Charles Cutshaw – Small Arms Review

SUREFIRE’S HOT TACTICAL FLASHLIGHTS

SAR Staff — Thu, 01 Apr 2004 03:02:00 +0000

by Charles Cutshaw

As recently as a few months ago, I scoffed at the notion that a flashlight of any kind could be used as a less-lethal “combat tool,” despite claims that the “combat lights” from Surefire could definitely be used as such. My thinking was that if someone were foolhardy enough to put a light in my face in a combat situation, I’d simply shoot at the light. After spending several days at Surefire’s production facility and the Surefire Institute, the company’s tactical training facility, however, I have become an enthusiastic convert to tactical use of Surefire lights.

Surefire originally began making its unique lights for use by law enforcement and military special operations units that wanted something more in a flashlight than was available at the time. These special operators wanted a light that was not only brighter, but also significantly more compact than anything available. Operators also wanted lights that they could conveniently mount on their weapons. When a person is carrying a lot of gear, every ounce counts and big, bulky flashlights simply get in the way in tactical operations. The brightest aluminum flashlights were rugged and water resistant, but required four to six “D” cells and were so bulky that they made effective batons and frequently were used as such. There had to be a better way. Surefire hired a top quality research and development engineering team to start with a clean slate to develop their lights. This team went to great lengths to develop the brightest, most rugged lights possible to meet the stringent requirements of military, law enforcement and civilian clients.

Surefire lights are made of a higher grade of aircraft aluminum than is used in military M16 rifle receivers. Not only does Surefire start with a high grade of aluminum, but CNC machines each component from solid bar stock, not tubing. There is not a single extrusion or piece of tube stock in any Surefire light. Lenses of the Millennium models are made of heat-resistant hardened Pyrex. Reflectors are precision manufactured so that the high-intensity light pattern of each Surefire light is remarkably consistent from light to light. Surefire combat lights are waterproof to 60 feet. These Surefire lights can even be used as diving lights, if necessary. All Surefire lights are beautifully finished, inside and out.

An indication of the level of quality control in Surefire lights is the Xenon lamps (bulbs) used by the company. These high intensity lamps are simply unequalled in the amount of light they project. They are also highly resistant to shock and vibration. While it is true that Surefire lights cost more than others, there is no comparison between Surefire’s products and what other manufacturers call “tactical lights.”

The attention to detail on Surefire lights, like everything else about the firm’s products, is remarkable. Combat lights have hex flats at the light head so that the light will not roll when laid horizontally. Combat light end caps and bodies have index marks, which, when aligned, indicate that the light can be activated by pressing the end cap button. When the end cap is rotated 180 degrees counterclockwise, the light is inactivated. The “out of index” marks give an instant tactile and visible indication of the light’s status. When the end cap is rotated 180 degrees clockwise, the light is turned to “constant on.” End caps have double “O” rings to ensure a watertight fit under constant use. Lamp assemblies are shock isolated. Knurling and machining is clean with no machine marks anywhere.

These lights, from smallest to largest are very bright. It is inadvisable to look directly into the business end of even the smallest Surefire light unless one wishes be temporarily flash blinded and have spots in front of his eyes for several seconds.

Surefire weapon light mounted on H&K’s popular USP .40 Compact LEM variant. Surefire offers weapon lights for most popular handguns, carbines and shotguns.

The reader will note that we discuss the output of Surefire’s lights in terms of Lumens, rather than candlepower, the measurement used by most other manufacturers. Surefire uses Lumens as its standard because the Lumen measures the amount of light rather than the light’s intensity. Candlepower can be misleading because it measures only the intensity of light at a given point in a focused light beam. Thus, candlepower measurement changes depending upon where in the light beam the measurement is taken. Because candlepower measurement produces impressively large numbers, it is the figure used by most flashlight manufacturers. It is also an unrealistic measurement of the actual amount of light produced and can be misleading since it is dependent upon where in the light beam the measurement is taken. The Lumen is constant, and is a true measure of the amount of light produced. Thus, Surefire uses the Lumen since is reflects the actual amount of light produced.

The smallest Surefire light, the E1 Executive, projects 15 Lumens of light, about the same as a standard two “D” cell flashlight, although the E1 is only about three inches in length and an inch in diameter at the lens bezel.

The Surefire E2 Executive pocket-size (4.5 inches long, 7/8 inch diameter at the head) light projects an astonishing 60 Lumens of light, enough to cause flash blindness in broad daylight within 10 feet, never mind in darkness. How bright is 60 Lumens? I cannot say how bright a four “D” Cell Mag Light is, but the tiny E2 Executive is MUCH brighter and projects a much more focused beam.

If I were a police officer or still in the military and needed a small size tactical light, I’d opt for the M2 or M3 Millennium Combat Light. Surefire’s Millennium series lights are more rugged than their standard line, with shock-isolated bezel, Type 3 hard-anodized finish and combat light body design. The M3 is a bit larger than Surefire’s most popular M2 Millenium, but at 125 Lumens versus the M2’s 65, the M3 projects significantly more light. The M3 also comes with a 225 Lumens “high output” bulb, but when this lamp is installed, battery life is significantly reduced. Since the M2 projects only 5 more Lumens than the pocket size E2, I’d probably choose the smaller light for everyday use purely because of its convenience.

On the other hand, if I knew that things were really going to get binding and I wanted a light that was virtually indestructible, but smaller than the M3, I’d probably opt for the 65 Lumen M2 Millennium. While this light doesn’t have nearly the “firepower” of its larger M3 brother, it is equally as rugged and capable of standing up to virtually any abuse short of actually crushing it. It also has the benefit of a handy clip that the M3 lacks for attaching it to the belt or pocket. The M2 is supplied with a high-intensity lamp that boosts the output to 120 Lumens. Again, however, battery life is dramatically reduced.

Surefire’s three cell M3 Combat light makes an ideal companion for a custom carry pistol like Ed Brown’s superb Kobra Carry. With 125 lumens of intensity, this light puts out nearly twice the light of the two cell Surefire combat lights.

For less demanding uses, Surefire also manufactures a series of lights whose light output is every bit the equal of the aluminum lights. The bodies of these lights are made of Nitrolon composite, which is nonconductive and also virtually indestructible. With 65 Lumens output, the small G2 light equals the performance of more expensive Surefire products, but at lower cost. The 110 Lumen 8NX Commander Nitrolon light comes with two Ni-Cad rechargeable batteries, charger and auto power outlet adapter. All Surefire Nitrolon-constructed lights have a non-slip grid molded into their bodies.

Most Surefire lights are powered by 123A Lithium batteries. Run time for Surefire lights varies from over an hour to a matter of approximately 20 minutes when high intensity bulbs are installed. While battery life of an hour may not seem long in comparison to conventional hand held lights, one must recall that Surefire lights perform at a much higher level than any other available light of similar size. There is no such thing as a “free lunch,” and every improvement in one level of performance requires a tradeoff at another. Several Surefire lights, such as the original 6P Model, are available with rechargeable Ni-Cad battery conversion units.

Surefire also makes a variety of dedicated tactical lights for most popular small arms. Many consist of replacement handguards or forends with Surefire Millennium lights built in. Several of these lights are in use by the US military and many are used by law enforcement agencies nationwide. For example, Surefire manufactures replacement forends for both Mossberg and Remington shotguns. These lights come with pressure pads for momentary use and provide 65 lumens for one hour. For M4 and similar carbines, Surefire manufactures the M500 Millennium Weaponlight. This dedicated light system replaces the handguard on virtually any CAR-15 type carbine. The M500A operates at an astonishing 250 Lumens for an hour, while the M500B is even brighter at 500 Lumens for 20 minutes. A similar system, the M510, is available for AR-15 type rifles. The M500/510 system is powered by six 123A batteries and is ideal for rural or maritime applications where distances are longer than is the case in urban environments. Rifle and carbine lights are also available for Heckler & Koch and SIG weapons. A popular light in military and law enforcement circles is Surefire’s M900 Millennium Vertical Foregrip System. This unit incorporates a high intensity light with 125 Lumens output (225 Lumens optional), low-level LED “navigation lights” and ergonomic vertical foregrip in a unit that clamps onto a MIL-STD-1913 rail mount via a quick-disconnect Swan lever mount. In addition, Surefire produces clamp-on lights for most handguns, including Beretta, Colt, Glock, Heckler & Koch, Para Ordnance and SIG. Weapon lights for other handguns are under development.

A good pocket light is a natural adjunct to a quality knife. H&K’s X15 liner lock pocket knife is shown with two versions of Surefire’s Executive Elite. The Outdoorsman comes with blue and red filters and an LED lamp head while the E2e can be ordered with either incandescent or LED heads.

Surefire also manufactures a full line of filters, lens covers and beamshapers for their lights. These include infrared, to enable Surefire lights to be used with night vision optics.

To enable military and law enforcement to make optimum use of their equipment, Surefire established the Surefire Institute in 1998. The instructor cadre includes a broad selection of highly experienced former military and law enforcement. The training is presently available only to military and law enforcement personnel and consists of a certain amount of classroom work and a great deal of practical training in the tactical use of Surefire lights in the company’s low light “shoot house.” Here students and cadre take turns “role playing” using Surefire’s lights and paint ball guns. Facemasks are the only protection allowed during practical low light force on force exercises and each scenario is different.

Surefire also operates a night firing range in the nearby California desert where students learn to use the handheld Surefire light of their choice on the range with live ammunition and steel targets. Our group began in late afternoon while there was still daylight. We fired our pistols from various distances and then transitioned to shooting on the move. After dark, the class repeated the live fire drills using our lights. We were surprised to learn that the M3 Millennium light we chose actually enabled us to hit the steel targets while “shooting on the move” in darkness more accurately than in daylight. All students had similar results. Properly employed, a handheld Surefire light actually enhances low-light pistol accuracy.

Surefire lights have become a “mission essential item” for many law enforcement and military personnel both as weapons lights and as personal lighting tools.

Surefire
18300 Mt. Baldy Circle
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Tel: 800-828-8809
Fax: 714-545-9537
www.surefire.com

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V7N7 (April 2004)

BOOK REVIEWS: COMBAT SHOTGUNS

SAR Staff — Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:28:33 +0000

by Larry Sterett and Charles Cutshaw

Combat Shotguns
By Leroy Thompson.
ISBN 1-85367-515-6
Published by Stackpole
Books, Dept. SAR, 5067 Ritter Rd, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055.
Price: $24.00, plus $4.00 s&h
Available at bookstores, or direct: orders@stackpolebooks.com
Review by Larry Sterett

One of the Greenhill Military Manuals, this small hardbound volume is one of the few books covering the subject of shotguns that have been designed, and/or configured for, combat. The first five chapters are devoted to: Evolution of the Shotgun in Combat, Characteristics of the Combat Shotgun, Missions of the Combat Shotgun, Improvements to the Combat Shotgun, and Combat Shotgun Ammunition. This is followed by coverage of shogun action types: slide-action, self-loaders, dual action, rifle/shotgun combos, rotary chamber, double barrel, and single barrel. (The only action type not covered, and some of which are known to have been used in combat, is the bolt-action.) Overall, more than four-dozen shotgun models are covered, with 28 of these being slide-action models.

Each model is illustrated, frequently with a double-page photograph, and discussed briefly with regard to special features or characteristics: gauge (including chamber length), length overall, barrel length, weight, sights, stock type, and magazine capacity. Measurements are in metric and English units.

Not all the models discussed are “issue” weapons, although in an emergency anything is better than nothing. Some models, such as the Stevens Model 311R may still used by police or security agencies, but the Snake Charmer II is better adapted to a survival pack than to combat use. The Ithaca Auto & Burglar Gun has not been in production for decades, although some Spanish produced copies have been manufactured for police use. Another design ahead of its time was the High Standard Model 10. Ideal as a short heavy-caliber weapon, but limited by magazine capacity, only a few ever saw police use, and possibly none by the military.

This is a handy reference volume on the subject. No experimental designs or prototypes are discussed. Anyone, military historian, arms student or collector, interested in the combat use of shotguns, past, present, or future, should find Thompson’s book useful.

The P.38 Pistol, Volumes One through Three
By Warren H. Buxton
Ucross Books
P.O. Box 764,
Los Alamos, NM 87544-2350
Volume One –
The Walther Pistols 1930-1945
1978, ISBN Number: 0-87833-303-7
328 pages, black & white
photographs and drawings
Volume Two –
The Contract Pistols 1940-1945
1984, ISBN Number: 0-96-140240-7
247 pages, black & white
photographs and drawings
Volume Three –
International Distribution,
Post 1945
1990, Second Printing 1999,
ISBN Number: 0-96140240-1-5
270 pages, black & white
photographs and drawings
$68.50 per volume plus $3.50 each shipping
Review by Charles Cutshaw

The Walther P.38 pistol is a true handgun landmark that has never had its full

story told, until now. In three lavish volumes, Warren H. Buxton lays out virtually every detail of the design, operational history, commercial sale and worldwide distribution of this historic pistol. The P.38 not only was far ahead of its time, but has had its short recoil operating system used as the basis of many subsequent designs, including the current US military Beretta 92F (M9).

The first aspect of Mr. Buxton’s definitive P.38 work is the high quality of the books. These volumes are all physically beautiful with red leatherette binding and a gold foil impression of a P.38 on each cover. The pages are of high quality stock and the profuse photographs are of high quality and excellent resolution. The photos are supplemented by drawings produced by the author. Close-up photos of various markings ensure that each P.38 model is illustrated in detail.

Although the books stand alone and are in fact sold separately, all three are necessary to have a complete history of the P.38. Volume One covers the design and development of the P.38, beginning about 1930 and ending with the cessation of World War II when Walther ceased production of all handguns until the mid-1950s. Volume Two covers World War II contract pistols manufactured by Mauser, Spreewerk, FN and others. The level of detail on all manufacturers’ variants leaves nothing to the imagination. Volume Three details postwar distribution of P.38 pistols throughout the world for use by military and police.

Where possible, national markings of these “surplus” pistols is included. Each volume has an extensive index and is profusely illustrated. It is difficult to conceive of the massive amount of research that went into the production of these volumes!

In Volume One, the author does not limit himself to the P.38, but also discusses competing models that vied for German military adoption in the mid 1930s, including Mauser, Sauer & Sohn and BSW pistols.

The author also discusses firearm laws and regulations under Nazi German government and policies in occupied countries. For the average German, handgun ownership was tightly regulated, but possible upon obtaining a permit to purchase and then another to possess.

The P.38 Pistol is clearly the definitive work on the P.38 pistol in all its manifestations. The volumes are laid out in a logical manner and are well organized. The many photographs and drawings are interesting in and of themselves, besides supplementing the text. These definitive books belong in the reference library of any student of modern firearms.

The present three volumes do not comprise the complete history of the P.38. Mr. Buxton has three more volumes in preparation to complete the P.38 story. Volume Four will cover the postwar “Ulm pistols” made by Walther and Manurhin. These pistols include the P38, P38II, P1, P38K, P4, P5, P88, commemoratives, special orders, and others. Military and police distribution will also be covered in Volume Four. Volume Five will feature holsters used with P.38 and related pistols since the 1930s. Volume Six will be a reappraisal of the material contained in all the preceding volumes, with emphasis on World War II pistols.

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V7N3 (December 2003)

Norgon’s “Ambi-Catch™”Improves M16 Ergonomics

SAR Staff — Sat, 01 Dec 2001 02:30:08 +0000

By Charles Cutshaw

There have been many aftermarket accessories and “improvements” introduced for the ubiquitous AR-15/M16 rifle and its derivatives over the many years since the rifle was introduced, most of which have passed away while the rifle endures. Some changes, such as those that led to the “second generation” AR-15, type classified by the US Military as the M16A2 and M4 Carbine were true steps forward. Others, such as enlarged catches for the charging handle were of limited utility. In its basic configuration, the AR-15/M16/M4 can accurately be described as “mature” in its development. While the rifle has competitors, few can claim to truly improve on its overall performance in any major aspect. This is not to say that the rifle cannot be improved upon, however. One significant shortcoming of the AR-15/M16 is the fact that it is not fully ambidextrous, while many of its competitors are.

While the cartridge deflector behind the ejection port solves the problem of ejected spent casings striking left handed shooters in the face and most of the M16/M4’s controls are ambidextrous, the magazine release remains “right hand only.” While many may consider this of little consequence, it becomes of higher concern if one happens to be among the 20 percent of the population that is left-handed. To gain an appreciation of the magnitude of the problem, all one has to do is try to eject the magazine holding the rifle or carbine as a “lefty.” Moreover, there are occasions when a right-handed shooter will find it necessary to release the magazine with his left hand. Situations that might require “weak hand” release include injury to the dominant hand or arm, a covered position where use of the dominant hand would expose the shooter to enemy fire, or injury to the dominant eye. A fully ambidextrous magazine release also provides options that expedite magazine changes, which could be life saving in combat. Not only is an ambidextrous magazine release accessible via the left hand, but offers different change options to both right and left handed shooters, by allowing use of the thumb of the non-firing hand.

There have been left-hand M16/M4 magazine releases in the past, but none has solved the problem with the success of the recently announced “Ambi-Catch™.” The Ambi-Catch™ is made of the same material and to the same quality standard as the original magazine release. It is of steel construction, heat-treated and manganese phosphate finished to military specification. The interior catch is beveled on the bottom edge to smooth magazine insertion and retains the magazine as positively as the factory original. The Ambi-Catch™ functions via a lever arrangement that replaces the original catch in less than five minutes and simply screws into the right side release button. The pivot pin and mechanism of the Ambi-Catch™ is housed within the magazine catch slot in the rifle’s receiver and thus is protected from mud and grit. Because it is housed inside the receiver and the release button protrudes only slightly, the Ambi-Catch™ is not likely to snag on equipment or foliage. The release button is serrated for positive engagement and is located on the same plane as the original right-hand magazine release. The Ambi-Catch™ is designed in such a way as to minimize the possibility of accidental release without having a “fence” surrounding it like that of the right side release. In our evaluation of the Ambi-Catch™, we found it to be almost impossible to inadvertently release the magazine.

We found the Ambi-Catch™ changeover to be straightforward and nearly impossible to erroneously accomplish. No modifications to the carbine were necessary. The fit and finish is every bit the equal of the factory original carbine finish. The Ambi-Catch™ is fully compatible with all M16/M4 accessories, including multiple magazine holders, such as the Mag-Cinch.

Although no special tools are required for installation of the Amib-Catch™, Norgon manufactures a small Delrin installation tool that makes installing several of the devices far less time – consuming. The tool is a simple disc with a plunger that mates to the magazine release button. When depressed, the tool moves the magazine catch beyond the left side of the receiver to facilitate its removal and replacement with the Ambi-Catch™. Although not necessary to the installation, the tool reduces the installation time to a matter of less than 30 seconds. Because it is made of Delrin, the installation tool will not mar the receiver or the right side release button.

The Ambi-Catch™is currently in use by some US Special Operations units, US State Department Diplomatic Security and has been authorized for individual agent purchase and use by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It has received favorable evaluation by the US Army and US Marine Corps and is being evaluated as a part of the US Special Operations Command’s SOPMOD II M4 carbine upgrade program. After evaluating the Ambi-Catch™ on Bushmaster M15E2 and Colt M16A2 Carbines, we had no problems of any sort. The Ambi-Catch™ worked with absolute reliability and was easily accessible with either hand. We therefore concluded that the device is a useful addition to the M16/M4 weapon system that not only brings the rifle/carbine to a fully ambidextrous configuration, but also adds to the flexibility of the weapon in either tactical or training conditions.

Manufacturer:
Norgon, LLC
7518 K Fullerton Road
Springfield, Virginia 22153
USA
Tel: +1 (703) 455-0997
Fax: +1 (703) 569-6411
www.norgon.com

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V5N3 (December 2001)

Small Arms of the Korean

SAR Staff — Sat, 01 Sep 2001 01:40:13 +0000

By Charles Cutshaw

Although this short article is written under my “by line,” the actual research was accomplished over 50 years ago by Brigadier General S. L. A. (“Slam”) Marshall, who traveled to Korea to study first hand the usage of small arms in combat, their effect of the outcome of the land battle and the effect of combat on American soldiers and Marines. The combat lessons and principles that General Marshall documented are timeless; the lessons of weapons usage are likewise applicable to today’s combat. In the pages that follow, we present the lessons only of specific and limited types small arms. The reader is encouraged to obtain a copy of the classic Infantry Operations and Weapons Usage in Korea, Winter of 1950-51, study it and remember well the lessons documented therein.

Korea was the first of America’s “small wars.” In the wake of the Allied victory in World War II, the United States hastened to reduce its military to pre-war levels. As a result, the army was unprepared for Korean combat, which introduced the concept of a war without flanks, where the enemy was likely to be encountered virtually everywhere. Traditional rear areas were no longer secure; during the time of General Marshall’s study, American forces never had sufficient strength to block infiltrators with a continuous, closely knit front line. Moreover, the enemy had the advantage of superior numbers, plus he rarely used conventional tactics. The Chinese communist (Chicom) forces attacked in large numbers, generally using frontal assault tactics. Chicom weapons were by and large small arms, with large numbers of machine guns and some mortar support. The Americans adapted to this overwhelming tactic by abandoning traditional linear tactics in favor of what worked at the time – a perimeter or “hedgehog” defense which provided an all around defense capability with the best chance to avoid being overrun by Chinese “human sea” attacks. American artillery and air superiority was partially countered by the large numbers of Chicom troops who would close with the American forces in close combat if possible and attempt to overrun their positions, thus effectively preventing the use of any type of fire support. These tactics forced the American units to depend to a great extent on the weapons that they had at hand – small arms, mortars, rocket launchers (bazookas) and recoilless rifles. The former were used in the direct fire role, while bazookas, mortars and recoilless rifles were used as company level fire support weapons.

The Korean War also saw the beginning of mobile forces and tactics that would form the basis of infantry combat in another dirty little war that began a little over ten years after the Korean Conflict was fought to a stalemate. That war resulted only in reestablishing the conditions that existed prior to the conflict. Helicopters were first used in Korea to move troops on the battlefield, beginning the concept of vertical envelopment. In the final analysis, however, small arms played a dominant role in infantry combat in Korea.

One of the foremost principles that were learned in Korea was the reaffirmation that “only hits count,” and to this principle was added the corollary that fully automatic fire is generally less effective than semiautomatic. Although many readers may disagree with this principle, it is as true today as it was 50 years ago. The infantry soldiers who fought the Chicoms to a standstill were in total agreement that they actively did not want for every man to have a fully automatic weapon. Moreover, many battles were resolved by M1 rifle fire after the machine guns and other automatic weapons had run out of ammunition. To quote from General Marshall’s study, “In perimeter defense, the time …comes when the automatic weapons run short of ammunition, with the…issue still to be decided. The semiautomatic weapons…compose the weapons reserve which becomes of inestimable value in the last hours when both sides are nearing the point of exhaustion.” As Col. Jeff Cooper once said, “Pray that your enemy is on full automatic.” In Vietnam, we called automatic fire “Spray and pray.”

Of course, without ammunition, any firearm is no more than a very expensive club, so the question arises as to how experienced combat soldiers equipped themselves prior to battle. During the course of his very thorough study, General Marshall arrived at what he called the “natural load” for infantrymen. The load consisted of about 40 pounds of gear that the combat infantryman carried when moving into battle. (Some things never change. When I was a young infantry officer in the mid-1960’s, we carried about the same amount of gear on our backs – sometimes more.) In terms of ammunition, this load translated to four magazines (120 rounds) for those armed with carbines, 90 to 120 rounds for the M1 Garand and two grenades per man. Machine guns averaged between three or four boxes of ammunition (600 to 800 rounds) per gun. Browning Automatic riflemen carried four to eight magazines (80 to 160 rounds) each. Bazooka gunners carried about ten rounds per tube, while 60mm mortars had 50 to 75 rounds per tube. 57mm recoilless rifles had a basic load of 10 to 20 rounds. With this, a company could expect to stand up to two to eight hours of attack, depending upon fire discipline, fields of fire, effectiveness of fire support and whether the action was day or night.

In combat, weapons failure is catastrophic. Any machine made by man is subject to failure, but some are more prone to failure than others. Most notable are the egregious Chauchat light machine gun of World War I and the M16 rifle failures early in the Vietnam War. Both weapons failed, but the former was simply a poor design, while the M16 was plagued by ammunition problems in the early days of its existence. Failures may also be induced by climate or by individual lack of basic maintenance. In Korea, environmental conditions during the time of the study could not have been much worse on either man or machine. Failures of small arms in wintertime Korea were almost universally attributed to the intense cold that required special procedures simply to keep weapons functioning. This included special lubrication and in the coldest conditions, periodic warm-up firing. We will elaborate on this below as we examine each weapon’s performance in detail. Nonetheless, some weapons were inherently superior to others, as we shall presently see.

The M1 Garand Rifle

Of all the small arms used in the Korean Conflict, the M1 Garand stands out as a true milestone. The weapon was universally regarded with a respect bordering on affection by every soldier who used it. The writer can confirm the universal love of the M1 by soldiers, because it was still in limited service when he joined the Army in 1964, some units still not having received their M14s. The M1, described by George S. Patton as “The greatest battle instrument ever devised by man,” was and remains a viable battle rifle. In the harsh Korean winter, the M1 was the least sensitive to icing and extreme cold. It was reasonably accurate and perhaps the greatest compliment that can be paid to a small arm is the fact that the soldiers who used it could think of no way to improve it. In fact, when asked, they flatly stated that they wanted their beloved M1 left as it was. Failures of the M1 due to cold amounted to only two to four per cent of the weapons in service, even under the worst conditions. In these instances, the most common M1 failures were due to frost lock, broken firing pins or dirty chambers. Although most soldiers maintained their rifles well (It is remarkable how well one takes care of an item upon which one’s life depends.), the chamber brush was apparently not sufficiently large to ensure removal of all chamber fouling. Other than those limited numbers of failures, the Garand lived up to its well-earned reputation for ruggedness and dependability. As mentioned earlier, the M1 Rifle was in many instances, the final arbiter of many close combat engagements after other small arms had either failed or run out of ammunition.

The M2 Carbine

Although much loved by many civilian shooters and touted today as a “long gun” alternative for law enforcement officers, the carbine can charitably be described as an abject failure in the harsh Korean winter of 1950-51.

Originally designed as a semiautomatic personal defense weapon in World War II, the carbine was found wanting due to its lack of “stopping power” in its semiautomatic guise, and was redesigned to select fire. The modification only worsened the situation, apparently making the weapon more sensitive to dust, dirt, snow, ice and cold. In the hot Korean summer, the slightest amount of dust or moisture caused stoppages. In the winter, the carbine refused to fire on full automatic until up to 20 shots had been fired through it. The carbine was the least reliable small arm used by the U.S. forces in Korea. The carbine suffered up to a 30 per cent failure rate. Ammunition in magazines would corrode in very short order at the point where the cartridges contacted the magazine lips, necessitating frequent unloading cartridges, cleaning and reloading them. Otherwise, the corrosion would be injected into the chamber, causing stoppages. Soldiers and Marines alike despised the weapon not only for its unreliability, but also for its inaccuracy at even moderate distances.

The carbine’s worst failing, though, was its inability to reliably stop enemy soldiers, even after they had been shot repeatedly. The words of one Marine officer says it all: “…the main reason my men lost confidence in the carbine was because they would put a bullet right into a Chink’s chest at 25 yards range, and he wouldn’t stop. This happened to me. The bullet struck home; the man simply winced and kept on coming. There were about half a dozen of my men made this same complaint; some of them swore they had fired three or four times, hit the man each time, and still not stopped him.”

In sum, the carbine was light, short and handy, but in the crucible of combat, it was found wanting. Soldiers and Marines alike preferred the utter reliability and “stopping power” of the M1 Garand, despite its heavier weight and greater length.

The M1918A1 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR)

Marshall refers to the BAR in his study as “The Mainstay.” The reason for this accolade is the fact that in Korea, the BAR was the basis for establishing a base of fire around which the remainder of the infantry weapons fire builds into a united combat force.

Officers and men alike revered the BAR with almost the same awe in which they held the M1 Rifle. The BAR was described as “the mainspring of their action” and all stated that wherever the BAR was used, it gave fresh impulse to the firing line. The performance of the BAR was blemished only by a noticeably higher failure rate than during World War II. Marshall does not mention the actual percentage of weapon failure as a portion of those in operation, but he does comment on it and investigated the problem.

Cold weather did not seem to appreciably affect the overall performance of the BAR. Failures came in both heat and cold. After a particularly intense engagement by the 2/38th Infantry Regiment, the commander reported that there had been so many BAR failures that his men had lost confidence in the weapon. While this unit was the only one to cast such harsh judgement on the BAR, it caused the investigation to intensify. Problems seemed to be centered on the weapon’s recoil spring. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that factory new weapons did not suffer failures, but performed with reliability approaching that of the M1 Rifle. The only BARs that failed were older weapons that had been “reconditioned” by Ordnance in Japan. Finally, it was discovered that the 2/38th Infantry, a well-respected staunch fighting unit, had received a disproportionate number of these reconditioned BARs, resulting in an inordinate number of failures. Once the problem was identified, it was corrected, BAR failures all but ceased, and complaints faded away.

The BAR was so well-respected that the great majority of combat commanders recommended that the combat strength of infantry companies could be greatly increased by doubling the number of BARs and proportionally reducing the number of M1 Rifles. This is not to disparage the M1 Rifle, but rather a compliment on the effectiveness of the BAR in the harsh conditions of Korea. Commanders universally felt that this change could be accomplished without unduly burdening the company’s load and was justified by the judgment that it would make a perfect balance of a unit’s offensive and defensive capabilities.

Machine Guns

The M1917 water-cooled and M1919 air-cooled machine guns used in the Korean Conflict played less of a role than might be expected. Because of the terrain, their use was limited to unconventional employment. This was due to lack of good fields of fire, which deprived the weapon of its usual tactical power, thus shifting the onus onto other weapons, which was the primary reason that the M1 rifle and BAR played such a decisive role in the Korean fighting.

Since fields of fire were limited by the mountainous terrain, machine guns could usually not be set up to provide overall protection, but rather were employed to cover a relatively narrow segment of the perimeter. Terrain permitting, they usually were positioned on a finger or fold in a ridgeline at right angles to the defending line, so that their fire would enfilade (flank) any body of troops attempting to move directly into the defended position. They were also deployed so as to cover terrain that posed the most likely avenue of approach for an enemy force. Because of the limitations discussed above, machine gun fire was rarely sufficient to break up enemy attacks and provide security.

Machine gun crews and the guns themselves suffered heavy losses in Korea. Because of the terrain and tactics, the guns were seldom provided with more than rudimentary protection, thus exposing them to enemy fire. The deployment of machine guns was also driven by the fluid nature of Korean combat. Units were constantly maneuvering, which made preparation of traditional machine gun emplacements with their concomitant protection almost impossible. As a result, machine guns and crews suffered disproportionate losses.

The failure rate of Browning designed .30 caliber machine guns was a surprise to Marshall. These guns had established a sterling reputation during World War II, but in Korea, the guns failed at what can be best described as an alarming rate. Marshall states that the guns in general suffered a 20 per cent failure rate, with the caveat that the 20 per cent figure was on the conservative side. Unfortunately, the causes of this high failure rate were never discovered due to a variety of reasons. In many cases, the gun crews simply didn’t know why their gun failed. In some instances, the gun failed, but was gotten back into operation. In others, the gun was captured. In still others, the gun was shot up and abandoned. In the words of Marshall, “These actualities of the battlefield prohibit precise evaluation of weapons difficulties.” Nonetheless, the after action reports of most company sized engagements note that one or more of the unit’s machine guns went out of operation either permanently or for a significant period during which the loss of machine gun firepower degraded the unit’s combat effectiveness. Needless to say, the failures did not include guns that ran out of ammunition.

The M2 .50 caliber machine gun did not see extensive use in Korean front line combat, being generally restricted to close defense of artillery positions and other units operating to the rear of the infantry. This was again attributable to the Korean terrain and the nature of the war itself. Marshall comments, however, that the artillery would have had a difficult time preventing itself from being overrun by infiltrators were it not for the .50 caliber machine gun. In bivouac, the big machine guns were often placed on high ground on the flanks to provide overwatch fires. Often the guns were deployed right alongside the artillery pieces themselves.

Marshall’s report makes no comments regarding the reliability of the “Ma Deuce.” We can only assume that the revered machine gun performed just as well in Korea as it has in every conflict before or since. The M2 heavy machine gun is one of those classic weapons that is simply too good to die. It has been in military service since the mid-1920s and shows no signs of retirement, despite the best efforts of the army’s small arms bureaucracy to eliminate it.

The M1911A1 Pistol

A surprise came when the usage of the M1911A1 pistol fell under scrutiny. Although generally considered a secondary or even tertiary weapon, the M191A1 .45 pistol’s use in combat at ranges of 10 to 25 yards was documented in greater numbers during the Korean winter of 1950-51 than during the entire Second World War! The pistol was almost always brought into action when the user had no other weapon available, but apparently when it was used, the venerable .45 delivered the goods.

In Marshall’s words: “The pistol is of definite value in the type of warfare experienced by the Eighth Army, and one hears more words said about its proved usefulness than during either World War.”

“Old slabsides” was fairly reliable until the weather got really cold. Under those conditions, it required special attention to prevent frost lock. These included removing all oil and then firing the pistol from time to time to ensure reliable functioning. Otherwise, the M1911A1 “soldiered on.”

Marshall reports on many other weapons used by the infantry, including the 2.75 and 3.5 inch rocket launchers (bazookas), 57mm and 75mm recoilless rifles, mortars and hand grenades. While Marshall’s report makes for fascinating reading in its entirety, the larger weapons are not truly small arms and are thus beyond the scope of this brief article. Although his report is ostensibly devoted only to weapons usage, Marshall also studies the human element of combat, with insights into subjects as varied as communications and combat stress. His study is a true combat classic that belongs in the library of every student of small arms usage in combat.

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V4N12 (September 2001)

FN Herstal’s M3M Pedestal Mount .50 BMG Machine Gun

SAR Staff — Sat, 01 Sep 2001 01:37:37 +0000

By Charles Cutshaw

The Browning .50 Caliber machine gun has been in production in one version or another since the 1920’s and continues in production on a worldwide basis today without any sign of coming to an end. John Browning’s basic design is one of those that is simply too good to die. Since its inception, the basic .50 Browning machine gun has been manufactured in M2, AN-M3 and other variants that essentially were modifications of the original Browning design. The latter gun was an effort undertaken by the US during World War II to provide an aircraft gun that not only was lighter, but fired at a higher cyclic rate than the standard AN-M2. The M3 fired at a cyclic rate of approximately 1,200 rounds per minute (rd/min), but was plagued with sear breakages, cracked bolts and other malfunctions and while the gun was standardized in 1943, only about 2,400 were manufactured by the war’s end. The US Military modified the M3 in the late 1940s in an attempt to increase reliability, but the M3 never lived up to its expectations and it was eventually dropped from the US inventory in the early 1950s.

Meantime, however, FN Herstal undertook production of the M3 and steadily improved its performance and reliability, first by changing the basic functioning of the gun from closed bolt to open bolt operation. FN also undertook “reindustrializing” the basic design to increase reliability and longevity. These reindustrializing efforts included an examination of the entire AN- M3 design with a focus on materials, heat treatments, tolerances and finishes. By modifying and changing these functional areas as necessary, FN Herstal’s engineers were able to turn the AN-M3 design into the M3P, whose mean rounds between failures (MRBF) is presently over 5,000. This gun initially was produced for mounting in an external pod on fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. The M3P is widely employed by the world’s military forces, including the United States, where it is used in the AN/TWQ-1 Avenger air defense system, mounted coaxially with the Avenger’s Stinger missile launchers. The M3P is also deployed on some UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters in external pod mounts.

With the success of the M3P, the possibility of adapting the gun for other applications became obvious. FN Herstal engineers undertook the challenge by first changing the basic functioning of the gun from closed to open bolt operation. This helps in cooling and prevention of “cook-offs,” a critical concern in machine guns with a high cyclic rate of fire. They then adapted the gun to internal and external flexible “soft” mounts for helicopters and fixed wing aircraft and more recently, for application to land vehicle pedestal mounts where the M3M’s high rate of fire increases its effectiveness over the traditional “Ma Deuce” vehicle mounts. They also eliminated the requirement for timing adjustments. There currently are no plans to adapt the M3M to a ground mount configuration. This is due partially to the fact that the M3M’s high rate of fire would probably create ammunition supply problems in many ground situations, as the M3M fires at over twice the cyclic rate of the basic ground mount M2 HB machine gun. For vehicles, however, the M3M offers decided advantages over the older design, primarily because of its high rate of fire that makes it more effective against a variety of targets, including light armored fighting vehicles, field fortifications, helicopters, fixed wing aircraft and small patrol boats.

As a flexible pedestal mounted heavy machine gun, the M3M is well suited to either helicopter or ground vehicle mounting. The pedestal adapter consists of a soft mount that attenuates felt recoil, while at the same time placing the gun in such a well-balanced position that the gunner has almost effortless control. A spring balances the gun when it reaches approximately -30 degrees deflection. Stops can be incorporated to limit the traverse and elevation of the gun depending upon the vehicle or aircraft on which it is installed. The effort to cock the M3M has been significantly reduced over that of its predecessors by incorporating a lever that provides a mechanical advantage when pulling the charging handle to the rear. The firing handles are located on the pintle mount, rather than on the gun, for better control. There are three types of sights available: Open ring sights, optical sights and laser sights. The gun’s safety mechanism positively prevents accidental or negligent discharges and at the same time, when placed in the “fire” position, prevents the feed cover from being opened.

The M3M fires from the open bolt and is fed either from a 100 round box mounted on the pintle or from a 600 round box mounted on the aircraft or vehicle floor. The barrel is hard chrome plated with stellite added for longevity. In fact, the gun is capable of firing an uninterrupted 600 round burst without damage to the gun or barrel. Since the 100 and 600 round ammunition boxes would quickly be exhausted by the M3M due to its high rate of fire, the 600 round ammunition boxes are designed to be “nested” to provide 1,200 rounds of ready ammunition. Spent cases are ejected down and slightly forward, while up to 600 links are collected in a container beside the gun. The M3M can be adapted for either right or left hand feed and can fire any type of .50 BMG ammunition. When using FN’s .50 BMG armor piercing explosive incendiary (APEI) ammunition, the M3M can defeat 10mm of rolled homogenous armor (RHA) at 1,000 meters. Maintenance is straightforward and conventional. The only regularly scheduled maintenance requirement is that a few minor M3M components are recommended for replacement every 2,500 rounds in order to ensure optimal reliability.

In addition to manufacturing new M3M machine guns, FN has the capability to convert customer’s older M2 or M3 guns to M3M configuration. FN can also adapt the M3M to virtually any helicopter or ground vehicle. With its high rate of fire, soft recoil and levels of reliability, the M3M heavy machine gun is ideally suited for helicopters, for pedestal mounting on light ground vehicles and on light patrol vessels. It appears to be an excellent weapon for special operations, for drug interdiction missions of all types, for patrol vehicles and boats and for patrol helicopters.

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V4N12 (September 2001)

FN’s Mk46 Mod 0 Navy Light Machine Gun

SAR Staff — Sun, 01 Jul 2001 01:16:11 +0000

By Charles Cutshaw

FN Herstal’s Minimi light machine gun has been in production since the early 1980’s and has been adopted by several nations as their standard light machine gun. The United States Army and Marine Corps have employed the Minimi since 1982 as the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). A new version of the Minimi was recently adopted by the US Navy for special operations use. The new light machine gun has been designated the Mark 46 Mod 0 Light Machine Gun.

The Mk 46 Mod 0 shares approximately 70 per cent of its components with the M249, but is a very different weapon for different purposes. The Navy special operations forces will use the Mk 46 Mod 0 in close quarters battle (CQB) situations and at ranges out to 300 meters for fire suppression. The Navy users saw no need for an alternate magazine feed and this feature was therefore eliminated. There is no provision for manually removing the Mk 46 Mod 0 barrel for a quick change. If barrel replacement is necessary in combat, the hot barrel will simply be dropped from the weapon and replaced. The special operations gunner will typically carry 600 rounds for the Mk 46 Mod 0, all of which can be fired in less than two minutes without barrel replacement. Feed is from standard 200 round belts. Because the Mk 46 Mod 0 is required to be capable of firing 1,000 rounds without lubrication, the weapon is Teflon coated and the bolt and its carrier electroless nickel coated for reliability and corrosion resistance.

Front view of the MK 46 Mod 0 LMG showing foreward rail adapter system and MIL-STD-1913 top rail that runs almost the entire length of the weapon.

Although the Mk 46 Mod 0 superficially resembles FN’s Para and SPW Models, it is again different from these Minimi versions. The modifications to the Mk 46 Mod 0 reduced its weight by 3.9 lbs in comparison to a standard M249. The major differences between the Mk 46 Mod 0 and the standard M249 are as follows:

Reload procedure,
Step 1: Slide fresh ammo box into retaining mechanism from left to right until it locks in place. Step 2: Lay belt onto feed tray and close feed cover.

The Mk 46 Mod 0 barrel is much shorter than that of the M249.
The Mk 46 Mod 0 lacks the magazine feed of the M249.
There is no provision for vehicle or tripod mounting.
The gas regulation system has been eliminated and replaced with a simplified “monobloc” system.
There are MIL-STD-1913 rails atop the receiver and a rail system is fitted to the handguard for mounting accessories.
The Mk 46 Mod 0 flash suppressor is identical to that of the M4 SOPMOD Carbine. This flash suppressor accepts standard military issue noise suppressors (silencers).
The carrying handle has been eliminated.
The Mk 46 Mod 0 is Teflon coated for corrosion resistance and to provide dry lubrication.
The rear sling attachment point has been moved forward to facilitate “across the chest” carry.

We visited FN Manufacturing in Columbia, South Carolina to test fire the Mk46 and were very favorably impressed with the latest addition to the US military’s small arms inventory. Eliminating the requirement for magazine feed apparently significantly increased the reliability of the FN light machine gun. We did not experience a single stoppage while firing approximately 1,000 rounds of ammunition. Changing belts was as simple as sliding a new container into place and positioning the new belt in the feed tray. As mentioned, there is no provision to manually remove the barrels; they will simply be dropped under operational conditions.

Firing the Mk 46 was uneventful and thus quite enjoyable, although muzzle blast was pronounced, as can be expected from any short barreled weapon. Since the Mk 46 is equipped to accept the Navy’s standard suppressor, (From Knight’s Armament Company), however, this probably will not be an operational problem, as the gun will almost certainly be deployed with suppressor in place. The Mk 46 was easy to control; bursts were easily kept in the five to seven round range and muzzle rise was minimal. Although fieldstripping is somewhat lengthy in terms of the number of steps involved, the task is actually quite simple in practice.

In sum, our time spent with the new Mark 46 version of FN’s MINIMI was a very pleasant experience. The gun was lightweight, simple and easy to use and absolutely reliable during our brief experience with it. It seems that the U.S. Navy has a winner!

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V4N10 (July 2001)

Kel-Tec’s “High-Tech” P-32

SAR Staff — Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:54:01 +0000

By Charles Cutshaw

Ever since its introduction in 1999, Kel-Tec’s diminutive P-32 has been one of the “hottest” pistols for personal defense and concealed carry. We obtained one of the little pistols in trade a year ago and have been carrying and shooting it at the range ever since. We hasten to point out that a pistol like the P-32 is no substitute for a .45 ACP, a .40 S&W, or even a 9mm, but it is better than not having a firearm at all if one is ever needed. The P-32 comes into its own when carrying a larger pistol is impossible or for use as a backup pistol. Its small size and light weight makes the P-32 ideal for either of these purposes.

The P-32 is the lightest and arguably most advanced small pistol on the market today. Its concealability comes as much from its light weight and thin profile as from its small size, which is actually no less than other pistols of this type. With an empty weight of slightly over 61/2 ounces, the Kel-Tec is so light that one is scarcely aware of its presence. Our P-32 weighs only 9 ounces with a full magazine – several ounces less than the empty weight of any of its competitors. A glance at Table 1 will reveal the features that distinguish the Kel-Tec P-32 from all its competition – its weight, magazine capacity, its locked breech and its polymer construction. The Kel-Tec is by far the lightest small .32 ACP pistol on the firearms market today, thanks to the frame’s polymer construction and its modified Browning short recoil operation, which allows the slide to be lighter than those of blowback operated pistols. The Kel-Tec also has a seven round magazine capacity, only one round more than its competition, but one round sometimes can make the difference between life and death, and with a .32, you need every round you can get! We make our case for the little Kel-Tec’s advanced design kudos from the fact that the pistol is recoil operated and reduces weight to a bare minimum via its innovative engineering, which mimics that of other high quality pistols such as Glock. All the P-32’s competitors, while generally well – made, are traditional blowback operated semiautos, distinguished only by their small size. The Kel-Tec’s frame is polymer with slide rails molded in. The slide and barrel are of steel. Although the pistol is presently available only in basic black, the polymer frame will soon be offered in a variety of colors, presumably to attract those who wish to have their gun match their socks or shirt.

The trigger of the P-32 is of the double action only (DAO) type and has a smooth consistent pull of 6 pounds with a crisp “break.” The grip of the P-32 is too short for my rather large hands and half of my right ring finger and all of my pinky dangle in the breeze, so to speak. This is not a complaint, simply an observation of what one can expect with a gun this tiny. The P-32’s sights are…well… unusual, consisting of a raised triangular “bump” at the slide’s front with a small white dot. The rear “sight” consists of a larger white dot inletted into a slot at the rear of the slide. There thus are no conventional sights and about all that the P-32’s “dot sights” do when you place the little dot atop the big dot is ensure that your bullet is going to be somewhere on the target. This unusual design serves two purposes. First, the Kel-Tec has nothing to snag as you draw it. (Let’s face it – you are probably going to have this little gun in your pocket, in a fanny pack, in your purse, or concealed in a camera tote on your belt. All of these carry methods offer opportunities for snagging if there are any sharp angles as with “normal” sights.) Second, the P-32 isn’t intended for long range target shooting. To paraphrase Jeff Cooper, “Most gunfights take place at conversational distances.” That means very short ranges which normally involve little or no truly aimed fire. For the intended use of this pistol, the “dot sights” actually work pretty well. The P-32 has an internal slide stop that holds the slide open after the last round has been fired. There is no external slide release; to reload with a fresh magazine, the slide is pulled to the rear and released. The extractor serves as a loaded chamber indicator, although it is not marked as such. There is no external safety and none is required with Kel-Tec’s DAO design. The hammer does not reset until cocked by the slide as it comes to the rear.

KEL-TEC P-32 FIELD STRIP
Clear pistol and remove magazine. Press slide slightly to the rear and withdraw barrel recoil pin. Withdraw slide to front and separate from frame (A). Press recoil springs and guide rod assembly slightly forward and separate from barrel and slide. Remove recoil spring guide. NOTE: Recoil spring guide is small and easily mislaid (B). Separate barrel from slide by pulling it down and to the rear. (C). Complete field strip (D). Reassembly is reverse of field strip.

During the time we have owned our P-32, we have never conducted formal accuracy testing. Every time we take the gun to the range for practice, we shoot at distances of no more than 10 yards, which is about the limit of effective range for a pistol like this one. At 10 yards, my P-32 will put every single shot into the kill zone of a human silhouette target. Recoil is brisk, but easily manageable, thanks to the P-32’s locked breech short recoil operation. The pistol is insensitive to the type of ammunition fed to it, unlike some of its competitors. We practice with full metal jacket ammo as a cost cutting measure, but carry the P-32 stuffed with Speer Gold Dots. The Gold Dots function reliably, are accurate and probably represent about the best one can expect in terminal ballistics from a .32 ACP.

A comment is in order regarding .32 ACP cartridges. As most readers are aware, the .32 ACP is a semi-rimmed cartridge and thus can cause malfunctions if the cartridges are not loaded properly to ensure that the rim of each cartridge in the magazine is forward of that of the cartridge below it. If one loads a cartridge with its rim behind the cartridge below it in the magazine, the slide usually will not strip it out and chamber it and the resulting stoppage is time consuming to clear. Other than a couple than user-induced stoppages of this type, we have never experienced a malfunction with our P-32. After experiencing this type of stoppage once, however, one tends to be very careful when loading the P-32’s magazine!

Our only real complaint regarding the Kel-Tec P-32 is the magazine release that we believe stands too high from the surface of the grip. During our first months with the pistol, we consistently inadvertently dropped the magazine while firing on the range because our thumb brushed against the release during recoil. The release also usually somehow became depressed while we were carrying the pistol, lowering the magazine just far enough so that the pistol would not feed. We rectified this situation by taking a pair of toenail trimmers to the small polymer release button, shortening it slightly and then smoothing the trimmed surface with a fine file. Since this minor adjustment, we have never accidentally depressed the release button while firing, nor has it been depressed during concealed carry.

In sum, we like our little Kel-Tec P-32 and can recommend it to anyone who has a need for a small, highly concealable handgun. The Kel-Tec P-32 is reliable, of good quality and affordable. We understand that it has become a favorite of undercover law enforcement personnel whose lives very likely may depend on their concealed or backup pistol. This is a tacit testimonial to the Kel-Tec’s efficacy that no amount of advertising can purchase.

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V4N7 (April 2001)