basic forms. The Fixed model Major Item 51-83 for mounting in tanks and the Flexible model Major Item 51-84 for ground and vehicle applications.

As a peacetime economy measure all of the available weapons such as the Tank guns, M1919A2, M1918 and M1919 .30 caliber Aircraft guns, and excess M1917 water cooled guns left over from WWI and not being converted to M1917A1 configuration were rounded up and converted to something deemed useful: the M1919A4.

The only difference between the M1919A4 Fixed and Flexible models was the back plate assembly. The Flexible had the familiar pistol grip with horizontal buffer system and the Fixed used the vertical buffer back plate assembly without the grip used on the Browning M1918M1 aircraft machine gun. Both Fixed and Flexible were equipped with the bolt latch to help prevent cook-offs – a feature left over from the M1919 Tank Machine Gun. Using the vertical buffer system without the pistol grip cut about 4 inches off the overall length of the weapon: a good thing in the close confines of a tank turret.

The M1919A4 Fixed differed from the earlier M1919Tank Machine Gun in that it had a 24 inch barrel and no pistol grip back plate or auxiliary grip and trigger. Tank combination mounts where the main gun and the machine gun were laid on using the same sighting system were also equipped with solenoid remote firing devices that allowed the gunner to fire the machine gun without actually touching the trigger.

As the combination mounts M22 and M23 for the M5 37mm main gun used in the M2A4 and M3A1 Stewart tank came into service, problems developed with fitting the standard M1919A4 Fixed model into the mount. In these applications there wasn’t enough room for the gunner to reach the bolt handle and the newly developed M1919A4 top cover hold open device bolt protruded too far to the right.

The Ordnance Department solved this dilemma in May of 1941 by having the Rock Island Arsenal develop a new style of bolt retracting handle assembly, a modified top cover hold open device and swapping out the original bolt handle for the cocking stud from the Aircraft guns. These changes were applied to standard M1919A4 Fixed weapons having front and rear sights which produced a custom built application. The problem was that because they were custom built there was no way to differentiate between the standard Fixed model A4 and the modified ones or any way to stock or order parts.

In early 1942, after building about 3,000 of these customized weapons and with need for them increasing with war demands, the Ordnance Department decided to identify them with their own standard nomenclature, M1919A5 Fixed and their own Major Item number 51-114. While this solved the problem for future production it created a situation where there were M1919A4 Fixed hybrid weapons in the field.

The September, 1943 Standard Nomenclature List A-6 lists the M1919A5 parts but the first SNL illustration of a purpose built A5 didn’t appear until April 1947 in ORD 9 SNL A-6. By this late date the A5 had been obsolete for four years. According to figures published in Goldsmith’s Volume 1 of The Browning Machine Gun there were about 14,000 purpose built M1919A5s constructed between May of 1942 and May of 1943. Most if not all of the purpose built A5s seem to have been produced at RIA. Production of the A5 ceased because its principal user the M3A1 Stewart tank was declared obsolete in November of 1943. The purpose built weapons are easy to spot as they have the original model designation die stamped on the right side plate.

The A5s borrowed M1918 aircraft vertical buffer back plate was replaced by a short horizontal buffer tube design with two variations: one a two piece and the other a single piece. Both used an 8 fiber disc buffering system and the standard M1919A4 buffer system parts with the exception of the adjusting screw. Changing the design of the back plate from the M1918 aircraft style to the horizontal versions simplified fabrication.

Now the situation was reversed; instead of having too few M1919A5s, Ordnance had too many of them with no foreseeable demand. However, there was a demand for the M1919A4 and M1919A6. The excess M1919A5s were reworked into something more useful. So far, we haven’t located any samples of a purpose built unaltered M1919A5, perhaps one of the readers may know of one, if so the author would like to know its whereabouts.