by David M. Fortier

Like the cartridge that it chambers, the SVD (Snaiperskaya Vintovka Dragunova -Dragunov Sniper Rifle) has become rather long in the tooth. Adopted on July 3, 1963, this elderly Russian sniper rifle design is now over 40 years old. To be blunt, for a military sniper rifle still in front line service with a major power, this is ancient. To put this into perspective consider this: when the SVD went into service with the Red Army, English snipers carried .303 No. 4(T) Lee Enfields while Americans had a motley collection of Springfield M1903A1’s, A4’s, .30 M-1C’s, and D’s. Yet 40 years later, this self-loading sniper rifle, affectionately known as the “oar” by the soldiers, remains highly popular with Russian troops. Considering the amount of recent combat this rifle has seen, it says much for the basic design.

It’s also interesting to note just how little this rifle has changed over the decades. Although it has been upgraded with modern synthetic furniture, and a folding stock version has been introduced, it basically looks as it did 40 years ago. The SVD has not stagnated though, and one very important aspect of this rifle that has been recently updated is its issue ammunition. While the SVD still chambers the standard 7.62x54R cartridge, a new dedicated sniper load (designated 7N14) was placed into production in 1999. This new load replaces the 7N1, which had been operational with Russian forces since 1966. So while the rifle looks the same, it received a new load developed expressly to decrease dispersion and increase penetration.

The 7.62x54R “Russian Rimmed” has the distinction of being the longest serving military cartridge still in general issue with a major power. Adopted in 1891, when American units were still saddled with black powder .45-70’s, it has seen our .45-70, .30-40 Krag, .30-03, .30-06, and 7.62x51mm come and go as rifle rounds. The first major combat the 7.62x54R saw was during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. The original load utilized in both rifles and machineguns featured a 210-grain roundnose FMJ. While quite deadly, it was found to be somewhat wanting. The two main complaints being a rainbow-like trajectory and poor accuracy at battlefield ranges. When Russian Ordnance officials began working on improving the 7.62x54R in the spring of 1906 they quickly adapted the new German “Spitzer” design to fit their needs. The culmination of their work resulted in the Lyokhkaya pulya obrazets 1908 g or Model 1908 Light Bullet. This was a 148-grain Spitzer with a lead core and a tombak jacket. It featured a higher velocity, flatter trajectory and increased accuracy over the load that it replaced. This was the standard ball round used during World War I and the Revolution.

Following the Revolution, the fledgling USSR consolidated itself and then developed two new 7.62x54R ball loads that were adopted in 1930. The first, Type L, was developed for use in rifles and was a slightly improved version of the 1908 Light Bullet load. This had a 148-grain FMJ projectile with a brass-plated jacket made from iron with a cannelure. The second load was developed expressly to increase the range and effectiveness of the M1910 Maxim machinegun. This load was topped with a 182-grain spitzer boattail and designated the M1930 Heavy Bullet Type D (Dal’noboinaya or Long Range). The new bullet was designed by Dobrzansky and Smirnsky and was intended to allow the Maxim to be used in the indirect fire role out to 4,500-5,000 meters. To enable the new Type L ball loading to be differentiated from the Type D Heavy Bullet load they received a color code on their projectile tip. Silver for the Type L and yellow for the Type D.

With the passing of the Maxim machinegun, its long range fire roll having been usurped by mortars, so to the M1930 Heavy Bullet Load faded away. With the obsolescence of this load the need to color code ball ammunition disappeared, and was subsequently dropped in Russian service. The Type L load was eventually replaced with an improved 148-grain FMJBT load with a steel core. Referred to as the PS (Steel Core) Light bullet, or simply LPS, it featured improved penetration. It was modernized, as the Russians say, in 1988 to the ST-M2 pattern.

While the SVD is capable of firing the standard 148-grain ball round in a pinch, accuracy will be poor. This is due to the (relatively) low quality of standard ball ammunition. Similar dismal accuracy results are also noted when firing a US M24 sniper rifle with M80 ball ammunition. It’s a simple fact that precision (whether Match or sniper) rifles require ammunition of the highest quality and consistency to reach their potential. The Soviets were well aware of this and developed a specialized load specifically for the SVD.

With the adoption of the SVD a design team headed by Victor Sabelnikov was tasked with designing a new 7.62x54R load. This was to decrease the dispersion of the new rifle while at the same time increasing its lethality. The result of their work was the 7.62x54R 7N1 Sniper load. Externally the 7N1 looks identical to standard steel cased LPS ball ammunition. There is no color coding on the bullet tip or primer annulus, and no specialized head stamp to differentiate it. The headstamp simply consists of “188” (Novosibirsk Low Voltage Equipment Plant) and year of manufacture. For all intents and purposes it appears to be regular ball ammunition. Pulling a projectile one notes that the 7N1 is topped with a 152-grain FMJBT projectile. This is loaded on top of a charge of extruded powder in a Berdan-primed steel case. In standard Russian practice the primer is corrosive.

Externally comparing a 7N1 projectile to a standard ball projectile one finds both projectiles feature a copper washed steel jacket, but there the similarities end. The 7N1 projectile is slightly longer and features a more pronounced boattail with a noticeable hollow base. Cutting the projectile in half quickly reveals the 7N1 to be a well thought out sniper load. Sectioning it reveals an air pocket in the nose (similar to Sabelnikov’s later 5.45x39mm 7N6). Below the air pocket is a 37.5-grain mild steel cone-shaped core of 0.269-inch in diameter and 0.520-inch in length. This sits on top of a 72.6-grain lead “knocker.” These are pressed into the jacket leaving a hollow base with a depth of 0.100-inch. Overall projectile length is 1.275-inch and diameter is 0.311-inch. During flight, due to the air space in the nose, the projectile’s center of gravity is toward its rear. However, upon impact the lead knocker pushes the steel core forward into the air pocket and changes the weight distribution of the projectile. Thus destabilized, the projectile will yaw instead of simply punching a .30 caliber hole in someone. While not new, the British did something similar with their .303 British MK VII ball load prior to the First World War, this design is effective. This is an obvious attempt to increase the wounding potential of this FMJ projectile.

To increase accuracy this load was manufactured to much tighter tolerances than standard ball ammunition. The Russians claimed an increase in accuracy of 2.5 times over standard ball ammunition when fired from an SVD Dragunov. My own testing has shown that to be a reasonable claim. Muzzle velocity from the SVD is 2,723 fps, with the trajectory closely matching that of standard LPS ball. To identify this load it must be in its original packaging as Factory 188 also produces ball ammunition. It comes packed 20 rounds to a paper packet, 22 packets to a metal tin, and two tins per wooden case for a total of 880 rounds. The wooden shipping crates, hermetically sealed metal “Spam” cans, and individual paper packets are all distinctly marked “SNIPER” in Cyrillic. This is the load that was used throughout the war in Afghanistan and in Chechnya.

In the 1990’s the Russians launched a Program for the Modernization of 7.62mm cartridges. One of their goals was to improve the penetration of the various 7.62x54R loads. At this time the 7BT-1 Armor Piercing Tracer was developed and placed into production in 1998 replacing the 7T2M Tracer load. At the same time the standard 7N13 7.62x54R ball cartridge was given enhanced penetration via a pointed hardened steel core. This was adopted in 1999 as 7N26 and is now the general issue 7.62x54R load. At this same time, 1999, a new FMJBT load for the SVD, designated 7N14, was placed into production. It was developed from combat experience gained with the 7N1 and has replaced the earlier load in Russian service.

Like all Russian 7.62x54R Sniper and Match ammunition it’s produced by Factory 188, also known as Novosibirsk Low Voltage Equipment Plant (30A Stantsionnaya St., Novosibirsk 630108, Russia. Phone: (3832) 41-9367, 41-3555). The 7N14 was developed to provide the Russian sniper an armor-piercing bullet with the accuracy of a Match cartridge. This is to overcome the proliferation of modern body armor. The new load features a steel jacketed 0.311-inch diameter 152-grain FMJBT projectile with an AP core. Cases are copper-washed steel with corrosive Berdan priming. Muzzle velocity, at 2,723 fps, and trajectory coincides with the older 7N1. Penetration though is substantially improved over the older load. As an example, firing at a 10mm-thick grade 3 steel plate placed at 250 meters, the 7N14 achieved 100% penetrations while the 7N1 was defeated.

My introduction to this new load came on a small shooting range in Izhevsk, Russia. I was testing IZHMASH’s new SV-98 sniper rifle, and the test ammunition provided was 7N14. As I examined it, Vladimir Stronskiy gave me an inside look at this new load. Mr. Stronskiy is an engineer at Izhmash and known for creating superbly accurate target rifles. One of his designs being the Record-1, which is well respected in Europe. This rifle, in the form of the 7.62x54R Record CISM, teamed with 200-grain EXTRA Match ammunition (produced by Novosirbirsk) was used by the national select of the Armed Forces of Russia to win the International Military Games in 1995 and the World Championship in 1996. Stronskiy also based his SV-98 sniper rifle on his Record-1’s action. Very friendly and good-natured, Mr. Stronskiy is the type of man any serious rifleman would love to talk to. Although I had to speak to him through an interpreter, it was abundantly evident that this was a man who had spent his life crafting wood and steel into fantastically accurate rifles. Snuffing out a non-filtered cigarette, he proceeded to show me his rifle.

For test ammunition I was given a number of 20-round packets of 7N14. These were simple brown paper packets holding 20 rounds in four 5-round stacks with the ends stapled shut. Each packet was plainly labeled “SNIPER” in Cyrillic. Opening a packet revealed plain looking FMJ ammunition. If you found some of these in the dirt you wouldn’t look at them twice. Examining a cartridge I noted that both the case mouth and primer annulus was coated with a red sealant. Our test ammunition was manufactured by Factory 188 in 2000. Asking him about it Stronskiy replied this new load offers a substantial increase in accuracy over the older sniper load due to higher consistency, especially in powder charges. However, he said this military load is still not up to the accuracy level of commercial “EXTRA” Match ammunition used in competition.

Although I did not have the chance to test this load out of an SVD Dragunov I did fire it out of the bolt-action SV-98. Testing was performed at 100 meters with an ambient temperature of 68 degrees F. Five-shot groups were fired both off the bench and from the bipod. Firing prone off the bipod with nothing under the butt, I averaged 0.625-inch. Firing off the bench, Marc Krebs of Krebs Custom Inc. averaged 0.5-inch with the best group coming in at 0.375-inch. Recoil from this load was very mild, out of a suppressed bolt-gun. While I was impressed that the rifle could print 1/2 MOA groups, I was more impressed that it could do it with the issue steel case sniper load. This said much for the quality of the issue ammunition.

Having researched it, examined, and tested it, my view of this load depends upon its application. For use 600 yards and closer by a Designated Marksman at the squad or platoon level this load should perform well. The accompanying chart shows it has the ability to penetrate light cover, body armor, and chest pouches filled with steel Kalashnikov magazines to put down an adversary. Recoil in a SVD will be the same as for 7N1, fairly light, allowing quick follow-up shots. As far as accuracy is concerned, the rifle, not the ammunition, will be the limiting factor. From an SVD in good shape which hasn’t had its crown or bore damaged from improper cleaning with a steel cleaning rod, accuracy should run around 1.5 MOA. I have been told by an active duty MVD sniper that this load has the same dispersion at 800 meters as ball does at 300 meters out of the SVD. I would take this with a grain of salt, 800 meters is a long ways. Regardless, this load will allow a marksman armed with an SVD to support his squad/platoon with aimed fire beyond the capabilities of their AK-74M’s. The value of such a concept is finally getting another serious look by our own military. If the dedicated sniper load is not available, a very real possibility in a combat environment, the trajectory closely matches LPS ball. This, theoretically, would allow ball ammunition to be substituted for the sniper load without having to do a math problem to compensate for the trajectory.

As distances increase I am less impressed by this projectile’s capabilities. For “Western style” sniping from 500-1,000 yards I feel the 152-grain weight is a drawback. The most difficult hurdle a sniper faces before taking each shot is correctly estimating wind deflection. The further the distance to the target the more accurate this calculations must be to ensure a hit. With a relatively poor Ballistic Coefficient, approximately .4 at 2,723 fps, and moderate velocity this projectile will not buck the wind well. As an example in a 10 mph Full Value crosswind the 7N14 will be deflected 38.6 inches at 600 yards, 76 inches at 800 yards, and 129 inches at 1,000 yards. In comparison a 175-grain Sierra fired from an M24 will be deflected 32 inches at 600 yards, 61 inches at 800 yards, and 103 inches at 1,000 yards. In this regard a heavier projectile, along the lines of the old 182-grain M1930 Heavy Bullet Type D projectile, would hold velocity better and have less wind deflection past 500 meters.

I would not underestimate this combination though. A skilled sniper who is adept at reading the wind and estimating range would be a very real threat. While the 7.62x54R is certainly no 6.5/.284 it should be given proper respect out to 800+ meters. Keep in mind that the cartridge, though old, has proven accurate enough to have won Gold at the Olympics. Luckily, the low magnification 4x PSO-1 makes locating and hitting targets past 600 meters very difficult with this sniper rifle. That being said, a friend who served in the SPETsNAZ during the war in Afghanistan reported engaging out to 1,000 meters. In urban combat the semiautomatic-action and detachable magazine of the SVD, combined with the wide FOV of its scope and the armor-piercing capability of this round, would make it a very real threat.

Now in the 21st Century the 7.62x54R continues to soldier on. Like a dinosaur misplaced in time with its fat rim and long tapered case, it appears out of place with contemporary military cartridges. Yet while Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union have both faded into oblivion the cartridge that served them is alive and well. It will carry on in sniper rifles and GPMG’s well into the foreseeable future.

By David M. Fortier
Photography by Emily K. Fortier

At first glance the reticle of a riflescope seems like such a simple device. An aiming point placed into the field of view to turn an observation device into a sighting system. However, anyone who has lain behind a rifle for hours shooting at long range knows there’s more to it than that. This is especially true if the reticle is intended for military or law enforcement applications. Much is demanded from any piece of equipment specifically intended for professional use by snipers/marksmen. Even more though is required of their optics. So it was with cautious skepticism that I examined a new proprietary reticle from BW Optics called the Y-Tac.

For a reticle to meet the needs of a modern sniper/marksman it must do more than simply provide an aiming point. It must also provide a means to accurately calculate the distance to a target. While laser rangefinders have come into prominence, they do require batteries and can fail. Therefore a sniper must ideally have the ability to accurately calculate the range to his target using only the reticle in his riflescope. It should also provide reference points for windage and lead corrections. While it’s preferable to dial corrections directly into the scope this is not always possible. This is especially true on a quick follow-up shot or when engaging moving targets. The aiming point should also be distinct, even in lowlight, and quick to pick-up. Yet, it must also be precise enough to allow precision fire at long range on small and partially obscured targets.

A reticle, like the optic itself, is a combination of very carefully made trade-offs. While a fine crosshair provides a very precise aiming point on small targets at long range, it’s slow to pick up and difficult or impossible to discern in lowlight. On the other hand while a heavy German post is quick to pick up and remains visible even in lowlight it covers up much of the field of view. While there is no “perfect” reticle there are some very good designs that work well in a variety of applications.

To review this design we had BW Optic send us a 10x42mm fixed power tactical scope for testing. While BW Optic designed the reticle, their scopes are manufactured by Industry Optic Romania (I.O.R.) of Bucuresti, Romania. Producing optics for sniper rifles is nothing new to them. Started in 1936 in the South Eastern part of Romania, Industry Optic Romania was the creation of three very prominent European corporations, Malaxa-Carp, Optique De Le Vollois, and Bernard-Turnne. These three companies initiated what was to become one of the largest producers of military optics in the world.

Shortly after its birth, I.O.R. played a prominent role in supplying military optics for the Axis, and then Allied, war effort. At the beginning of World War II, Romania allied itself with Germany and fought against Stalin’s Red Army in an effort to win back lost territory. At this time I.O.R. was hard pressed manufacturing high precision military field optics (such as binoculars, altimeters, compasses) and aiming apparatus for fighter planes, submarine periscopes, giant naval anti-aircraft binoculars, artillery trench rangefinders, etc. Of interest to us is the fact that they also produced sniper riflescopes and mounts for the Vz24 sniper rifle in service with the Romanian Army at that time. This Luneta 4.5x28mm unit remained standard issue for Romanian snipers until finally replaced in 1979/80. At this time, the aging Vz24 Mausers were retired in favor of the new self-loading PSL (Puska Semiautomata Luneta) sniper rifle. I.O.R. optics also topped this new sniper rifle, which is currently fielded by Romanian troops in Afghanistan.

After World War II, I.O.R. found itself trapped in the Soviet sphere of influence. However, they maintained close ties with certain German companies. Then in 1967 I.O.R. started to expand their collaboration with the giant German manufacturers of Pentacon, Fog-Gorlitz and Schneider. During this time they continued to produce military optics as they had previously. In 1975 an increased level of collaboration with Carl Zeiss, Hensoldt, and Leica began. This is of particular interest to us as these highly respected German optics manufacturers took a keen interest in I.O.R. Carl Zeiss in particular played a key role in modernizing I.O.R. with not only the latest equipment, but also the training required to use it. In 1989, I.O.R. entered the fields of opto-electronics and thermovision. After the wall came down in the 1990s, they entered the US market and currently offer a line of professional-grade tactical riflescopes and binoculars.

Riflescopes from BW Optic are manufactured to their specifications by I.O.R. What sets them apart is their proprietary Y-Tac reticle. This is an interesting combination of a post reticle and our Mil-Dot system. The heart of the reticle is a post aiming point with “wings.” This is intended to resemble the front sight assembly on a US military rifle, such as an M14 or M16, complete with protective ears. The post is 1 Mil in height and 0.25 Mil wide and is intended to be easily seen even in lowlight. The “wings” are precisely designed to range a B-27 (shoulder width) target. They also facilitate rapid target acquisition.

Beneath the post is a vertical stadia. This is intended to be used for rangefinding via the Mil system and for elevation holdovers. To facilitate this, the 10 Mil high stadia is divided in not only 1 Mil increments but also 1/2 Mil increments. In addition, the vertical stadia above the post is divided into 1 Mil increments for an additional 5 Mils. To prevent canting, a horizontal stadia is incorporated. This is divided in 1 Mil increments for hasty windage or lead corrections. In the lower right field of view (FOV) is a choke style rangefinder. This is configured to measure a 21.6-inch-wide (shoulder width) target from 200-1,000 yards. This reticle is currently available in four different tactical scopes from BW Optic. Models consist of 2.5-10x42mm and 4-14x50mm variables as well as 10x42mm and 6x42mm fixed powers.

The 10x42mm Tactical we received for testing was a good looking medium-size tactical scope. It featured a 42mm objective lens, fixed 10x magnification, and a beefy mechanism block. Overall length is 13.25 inches and it weighs in at 22 ounces. Tube diameter is a conventional 30mm. In European tradition the ocular features a quick focus eyepiece. This latter feature ensures the reticle and image is always in the same plane for a crisp sharp image. Field of view is a healthy 14 feet at 100 yards. In comparison, a 10x42mm Leupold MK 4 sports an 11.1 foot FOV and a 6×42 M8 a 17 foot FOV at 100 yards. Exit pupil is 4.2mm and eye relief is 3.75 inches.

Finish is a matte black and the mechanism block sports large capped target turrets. Removing the caps reveals nicely marked turrets featuring 1/4 MOA adjustments in very distinct tactile and audible clicks. One counter-clockwise turret rotation dials in 15 MOA of elevation. The turrets are marked to allow an operator to keep track of full turret rotations. This is a good thing as this scope sports a whopping 100 MOA of elevation adjustment. This is a full 10 MOA more than Leupold’s 10×42 MK 4. On the left side of the mechanism block is a knob to adjust parallax. This is marked from 50 yards to Infinity. To the rear of this is a Magnum Lock Support that engages the reticle. The reticle itself is photo engraved directly onto glass so there is no chance of breakage. For superior durability this model features a Milspec steel tube, is O-ring sealed, and nitrogen filled. It comes with a screw-on sunshade.

As far as the optics of this scope are concerned the lenses themselves are manufactured in Romania from optical glass produced by Schott Glasswerk of Germany. Schott, a Carl Zeiss subsidiary, produces optical glass that is widely regarded as the finest in the world. The lenses are coated with the T-3 system as developed by Carl Zeiss. This consists of fully multi-coated lenses with anti-reflex treatment to eliminate glare and maximize light transmission.

To test this scope and its proprietary reticle we mounted it onto a Springfield Armory National Match M-1A via a Brookfield scope mount and I.O.R. HD 30mm tactical rings. We began our testing by evaluating it for fit, finish, and mechanics straight out of the box. Here we found it to be a good looking and nicely put together scope. The Quick Focus eyepiece rotated easily and the parallax knob adjusted smoothly. Turret adjustments were among the best we have ever seen. Whereas many tactical scopes (Leupold, Springfield Armory, Nikon, Kahles) feature “mushy” clicks, the BW Optic’s were precise, tactile, and audible. Aesthetically, it’s a good looking scope, but to be frank not quite in the league (pertaining to finish) of Schmidt & Bender or Carl Zeiss.

We then moved to checking it optically with a Zeiss Test Pattern. Posting the ZTP at 50 yards we noted the 10x42mm possessed excellent color rendition and contrast. Resolution was also quite good and we were able to resolve down to the #2 block on the ZTP. Examining the image on the ZTP we noted no astigmatism present. Unlike most scopes the image did not degrade moving from the center to the edges and we noted no curvature of field or spherical aberration. In this regard the Romanian optics are quite impressive.

Distortion comes in two basic forms: pin cushion or barrel, and I detected neither present in this scope. No rolling distortion was detected either. However, we did note some internal flare when looking in the general direction of the setting sun. This is a loss of contrast and sharpness caused by stray non-image forming light reflected from inner lens surfaces. In this regard I did not feel the T-3 lens coatings were quite the equal of Carl Zeiss’s top of the line T*. So what does all this mean? Simply that this is a very impressive piece of glass with excellent color rendition and extremely good resolution well up to the task at hand.

With the optical testing out of the way we zeroed at 100 yards. As extreme cold is very hard on any optical device’s internal mechanism all testing was performed at temperatures ranging from 30 degrees F to -12 degrees F. Firing groups on paper we noted the flat post, although very different from conventional crosshairs, did provide a distinct aiming point. Finding the reticle easy to use on paper in bright light, we waited for the sun to go down to do some lowlight testing. With the sun fading we were still able to effectively employ the post reticle after a conventional Mil-Dot reticle had disappeared into the shadows.

We then moved from the bench to shooting at unknown distances on silhouettes. We began by engaging targets from 170-330 yards with rapid multiple shots. This was performed in both bright and lowlight. Here the Y-Tac reticle came into its own. The post and wings configuration stood out clearly, was very fast on target, and was visible when a conventional reticle was difficult or impossible to discern. Next we increased the range, engaging targets from 400-700 yards. At these distances I noted the 10x42mm’s adjustments were perfect, for both elevation and windage, throughout their range. Repeatability was flawless. Turret markings were easy to read and rotations simple to keep track of. First round hits were made out to the limits of our testing, 700 yards.

My original concern when first looking at this reticle was that it might be too coarse when shooting at long range. However, I found that I could precisely index the head of a silhouette with the post, even at 700 yards. Firing slow groups prone off a pack, the M-1A shot into 1 MOA out to 700 yards. With its high round count and worn bedding this is all that can be expected from this particular self-loading rifle. The BW Optic’s Y-Tac reticle allowed you to place that 1 MOA group wherever you liked though. Taking my time I went 4 for 5 on the 700 yard silhouette’s head.

When it comes to rangefinding the Y-Tac gives you three options: a Choke rangefinder, the Mil-System, and the Y-Tac wings. To utilize the Choke rangefinder simply place the left shoulder of your target against the vertical line. The line where their right shoulder touches is the range they are at. The reticle is also delineated in Mil’s, so you can conventional Mil any object and mathematically calculate the distance. Or you can utilize the reticle’s wings to range a figure. Using this system: if the outer edges of the wings are the same distance as a man’s shoulders, he is 150 yards away. If his shoulders come to the inner points, he is 200 yards away. If his shoulders come to the outer vertical edges, he is 300 yards away. If his shoulders space between one outer and one inner vertical edge, he is 400 yards away. If his shoulders just fit between the inner vertical edges, he is 500 yards away. With this system you don’t need a standing figure to be able to range them. All you need is to be able to see their shoulders.

Negatives? The only real negative is the fact that the wings and Choke rangefinder are calibrated for a 21.6-inch-wide target. Look around you, people vary greatly in size and width. This is a weakness inherent in all Choke rangefinders. Also some may find the reticle a bit cluttered. Lastly it’s not cheap, retailing for $949.

We came away impressed by both the Y-Tac reticle and the scope that houses it. The reticle indexes quickly onto a target, stands out even in lowlight, and is an aid when estimating range. While it’s different looking, it is well thought out and effective.

Specifications

Magnification: 10x
Objective lens diameter: 42mm
Tube diameter: 30mm
Field Of View @ 100 yards: 14 feet
Eye Relief: 3.75 inches
Length: 13.25 inches
Weight: 22 ounces
Adjustments: 1/4 MOA
Total Adjustments: 100 MOA
Price: $949

Source

BW Optic
P.O. Box 355
Simpsonville, SC
29681
864-297-4137
BWOPTIC@AOL.COM

By David M. Fortier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These weapons were designed to use the following accessories:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments:

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

References:

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

By David M. Fortier

The cartridge in question is the Soviet 5.45×18 7N7. Originally designed in conjunction with, and for, the Pistolet Samozaryadniy Malogabaritniy. This translates to “Pistol Semi-automatic Miniature” and is known simply by its initials “PSM.” It is interesting to note that whereas the Makarov “PM” and the Stechkin “APS” pistols give credit to their designers in their nomenclature no credit is given to the designers of the PSM. It was designed and developed by a three-man team from 1969 until completed in 1974. Heading up the group was Tikhon Ivanovich Lashnev (1919-1988). Lashnev was born in Tula and entered the Tula Engineering Works Technical School after finishing his secondary schooling. After graduating he was assigned to a design bureau and worked with Fedor Tokarev and Sergey Korovin. After the Great Patriotic War ended he participated in the design of hunting and target guns, the latter being used not only in the Olympics but also in shooting contests around the world. His awards included the “Red Banner Order” and the S.I. Mosin Prize (twice). Also participating in the design of the PSM was Anatoliy Alexeevich Simarin (1936-1991). A graduate of the Tula Mechanical Institute he participated in the design of the first pneumatic pistol made in the USSR. A serious international marksman, he also designed a target pistol for silhouette shooting. His awards included a “VDNKh” bronze medal, and the honorary titles of “Socialist Competition Winner” (1973 and 1980) and “Developer of Virgin Land.” The third member of the design team was Lev Leonidovich Kulikov (1931- ). Kulikov graduated from the S.I. Mosin Tula Mechanical-Technical College. Participating in the design of several sporting weapons he was awarded the title “Best Inventor In The Ministry” in 1982 and has been named “Socialist Competition Winner” on several occasions.

The fruit of these three men’s labors was a small, extremely flat, double-action pistol that resembles a Walther PPK. Operating on the straight blowback principle it sports a fixed barrel. It has a slide-mounted safety that protrudes from the rear of the slide to the left of the hammer. The safety is positioned in an arc between the rear sight and the hammer when applied. This puts it in a position that allows the operator to both disengage the safety and manually cock the hammer in one stroke if he so chooses. The magazine capacity is 8 rounds and a European style magazine release is located on the pistol’s butt. While the weapon’s slide locks back on the last shot there is no external slide release; it must be manually pulled back and released, like a Walther. It has aluminum wrap-around grips and sports the usual chrome-plated bore as is conventional on all Soviet weapons. Size-wise the PSM is almost identical to a Walther PPK except that it is 8.2mm (0.32-inch) thinner. The PSM is manufactured at the Izhevsk Mechanical Plant in Izhevsk, Russia.

However, a significant change from the Walther is the cartridge the PSM chambers. A tiny bottlenecked round, the 5.45×18 is dwarfed even by the 9×17 Kurz. It has a caliber of 5.45mm (.214 inch) and the brass bottlenecked case has a length of 17.8mm (.701 inch). The projectile is a gilding metal clad, steel cored, flat point with an air pocket in the nose. It has a very high sectional density and a weight of 41.4 grains. Muzzle velocity is 1,033 fps. It is interesting to note that the muzzle velocity is identical to that of the standard 9x18mm 57-N-181S ball round out of a Makarov pistol.

The who, why, where, and when of this cartridge is a little more difficult to figure out. It seems as if the Russians themselves are somewhat ambivalent as to who actually designed the cartridge. Three different authoritative Russian reference works give three different designers credit for the cartridge. One gives credit to a woman named Antonina Deniskaya of TsNIITochmash. Another gives credit to a woman named A.D. Denisova. And interestingly, David Naumovich Bolotin in his work “Soviet Small Arms and Ammunition” lists an Aleksandr I. Bochin as the designer. However Bolotin lists the date for the cartridge development as 1979, that’s 5 years after the PSM pistol was designed and adopted! Obviously that cannot be correct (I have found other inaccuracies in Bolotin’s work). So we have a little bit of a mystery here. One must also take into account the fact that Soviet designers worked together in teams on projects. Therefore the cartridge may have been the result of a joint effort. At this time however it is difficult to say exactly who is responsible for the 5.45×18.

The choice of the 5.45mm (.214 inch) projectile diameter seems strange until one takes into account the fact that the AK-74 in 5.45×39 was introduced at approximately the same time. There was a period at the latter part of the 1800’s when it was popular in Europe for a country to have their service rifle and service revolver of the same bore diameter. The most obvious is the French with their 8x50R Lebel rifle and their Model de Ordnance 1892 service revolver in 8mm revolver. The advantage is that barrel-tooling machinery could be shared for both handguns and long arms. Imperial Russia also became enamored by this idea. They adopted the 1895 Nagant revolver in 7.62x38R to go along with their “Three-Line” 7.62x54R M1891 Mosin magazine rifles. The Soviets continued this when they adopted the TT30/TT33 Tokarev pistol in 7.62x25mm and the PPD and PPSh-41 sub-machineguns. During the Great Patriotic War, barrel blanks could be made for Mosin’s, Nagant’s, Tokarev’s, or PPSh-41’s all on the same machinery. This ability was lost with the adoption of the Makarov pistol in 9x18mm and the retirement of the TT-33 and the 7.62x25mm cartridge. The adoption of the AK-74 and PSM in the same bore diameter may be a money saving return to the old days. Theoretically it would be possible to make AK-74 and PSM barrels on the same tooling. However, it should also be kept in mind as to why this idea quickly fell out of favor in Europe. The cartridges these handguns chambered quickly gained reputations for being underpowered. One country that never went down this path was England. This was due to their involvement in numerous colonial actions giving them sufficient combat experience to arrive at the conclusion that a hard-hitting revolver in the .455-.476 caliber range was most desirable.

Popping a 5.45x18mm cartridge open to have a look inside yields one interesting bit of information. The projectile has a very high sectional density. With a projectile length of approximately 14mm it’s almost three times as long as its diameter. This combined with a small diameter, a sharp ogive, and a steel core, are alleged to allow it to penetrate 30-45 layers of Kevlar. During initial testing in the early 1990’s European military and police organizations were so alarmed at its ability to defeat soft body armor that they designated it an “assassination pistol.” While I have not had a chance to test the PSM and its 5.45x18mm cartridge against soft body armor I have no reason to doubt previous test results (although its velocity is a little low). However, I must also add that I am privy to an independent test performed by a noted student of Soviet Small Arms in which a PSM was fired at a 1/4-inch steel plate at 7 yards. After the PSM was fired, a .22 LR pistol of approximately the same barrel length was fired using .22 Stingers. Interestingly enough the .22 Stinger hollow points left noticeably deeper craters in the steel plate than did the 5.45x18mm PSM round with 7N7 steel core ammunition.

As far as wound ballistics potential goes, by Western standards the 5.45×18 doesn’t offer much. With a diameter of only .21 caliber, a weight of 41 grains, an impact velocity of 800 or 900 fps, and a non-expanding projectile, it is fairly simple to predict that this cartridge will be a poor performer. Whether the bullet yaws immediately after impact is not going to alter this, although this might increase its wounding capability somewhat. We can say that without adding a +P+ Uranium Tip the 5.45×18 will probably take a backseat to a common .32 ACP Silvertip hollow point.

While originally called an “assassination pistol,” by Western intelligence agencies, recent Russian press articles on the pistol reveal a more mundane purpose for the weapons design. It seems the PSM was originally intended for very high-ranking staff officers who didn’t need the burden of a pistol the size of a Makarov, yet still might need to defend themselves. With the wide-scale introduction of flack jackets at that time, especially with U.S. forces, it was felt prudent that the weapon have the ability to penetrate them. As Russian criminals began to use soft body armor more extensively the PSM became quite popular with security and police personnel. The ineffectiveness of the 9x18mm against the widespread use of soft body armor can be seen in the Russian’s introduction of the 9x18mm 57-N-181M High Penetration load consisting of an 86-grain steel core projectile at 1,345 fps.

The 5.45x18mm cartridge is currently popular in Russia and we will probably see more small pistols chambered for it in the future. For the American cartridge collector wishing to add some of these scarce rounds to their collection there is both good and bad news. The bad news is, of course, that the Milspec steel core ammunition is not importable into the U.S. The good news is that Sporting Supplies Int. Inc., the importer of Wolf Performance Ammunition, has a small supply of lead core 5.45x18mm ammunition manufactured at Tula and packed in 10-round collector boxes. The quantity is limited and the price is quite reasonable, so don’t wait.

While it created quite a stir when it was first tested in the West the 5.45x18mm round was designed for far less sinister intentions than originally thought. It seems as though American and Russian thinking when it comes to cartridges differs as much as our thinking on politics. While the 5.45x18mm isn’t much of a defensive cartridge by our standards we should remember one thing: hits stopped by a vest don’t count.

Acknowledgments: Thanks to Alan Halla for his help and information.

Reference: SOVIET SMALL ARMS AND AMMUNITION. David N. Bolotin.
Finnish Arms Museum Foundation, Hyvinkaa, Finland. 1995.

SOVIET RUSSIAN POSTWAR MILITARY PISTOLS AND CARTRIDGES 1945-1986 VOLUME 16. Fred A. Datig.
Handgun Press, Glenview, IL. 1988.

THE NEW WORLD OF RUSSIAN SMALL ARMS AND AMMO. Charlie Cutshaw.
Paladin Press, Boulder, CO. 1998.

SOURCES

SPORTING SUPPLIES INT. INC.
WOLF PERFORMANCE
AMMUNITION
2201 E. Winston, Suite K.
Anaheim, CA 92806
1-714-635-4246
(New Production Ammunition From Tula Arsenal)

HANDGUN PRESS
P.O. Box 406
Glenview, Il 60025
1-847-657-6500
(Bolotin’s Must Have Book For The Soviet Collector And Datig’s Work)

PALADIN PRESS
P.O. Box 1307
Boulder, CO 80306
1-800-392-2400
(Charlie Cutshaw’s Work)

For the serious student of firearms accurate and comprehensive works on the weapons in question are a must. When it comes to “accurate and comprehensive” Collector Grade Publications leads the way. All the other works from this publishing house have been most impressive in their content. This latest offering is no exception, it is superbly researched, written, and illustrated.

Covering the Browning Automatic Rifle, Mr. Ballou offers a comprehensive in-depth look at the B.A.R. from concept to current semi-auto copies. Starting with John Moses Browning himself, the book slowly unwinds this devastating gun’s long history. From gearing up for World War I, into the trenches, post war development, gangster use during the Roaring 20’s, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam this book covers it all. It offers a looks at the weapon itself in all its different models and variations along with their ancillary gear. The changes made over time to “improve” the B.A.R. as it gained weight are well documented. But this book offers much more than that. It offers substantial insight into the men who carried, fought with, and sometimes died with the B.A.R.. Combat reports abound, as do comments by users about what they thought of the weapon, and how quickly they tossed the bipod into the nearest ditch. Foreign variations are not ignored, and even models for the Police and FBI are covered, as are modifications performed by such notorious criminals as Clyde Barrows.

To be frank, $80 is a lot of cash for a book. However this is not your run of the mill firearms book. Extremely well illustrated it covers the B.A.R. from A to Z. If you want information on the Browning Automatic Rifle, this is your one stop shopping. I highly recommend this work, the amount of research that went into putting it together must have been staggering. If you love B.A.R.’s you’ll love this book.

1900 Luger, US Test Trials
By Michael Reese II
Published by Pioneer Press
Union City, Tennessee 38261
Library of Congress # 71-117532
Price $6.00 plus $4.50 shipping and handling
105 pages
Reviewed by Stephen Stuart

One of the most sought after variations of the Luger handgun is the 1901 US test specimens. Early in the spring of 1901 two test Lugers were bought and tested through the United States Board of Ordnance and Fortifications under Lieutenant Colonel Frank H. Phipps. After an initial test of these two pistols, he ordered a field trial to be conducted. This field trial would include a thousand model 1900 pistols, 200,000 round of ammunition and extra magazines. The first shipment arrived in October 1901.

This test trial of the Luger handgun came up with mixed results. Some commands like the pistol, others did not. These trials proceeded until finally DWM, the manufacturer of the Luger handgun stopped the trials. Some arms historians have pondered the question why they stopped the trials. Many believe that DWM would no longer put up with the requests of the US Ordnance Department. Still some say it was because DWM knew that the Luger was going to be accepted by the German Military in large numbers. In Mr. Reese’s book, 1900 Luger, he provides insight into the trials of the 1900 Luger by providing the test results of these pistols for the reader to discern what is fact and fiction. Included in the test are photos of actual surviving specimens and some of the holsters specially produced for them by Rock Island Arsenal.

Even though the photos are sometimes of poor quality and the Xeroxing of documents are a little fuzzy, the book as a whole is well worth the six bucks. It gives the reader insight into the minds of the Luger testers almost ninety years ago in their own words. It is also a wonderful piece of reference by providing the serial numbers of all the pieces actually tested. Even with some of the problems in printing I found this a worthy edition to my reference library.

The Official Soviet 7.62 mm Handgun Manual
Translation by
Major James F. Gebhardt,
U.S. Army (Ret.)
Paladin Press
P.O. Box 1307
Boulder, CO 80306
1-800-392-2400
ISBN 0-87364-907-9
$20.00 plus S&H
104 pp
Reviewed by David M. Fortier

Underneath the title it says “Instructions for use and maintenance of the Nagant 7.62 mm Revolver Type 1895 and the Tokarev 7.62 mm Semi-Automatic Pistol Type 1933” and that’s exactly what this book is. Here is a translation of the original Soviet handgun manual for these two combat pistols. The Nagant served from its adoption in 1895 to the end of the Great Patriotic War in front line Soviet service. The Tokarev served from its adoption in 1930, through its simplification in 1933, until it was replaced by the PM Makarov in the early 1950’s. Like all Soviet weapons these two handguns earned a reputation for being tough and reliable no matter the abuse they were subjected to.

Now with large quantities of these handguns in the United States there is an English translation of the Soviet manual available to the American shooter. Piece by piece identification and explanation of each parts function is given. Step by step disassembly and then assembly of the Nagant and Tokarev is given. Trouble shooting and repair work is taught. Accessories and cleaning equipment are covered, as well as ammunition. The Soviet military method of sighting the weapons in is detailed, as well as cleaning, and maintenance. The deployment of the handguns in combat is explained, not only with and without the use of cover, but even from horseback!

Anyone who owns a Nagant or Tokarev will find this manual informative and useful. The drawings (original Soviet)are excellent. The translation is extremely good and reads perfectly. Now you can have the information directly from the source on how to use and maintain your Nagant or Tokarev pistol.

By David M. Fortier

AVTOMAT KALASHNIKOVA THE AK-47/AKM ASSAULT RIFLES
with Clark E. Hodges
Paladin Press
Dept. SAR
P.O. Box 1307
Boulder, CO 80306
1-800-392-2400
ISBN 0-87364-951-6
$29.95 plus S&H
65 minutes VHS
Reviewed by David M. Fortier

It has been said that the Americans export Coca-Cola, the Japanese export Sonys, and the Soviets export Kalashnikovs. Mikhail Kalashnikov’s rifle has been a tool of revolution as well as tyranny. Produced in astounding numbers and copied by countries on both sides of the Iron Curtain the AK series of rifles stand as one of the most influential and successful designs of all time. Paladin Press now offers an excellent video on this rifle series. Beginning with actual film footage of combat on the Eastern Front the video looks at various German automatic weapons that influenced Kalashnikov. The MP-38/40, FG-42, MKB-42, and STG-44 are all covered along with the 7.92×33 Kurz cartridge. The Soviet PPSh-41 and PPS-43 sub-machineguns are covered along with the development of the Soviet 7.62×39 M43 cartridge. Kalashnikov’s first design, the PPK-42 sub-machinegun prototype is discussed along with the Samozaryadnyi Karabin Simonova 45’s adoption. From the AK-46 trial rifle to the AKS-74U, Kalashnikov’s design is shown and discussed in detail. The three receiver variations of the AK-47 are discussed and identified. The AKM, RPK, East German, Romanian, Hungarian, Finnish, Israeli, Yugoslavian M-76 sniper rifle, Polish, and Red Chinese versions are all discussed and identified. Selector switch markings are covered for identification purposes. The 5.45×39.5 cartridge development is discussed. The method of operation is shown with a cut-away model and an excellent firing demonstration is given. This is a first rate piece of work. The camera work is very good, and the World War II footage is excellent. Mr. Hodges does a very good job and explains the subject in a simple and easy to understand manner. Unlike many other videos on the market, this one is BOTH very informative and fun to watch. I recommend it.

Handbook of Firearms and Ballistics Examining and Interpreting Forensic Evidence
By Brian J. Heard
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd Baffins Lane Chichester,
West Sussex
PO19 IUD,
England
ISBN #0-471-96563-4
Price $65.00 plus s&h
Reviewed by Christopher Trumble

Just about every day we read in the newspaper or see on the television news reports of shootings. Whether these incidents are gang related drive by shootings or mass shootings by a lone maniac, there is a Forensic Firearms Examiner that analyzes each fired ammunition component to assist the courts in deciding a convicted person’s fate. Brian Heard has authored a book on the Forensic Firearms Examiner’s duties.

This book is a unique reference manual on the Forensic Firearms field. It briefly covers all areas of a Forensic Firearms Examiner’s training program. Chapters include firearms history and operation, ammunition nomenclature and function, internal, external and terminal ballistics, bullet identification, bullet penetration, distance determination, serial number restoration and expert witness testimony. After reading this book you soon realize that the Forensic Firearms Examiner doesn’t just match the bullet to the gun like all the big screen movies depict.

For police investigators, judges, lawyers, forensic scientists and anyone interested in real crime laboratory functions, this book is essential reading.

The numerous black and white photographs, graphs and charts are clear, easily understood and compliment the text. The information that is provided in this book is clearly explained and presented in an entertaining manner. The glossary, located in the back of the book, is a quick and useful reference to the vast number of terms specific to Forensic Firearms studies.

The author, Brian J. Heard, is well known and respected throughout the professional forensic community. His earlier experience was acquired with the Metropolitan Police Forensics Firearms Laboratory and New Scotland Yard, London United Kingdom, where he rose to the position of Deputy Head. Brian then became Officer in Charge of the Ballistics and Firearms Identification Bureau for the Royal Hong Kong Police where he continues to work today.

I have read this book on more than one occasion and continue to refer to its contents on a regular basis. I definitely recommend this book to serious students of firearms and those readers of pulp fiction crime novels that want to separate fact from fantasy. This book was written by a been there, done that, guy.

LEGENDS AND REALITY OF THE AK:
A Behind the Scenes Look at the History, Design, and Impact of the Kalashnikov
Family of Weapons
By Val Shilin & Charlie Cutshaw
Paladin Press
Dept. SAR
P.O. Box 1307
Boulder, CO 80306
1-800-392-2400
$35 plus S&H
ISBN 1-58160-069-0
188 pages, well illustrated
Reviewed by David M. Fortier

Every weapon’s collector has a certain niche of firearms that is their favorite. It may be Pre-64 Winchesters, GE Miniguns, or literally anything in between. For me it’s Soviet/Russian small arms. I just enjoy shooting SVD Dragunov’s at extreme range, or running a drum through an RPK. However, while I love shooting them, what fascinates me most about Soviet/Russian small arms is how little is actually known about them in the West. There is a whole world of Russian handguns, shotguns, submachineguns, assault rifles, sniper rifles, and machineguns (not to mention ammunition) that almost nothing is known of here. Luckily with the end of the Cold War this is slowly changing. In this work Mr. Shilin and Mr. Cutshaw take the reader to Izhevsk, Russia, home of the Izhmash Arms Factory and where Mikhail Kalashnikov worked. There the reader is taken from the development of the original AK-47 assault rifle through the many designs that followed to a look at the new cutting edge AN-94 assault rifle slated to replace the AK-74M currently in Russian service. Assault rifles, submachineguns, squad automatics, combat shotguns, sniper rifles, and handguns are touched on including many experimental models and designs previously unknown in the West. Well illustrated with black and white photos and in-depth explanations of new operating principles, this book does much to shed new light in previously dark corners. With the end of the Kalashnikov assault rifle drawing to a close with the Russian Army we stand at an interesting place in time. While the Kalashnikov will soldier on for the present time the writing is on the wall, the AN-94 Nikonov having been adopted to replace it back in 1994. This work gives the reader not only an in-depth look at the past and present of Russian small arms, but a glimpse into the future. I highly recommend it.

THE OFFICIAL SOVIET AKM MANUAL
Translation by Major James F. Gebhardt,
U.S. Army (Ret.)
Paladin Press
Dept. SAR
P.O. Box 1307
Boulder, CO 80306
1-800-392-2400
ISBN 1-58160-010-0
$16.00 plus S&H
120 pages
Reviewed by David M. Fortier

From the Six O’clock news covering a story in a distant land to the anti-gunners in the local media the AKM rifle is a common sight. Extremely popular in the United States in its semi-auto version, the Kalashnikov rifle is one of the most prolific weapons ever manufactured. Before its collapse the Soviet Union handed them out to whom ever asked for one. Copied in its original form by many countries and in modified form by others the chance of encountering a Kalashnikov series rifle is extremely high. Now Paladin Press brings the original Soviet military AKM manual to the American shooter. Translated from the original Russian by Major James F. Gebhardt it contains the original Soviet drawings and illustrations. Operation and functional characteristics of the weapon are explained. Complete disassembly and reassembly is shown step by step. Description and function of all parts as well as the correct method of sighting the rifle in is covered in detail. Deploying the weapon from various shooting positions is taught, including while on skis, from an armored transporter, from a truck, from cover, and against aerial targets. Use of the sling as a support is touched on, something it has been said that the Soviets never taught. Target selection and estimating range is covered as well as wind and extreme temperature and their effects. The 7.62×39 mm M43 cartridge is covered. The book contains a number of ballistic charts as well as an interesting chart on the penetration capabilities of the standard ball round and their armor-piercing incendiary round. Capabilities against such obstacles as helmets, flack jackets, brickwork, wooden beams, earthen obstacles, and more are given. Well done with good illustrations this manual contains much useful information. Whether you are the owner of a semi-auto version of the AKM or a U.S. service person who might face an AK in combat someday, this manual will be of interest.

By David M. Fortier

TACTICAL PISTOL I
By Gunsite
Paladin Press
P.O. Box 1307
Boulder, CO 80306
1-800-392-2400
$29.95 plus S&H
Video aprox. 50 minutes
Reviewed by David M. Fortier

Watching a master with a pistol ply his trade is akin to watching a master swordsman. Every fluid movement is done for a specific reason with no wasted motions. As you’ve watched someone break shots so fast that you wouldn’t believe they all went into one ragged hole if you hadn’t witnessed it, have you ever been envious? If you have, just remember that all it takes is the proper instruction and lots of practice. While the practice is up to you, the instruction is readily available on video tape. Put out by Gunsite, Tactical Pistol I is a highly informative and educational learning aid. It covers the basic skills needed to survive a lethal encounter using only a handgun and your wits. This video contains a mountain of information compressed down into a basic step by step training agenda. Using Jeff Cooper’s Modern Technique of the Pistol as a foundation, the viewer is taught the Weaver stance, draw stroke (presentation), flash sight picture, compressed surprise trigger break, the Guard position, failure to stop drill, malfunction clearances, strong hand and braced shooting positions, barricades and corners, and even some low light considerations. All step by step. A professionally done video, it presents its information exceptionally well. The camera work is very good and incorporates some interesting angles and footage. In combat weaponcraft my strength has always been with a pistol. While I consider myself proficient with a handgun and shoot on the Masters Level in local competition, I truly enjoyed this video. The folks at Gunsite simply know their stuff and anybody with an open mind can learn something from this video. The training on presenting a weapon and malfunction clearances alone are worth owning the video. The only draw back to this tape is that it is geared much more towards the self-loading pistol and not the revolver. So keep this in mind if you’re running a wheel gun. If you’re serious though about improving your skills with a pistol and want to learn how, then I highly recommend this learning aid.

German 20mm FLAK In World War II 1935-1945
By Werner Muller
Published by Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
77 Lower Valley Road
Atglen, PA 19310
ISBN: 0-88740-758-7
Price $9.95 plus $4.50 s&h
Reviewed by Stephen Stuart

Ever since I saw the German 20mm FLAK gun at Knob Creek, I was possessed to own one. Unfortunately, registered German FLAK guns do not grow on trees, in fact in private hands they are some of the rarest Class III destructive devices in the United States.

Unable to acquire one for hands-on training, I had to do the next best thing, I researched them in books and magazines. Luckily, today Schiffer Publishing is producing some of the best texts on obscure foreign arms. Some of their rare titles are: Panzerfaust And Other German Infantry Anti-Tank Weapons, German Trench Mortars And Infantry Mortars , Flamethrowers of the German Army 1914-1945, and today’s book review, German 20mm FLAK In World War II.

The first FLAK gun to be put into German service after World War I was the Swiss produced Oerlikon cannon. After the total abandonment of the Versailles Treaty, the firms in Germany began producing local designs, namely the FLAK 30 and the FLAK 38. Both had a single barrel and had a rate of fire that was under 500 rounds a minute.

The Maximum range for the FLAK 38 model was 4,800 meters. The different models of FLAK guns were used to cover troops and equipment in every conceivable way. Whether they were mounted on vehicles, ground mounts, railway or armored trains, and also including ferries, these FLAK guns were rugged, dependable, and deadly for low flying aircraft.

If you are a die hard destructive device fan or curious about air defense, this is a great little text to start. The 48 pages of text and photos seem to end too suddenly. I recommend it for all you big boomers out there.

TACTICAL CONCEALED CARRY I
By Gunsite
Paladin Press
P.O. Box 1307
Boulder, CO 80306
!-800-392-2400
$29.95 plus S&H
Video aprox. 40 minutes
Reviewed by David M. Fortier

Gunsite. The mere word brings to mind professional training in self defense and firearm matters. This video, put out by Gunsite, follows in their tradition of excellence. Designed to provide fundamental information on safe and effective methods for carrying a handgun concealed for the purpose of self defense. It does this quite well. Designed for someone that has already had some firearms training, not the novice, it never the less starts with the 4 rules of safety. Then a correct presentation from the holster is covered, the strengths of the Weaver stance, and aimed fire utilizing the weapons’ sights are discussed. Handgun selection for concealed carry is touched upon with the aspects of portability, concealability, and reactivity all stressed. Drawing from concealment is covered step by step in depth. Detailed instruction on drawing from a pullover garment, jacket, and fannypack is given. To address the need for a quality holster, Rick Gallagher the President of Galco International takes over. Stressing the need for a quality rig, Mr. Gallagher covers what to look for and how to choose a quality leather holster. As Galco is renowned for the high quality leather products, he is well able to instruct in proper holster selection. The video ends with a dry fire safety lecture and then a length of tape with suddenly appearing targets for dry fire practice. As I viewed this tape, the first thing that came to mind was how professional and well done it is. From the introduction by Richard Jee, the owner of Gunsite, stating the purpose of the video, through to the end it is informative and instructive. The camera work and editing is excellent as are the numerous simulations of attacks being thwarted by the proper use and deployment of a concealed handgun. My only nitpicking would be the exclusion of non-leather holsters such as the excellent Kydex rigs offered by companies such as Bladetech. All in all it is an excellent piece of work I recommend.

U.S. War Department, Handbook On Japanese Military Forces
Introduction by David Isby
Foreword by Jeffrey Ethell
Reprinted by Louisiana State University Press
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803
ISBN 0-8071-2013-8
Price $24.95 plus $4.50 s& h
Reviewed by Stephen Stuart

U.S. military field and technical manuals are some of the best sources of information concerning areas of arms and munitions, both domestic and foreign.

During World War II, the U.S. War Department produced handbooks on the German and Japanese armed services. These handbooks, which were revised during the course of the war, allowed officers in the field the chance to study and learn about their enemy from other’s past experiences.

The Handbook On Japanese Military Forces, is an excellent reference work for the World War II enthusiast or those interested in Japanese arms. Not only such diverse topics as arms are covered; Nambu pistols, rifles, grenades, mortars, artillery, and even flame throwers (this is one of the few references available on the Japanese Type 93 and Type 100 flame throwers that I am aware of). The text also includes information on strategy and life of the individual soldier. These chapters are; recruitment and training, field organizations, the Japanese Air Service, Special Forces, and the military police. The chapters on Japanese tactics are; antitank defense, jungle warfare, coastal defense, joint operations, and paratroop operations.

As one can imagine, this book truly has it all. Even though it is not an exhaustive work on just weapons, rather, it includes detailed strategy and operations of the Japanese military when this book was original written. This information alone is on a par of it’s own level. This book is defiantly a must read for one to understand the war in the Pacific. Collectors of Japanese military equipment will also find it very useful.

“On 26th April 1944, during a battle for Hill 172.4 (in Moldavia), the enemy counter-attacked 12 times in an attempt to cut our units off from the sides. Comrade Zhezherya, in spite of hostile fire of the enemy, moved ahead and repulsed all counter-attacks with his machinegun. By the evening, however, the handful of brave (Soviet) soldiers was surrounded, even though their courage remained undiminished. In the ensuing battle Zhezherya alone killed 70 Germans with machinegun fire…the encirclement was broken and his gun-crew rejoined the regiment.”

The above was taken from the award given to Guards Sergeant Aleksandr Efimovich Zhezherya. In a two month span in 1944 he was wounded three times, yet never left the field. He was credited with killing 343 German soldiers and repulsing 22 enemy counter-attacks. His weapon, a M1910 Maxim 7.62 watercooled machinegun.

The Russian Model 1910 Maxim machinegun served with distinction through the First World War, the Revolution, numerous small border conflicts, the Second World War, and then with the Red Chinese in Korea. A dependable and reliable weapon, it utilized Hiram Maxim’s basic recoil toggle system. Born in Sangerville, Maine in 1840 Hiram Maxim was originally apprenticed to a coach builder. He was gifted with a wide-ranging inventive faculty which embraced such things as electric lights, gas generating plants, steam and vacuum pumps, and engine governors. After setting up shop in Hatton Garden, one of the more exclusive market areas in London, he spent from 1882 through 1885 patenting every possible way of using a weapon’s own energy to operate itself. At this time all repeating guns were manually operated. Weapons like the Gatling, Nordenfelt, and Hotchkiss gun were all dependent on the muscle power of their operator. Hiram however was able to harness the weapon’s own energy to operate it using what became known as the recoil principle. Using a toggle lock it operated very much like your knee joint. With your knee locked, upward pressure against the sole of your foot is easily checked. However, a sharp rap to the back of the knee while there is pressure on the sole of the foot will unlock the joint allowing the leg to fold. While seemingly simple, it was revolutionary at the time.

Hiram demonstrated his new invention in front of the Czar in St. Petersburg in 1887. The Russians had been using the Gatling gun since 1865 but had no concept of what true automatic fire was. Looking at Hiram’s invention Russian officers ridiculed it until he sat down and fired 333 rounds in exactly half a minute, shooting the center out of the target. After seeing this Hiram said, “they became enthusiastic”. He promptly received an order for 12 guns in caliber 10.75x58R Russian Berdan for testing and evaluation purposes. Between when Hiram first demonstrated his machinegun in front of the Czar and when their initial order was delivered the Maxim saw its first use in combat. The British where the first to draw blood with it. On 21st November 1888 General Sir Francis de Winton led a command to the newly formed colony of Gambia. Arriving at the fortified village of Robari it is said that the General himself set up the Maxim and opened fire. His dispatch read as follows, “the bullets rained in through the portholes and between the planks killing numbers of the enemy. The breastwork and other towers were treated in the same manner, and in a few minutes it was seen that the garrison were issuing from the fort and flying for their lives.” The abilities of the Maxim were now proven in combat, a small prelude of what was to come.

After Maxim’s M1887 successfully completed trials the Russian Artillery Committee issued a very favorable report. They stated that the automatic machinegun had advantages over all of the mechanical types. Revolving the firing handle of a mechanical gun had required considerable physical strength and quickly tired the gunner so that crews had to be constantly changed. The Maxim eliminated this. The single barrel of the Maxim also brought a substantial weight reduction compared to the multi barrel weapons. Plus a hang fire in a multi-barrel mechanical gun could damage the weapon and injure the crew. An additional advantage was that the cloth belts used by the Maxim were much more convenient than the magazine and cartridge assemblies then in use.

The Imperial Russian Army took delivery of its first automatic machineguns in 1899. Interestingly enough these guns were purchased from DWM in Berlin and were their 1894 Ludwig Loewe commercial model. This was an exact copy of the British 1889 Smokeless Powder Model with heavy brass jacket, early crank handle, 1889 style lock, and was chambered for the “Three-Line” 7.62x54R cartridge. Mounted on large wheeled carriage mounts with gun shields they were issued to the artillery in batteries of eight. Tactical thinking of the time was to deploy them to repulse mass attacks on fortifications and fixed positions. The Russians didn’t have long to wait before they had a chance to use them in combat. Their first use of the Maxim came in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. One such deployment of the Maxim came at the Yalu River where eight Russian Maxim guns stood their ground and beat off several Japanese assaults. The highly motivated Japanese infantry who were accustomed to attacking en-masse were decimated, the Maxim guns stacking their lifeless bodies up like cordwood. They were an immediate success in combat wherever they saw action. The Russians did find out as the war progressed however that the heavy cumbersome artillery style gun carriages did not allow sufficient maneuverability posing the possibility of being outflanked and overrun. Necessity being the mother of invention, the Russian gunners took it upon themselves to improvise expedient mounts out of materials on hand to increase their weapons maneuverability and effectiveness. Later, during World War I the Germans would also make expedient trench mounts for their MG 08’s in an attempt to increase their portability.

While the war ended in defeat for Imperial Russia it was of no fault of their Maxim guns. Over half of the Japanese casualties were officially credited to Maxim gun fire. Satisfied that it was superior to the Hotchkiss machineguns fielded by the Japanese the Russians decided to begin manufacturing it in quantity to equip their forces with. The first Russian manufactured Maxim was called the M1905. While closely resembling the 1894 Ludwig Loewe Model (Bolotin refers to this gun as the Russian M1895, this may be when the Russians officially adopted it, Goldsmith refers to it as the M1899 as this was the year the Russians actually received them) the Russians incorporated 2 major improvements. These were a new easily field stripped lock (as introduced on the 1901 “New Pattern” commercial Vickers-Maxim), and an “S” shaped crank handle. The M1905 was in turn modernized and replaced by the M1910. This new improved model was basically a fluted jacket copy of Vickers, Sons & Maxim’s “new light” Model of 1906. The heavy brass parts of the earlier guns having been replaced by steel, the M1910 weighed 10-12 pounds less than the previous models. It was mounted on a sturdy wheeled mount that had been designed by Aleksandr Alexeevich Sokolov. The Sokolov mount was an extremely stable firing platform, and could be towed by the gun crew via a rope while traveling on a road. During the winter the wheels could be removed and replaced with ski’s. The Sokolov mount shows a striking similarity to the Vickers commercial combination tripod/wheelmount. While a stable firing platform, the Sokolov mount did have one serious drawback, its weight. The early mounts which incorporated a set of folding legs to allow firing over parapets tipped the scales at a whopping 110 pounds! Later simplified mounts that did away with the extra legs still weighed in at a hefty 80 pounds. A simpler and lighter mount designed by Ivan Kolesnikov was adopted in 1915. However it did not replace the Sokolov mount but merely served alongside it in smaller quantities.

The M1910 Maxim proved to be a tough, sturdy weapon with excellent reliability, even in the muddy conditions of trench warfare during World War I. Yet even the firepower of the Maxim could not make up for the inept senior officers of the Imperial Russian Military. Common German propaganda photos taken during the war show Russian prisoners towing their M1910’s into captivity. During the war the Sokolov mount was simplified by doing away with two extra legs that could be used to raise the gun for firing over a parapet. The excessive weight of the weapon system was also noticed. The guns and early mounts tipped the scales at a none to amusing 155 pounds, while the later mounts lightened the combination up to 125 pounds. To the gun crew desperately trying to wrestle their weapon forward over mud clogged terrain to support their comrades in attack the gun’s weight was a serious drawback. It’s no simple feat to scramble forward with your Mosin-Nagant under interlocking MG 08 fire with 77 cm shells bursting around you. To do it with a 45 pound (not including water) M1910 on your shoulder with its jacket full of boiling water, a steam plume belching out to mark your position, knowing you have to keep up with the attack to provide suppressive fire must have been something else all together.

The M1910 fought on both sides during the Revolution and was adopted by the Red Army afterwards. An interesting note is that it was even successfully used by mounted troops during the Revolution. Mounted on a special cart it gave the cavalrymen increased firepower and flexibility. During the 1920’s an attempt was made to lighten the M1910 so as to produce a light machinegun version. Ivan Kolesnikov and Fedor Tokarev both produced lightened air-cooled versions of the basic Maxim. Equipped with a bi-pod and shoulder stock they remind one of the Browning 1919A6. While Tokarev’s design was adopted, it was only produced in small quantities and, due to inherent problems, was subsequently withdrawn from service.

To increase the long-range and indirect fire capabilities of the weapon a new 7.62x54R load was introduced into service. The M1930 Heavy Bullet Type D load consisted of a 182 grain boattailed projectile whereas the normal M1908 load utilized a 148 grain projectile. The new bullet was designed by Dobrzansky and Smirnsky and was intended to increase the effective range out to 4500-5000 meters. It can be identified by a yellow tip (Light Ball was identified by a silver tip). This load was along the lines of the British .303 Mk 8Z ball round designed for long range use with the Vickers MK I. While the 7.62x54R cartridge continues to give excellent service with the Russian Army today, both the M1908 and the M1930 Heavy Bullet loads are officially obsolete. Although officially replaced in Russian service by more modern steel core loads large stocks still exist and may be encountered in odd places around the world.

With war looming on the horizon the Soviets were eager to replace the M1910 with a lighter, more modern weapon. While the development of a new HMG had been desired since 1925, such was not to be. As the Wehrmacht blitzkrieged into the Soviet Union Ivan Lubenets and Yury Karazin developed a simplified version of the M1910. Using accumulated combat experience, including lessons learned during the 1939-40 Winter War with Finland, they improved and simplified the Maxim to increase production and eliminate any superfluous features. A new simplified rear sight was installed which lacked the lateral adjustment scale and range graduations for the M1908 Light Ball load. The new rear sight was graduated for the Heavy Bullet load in 100 meter increments out to 2700 meters. It was recognized that the Maxim was normally used to engage targets at ranges up to 800-1000 meters, at these distances the difference in trajectory between the two loads was not great. The original small diameter barrel jacket filler cap was replaced with an enormous one. This allowed the coolant to be refilled much more rapidly. But more importantly it allowed snow and ice to be poured into the jacket. This was useful in the long, bitterly cold Russian winters and was a trick learned the hard way from the Finns who had incorporated this feature on some of their Model 09/32 Maxim guns. Weapons intended for Army service had the optical sight bracket removed. Plus a high pressure aluminum alloy casting replaced the machined steel feed block.

Yet even with constant improvements and good combat characteristics some of the Maxim’s fundamental drawbacks were impossible to eliminate through modernization. The speed of war had changed dramatically since Hiram had originally designed it. Its excessive weight was a significant drawback. The gun and mount were 20-25 kg heavier than its foreign rivals. The water-cooling was a hindrance to combat readiness, especially in temperatures below freezing. Also the barrel jacket was vulnerable to damage from small arms fire and shell fragments. A puncture in the water jacket would severely curtail the sustained fire ability of the weapon.

The Ukrainian Front issued a report on Soviet Artillery Equipment that had this to say, “Maxim 7.62 machinegun is quite satisfactory in regard to its reliability and stability; it is durable and can deliver powerful fire. It is trusted by the soldiers. However, its weight (70 kg) renders the system totally ineffectual; it reduces maneuverability, forcing the crews to lag behind their units in offensive battles and sometimes leaves the attack without fire support. Experience with the combat application of heavy machineguns during the Patriotic War shows that all machineguns weighing more than 40 kg(88 pounds) are a burden in an offensive and thus do not meet combat-maneuver requirements.” And so the venerable Maxim Model 1910 machinegun was replaced in Soviet service after 1945. Many wound up in China and saw action in Korea, and I’m sure some made their way to Vietnam. Then the old war horse faded into the history books, the days of watercooled machineguns being past.

At the 1999 Hiram Maxim Machinegun Shoot in Dover Foxcroft, Maine I had a chance to meet Robert E. Naess and his 1943 vintage M1910 Maxim. Manufactured at Tula Arsenal his M1910 is an excellent example of a wartime production Russian Maxim. Exhibiting a rough finish with unground rivet heads it was not the prettiest thing you ever saw. However there’s just something about holding onto a set of spade grips attached to a watercooled machinegun. It kind of reminded me of a 1968 Plymouth Hemi Roadrunner. With dog dish hubcaps and a spartan taxi cab interior it wasn’t much to look at, but it wasn’t made for looking at, it was made for driving and driving hard. Simply flooring the gas and opening those two enormous 4-barrel carburetors would instantly bring a smile to ones face (and a look of terror to your passengers). So it was with the rough wartime finish M1910. With a belt hanging out of the weapons right side I snapped the crank handle forward twice and with my elbows resting on the inside of my knees I gripped the spade handles. Pushing the safety out of the way with one thumb I pushed the trigger forward with the other. Immediately the old Maxim roared to life spitting 7.62 rounds down range. The crank handle slapped back and forth as the belt danced, indexing through the weapon. A steady flow of empty 7.62x54R cases spilled from the ejection port as 148 grain Light Ball rounds pounded a car down range. At the 100 yards we were shooting at, a 148-grain 7.62x54R projectile is still traveling at 2477 fps for 1919 ft-lbs of energy. It was obvious an automobile was poor protection against a belt fed watercooled machinegun!

Accuracy was surprising. Robert said that with a Finnish made barrel in the weapon it would group into 1 1/2 feet at 450 yards. He feels the Finnish barrels are of superb quality while the Russian barrels tend to be much poorer. While fabric belts were originally used with the Maxim we had no problems using metal non-disintegrating link belts for the Finnish Maxim or metal Goryunov belts. We discussed the subject of fabric belts and how they could affect the weapon’s reliability due to shrinkage from becoming wet. As the belts shrink the pockets grip the cartridges much tighter than normal which can lead to malfunctions. It was his opinion that the 7.62x54R cartridge has a different recoil impulse than the 7.92×57 round. He feels this difference makes the 7.62 guns slightly more reliable when feeding cloth belts.

I was very impressed with the Maxim M1910. My time behind it came to an end much to soon. The weapon exhibited excellent firing characteristics and the Sokolov mount was a very stable firing platform. It was easy to see why the weapon inspired confidence. But of course I didn’t have to pack it about on my back either! For someone interested in owning a Maxim M1910 Robert Naess is currently building them from original Russian parts and registered MG 08 sideplates. For more information and current prices give him a call. For the Imperial Russian/Soviet collector, or the person who just has always wanted a belt fed watercooled machinegun, this might be just what you’ve been looking for.

Postscript: Aleksandr Efimovich Zhezherya was killed in action in one of the last battles of the Great Patriotic War. He was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union and included in perpetuity in the roll of honor of the 1st Company of his Motorized Guards Infantry Regiment. His Maxim M1910 machinegun is now preserved in the Central Museum of the Armed Forces of the USSR.

Acknowledgments: Thanks to Robert E. Naess for his help, knowledge, patience, and time spent behind his 1943 M1910 Maxim.

Scope mounts. No matter how accurate your rifle or how precise your optics, if your scope is not mounted rock solid all is for naught. Ever since soldiers started mounting optical sights onto their rifles to successfully engage further than was possible with iron sights, the fly in the ointment has been how to properly mount them. And once mounted, how to keep them properly mounted. In his book ‘A RIFLEMAN WENT TO WAR’ H.W. McBride wrote about how he anchored a Warner & Swasey telescope onto his Ross sniping rifle, “I had to tinker up the mounting a bit to keep it from jarring loose; on my particular rifle I rusted all the screws in and spiked them with a center punch, then by ramming a thin wedge or “shim” (made from a safety razor blade) in between the sight base and its holding lug, I finally got it on so tightly I could not get it off. This “anchored” it properly and the sight thereafter worked all right.” I’m sure his method not only worked but made him right popular with his armourer.

Rifles and scopes have changed a lot from McBride’s .303 Ross straightpull with an offset mounted Warner & Swasey, but some problems remain timeless. The only country that apparently took the sniping lessons of World War I to heart was the Soviet Union. Dominated by German Scharfschutzen’s (sharpshooters) the Russians suffered dreadfully, but learned their lesson well. From 1932 to 1938 54,160 Model 91/30 Mosin-Nagant sniper rifles were manufactured. From the outset of the Great Patriotic War the Germans suffered alarming losses to Soviet snipers. In 1942 alone the Soviets produced 53,195 scope sighted sniping rifles of which the Germans reissued all they could capture. After the war the Soviets went on to produce the worlds first rifle designed from the ground up for sniping, and sniping only. Named after it’s designer, Evgeniy F. Dragunov (1920-1991), the SVD Dragunov entered Soviet service on July 3rd, 1963. With the SVD a rail mounted scope, the PSO-1, was adopted for service.

Since variants of Kalashnikov’s rifle, hereafter simply referred to as AK’s, became available in the U.S. people have searched for a way to mount optics on them. And since SVD’s in different forms (TIGR’s, Chinese, .308) came into the country, and with Romanian FPK/PSL’s available, shooters have wanted to upgrade their optics. It is now possible to do both, and with excellent results. Originally the only mounts generally available for AK’s were “trash” from China. Topcover mounts that adjusted your zero for you between shots, and clunky receiver mounts that were a take off from the 91/30 Mosin-Nagant mount. Some American companies quickly caught a whiff of money to be made and turned out some horrible trash, good only for separating you from your hard earned cash. While this garbage is still out there I am very happy to say that there are also some excellent options now available for the individual desiring to put optics on their AK, or upgrade the optics on their SVD or FPK.

The Holy Grail required for properly mounting optics on a Kalashnikov is the military rail mount that attaches to the left side of the weapons receiver. SVD’s and FPK’s of course have this rail already mounted, as do many of the semi-auto AK’s now being imported. However, if your favorite shooting iron lacks this important piece don’t despair as they are cheap, readily available, and easy to mount. Both Kalashnikov USA and K-VAR carry this important piece, so properly mounting optics onto your weapon can now be a reality. The rail comes with all needed hardware and a mounting template so that anyone who is not a hazard with power tools should be able to accomplish the task.

Why bother, you might ask? Why would someone want to go through the trouble of mounting optics on an AK? Well there are several good reasons. One is that not all AK’s shoot like a bucket. The AK-74 used for testing in this article hovers around 1.5 MOA for instance. The second is that you may wish to have the option to use optics or not to at your discretion as the situation calls. The third is that you may wish to install not a scope per say but a red dot sight for quick target acquisition. And the fourth may be that while your AK shoots like a bucket you just feel like doing it. All good reasons.

To show you what is available I contacted three companies and tested what they have to offer. Product from Kalashnikov USA, K-VAR, and I.O.R. Valdada were all put through their paces. For testing purposes a Russian SVD TIGR 7.62x54R and a Romanian 5.45×39 AK-74 from Tennessee Guns were used. The AK-74 was outfitted with a stock from Ace Tech to increase the length of pull. It is without a doubt the finest stock available for an AK. Patterned after an FN-FAL sidefolder they are available in both fixed and folding versions for legality. Testing was done at 100, 300 and for the SVD, 600 yards. Ammunition for testing purposes was Wolf Performance Ammunition from Tula Arsenal and supplied by Sporting Supplies Int. Inc.

Kalashnikov USA has an extensive line available at reasonable prices. A joint partnership with Izhmash Joint Stock Company of Izhevsk, Russia they import products of Russian design and manufacture. Founded in 1807, Izhmash JSC is where Mikhail Kalashnikov and Evgeniy Dragunov’s weapons were originally manufactured so they have plenty of experience with both AK’s and SVD’s. I tested three scopes, one red dot sight, and two mounts from Kalashnikov USA.

Kalashnikov USA carries a PSO-1 variant. Adopted in 1963 with the SVD the PSO-1 is still the standard issue sniping scope in the Russian Army. With a built in mount, the whole assembly simply slides onto the weapons side rail and locks with a throw lever. A fixed 4x with a 24 mm objective, BDC (Bullet Drop Compensator), battery operated illuminated reticle, sunshade, and finger adjustable target turrets. It comes with a post reticle, as the original military reticle is not allowed to be imported. With coated lenses and an exit pupil of 6mm it does a surprisingly good job of transmitting light. The optics are very clear, and the illuminated reticle is an excellent feature that once you get used to you’ll wonder how you ever did without it. While I at first did not expect that it would actually hold a zero, I can honestly say that my PSO-1 returned to zero flawlessly no matter how many times I dismounted it. The standard scope for an SVD, it makes a nice addition to an AK, but you will want to increase your length of pull.

Of interest to SVD and FPK owners is a 6x version of the PSO-1. At the extreme ranges encountered during the fighting in Afghanistan the Soviets found the PSO-1’s 4x lacking. This scope not only has increased magnification, but also a larger objective lens. Advertised as a 6x36mm the objective lens actually measures a full 40 mm and appears to be the largest lens they could utilize without a major redesign. In all other respects this scope is identical to the PSO-1. It does however have a different reticle. It uses an inverted chevron aiming point and a Zeiss style rangefinder. Optics are coated, surprisingly good, and very clear, better than my Leupolds. The BDC proved very accurate and with a 100 yard zero simply dialing the knob to “6” put me on a military silhouette at 600 yards. For me, 6x seems to be the perfect balance of magnification in a fixed power scope, even at 600 yards (at this range 4x was lacking however). For someone wanting to upgrade their SVD/FPK to more magnification and a larger objective lens without sacrificing ruggedness, durability, the illuminated reticle or BDC, this is the way to go.

Red dot sights have become very popular lately, and for good reason. Lightning fast and allowing accurate fire to be placed at reasonable ranges they work well for their intended purpose. Kalashnikov USA’s entry in this field is called the Cobra. A collimator sight, instead of having a tube it projects the aiming point onto a single lens. It has a built in mount that allows the whole unit to quickly and easily be attached or removed from the weapon. Powered by two 3-volt lithium batteries it has some outstanding features. Instead of just simply having a dot for an aiming point, the user has the option from choosing a dot, a post with horizontal stadia, or a combination of the two. Changes in reticle are accomplished simply with the push of a button. Brightness settings are changed easily and the unit has a memory feature so that when you turn it on it will automatically give you the same settings as when turned off.

Also offered by Kalashnikov USA is the PSO-2. A conventional looking 7×29 scope with a 1-inch tube, it comes with a mount. What is interesting about this scope is the reticle. Consisting of a vertical row of inverted chevron aiming points, each marked with the corresponding range. This allows the shooter to zero his weapon at 100 meters and then use his reticle hold over marks at all further ranges. Hold-over marks are given all the way out to 1100 meters.

For those of you who wish to mount their own choice of 1-inch scope they offer the MTK-75. This mount has integral rings and is angled forward to allow proper eye relief with most scopes. Sitting directly over the bore it seems to be the perfect height, not to tall so that your cheek weld goes out the window, but high enough that you can mount a scope with a 40-42mm objective bell on an AK, 56mm on an SVD. Like all the other mounts it attaches and detaches easily with the throw of a lever.

Another company that offers a mount is K-VAR. They have a wide selection of AK parts and accessories, Krinkov conversion kits, Romanian FPK magazines and mag pouches, to just scratch the surface. One of the neatest machineguns I have ever shot was an AKS-74U built on a K-VAR kit. Of interest here is their scope mount for AK’s. Extremely rugged and blocky, your receiver will flex before K-VAR’s mount does. It sports a standard Weaver rail so that you can use whatever rings you wish. Plus it’s high enough that any size scope bell, including 56mm, will fit without a problem. Mounting simply consists of sliding it onto the rail and locking it in place via a lever. Like the Soviet military mount, it is adjustable for a perfect fit to each individual weapons rail quickly and easily.

The last mount tested is from I.O.R. (Industry Optic Romania) Valdada. Almost unknown in the U.S., I.O.R. has been manufacturing precision optics since 1936. A supplier of optics to elite Warsaw Pact units, I.O.R.’s product line of state of the art military and hunting scopes and binoculars is now available through Valdada in the United States. Utilizing glass for their lenses manufactured in Germany these precision optics compare with anything Schmidt undt Bender, Zeiss, or Leica manufacture. In a phone conversation with Valdada’s president Valentine Leatu, he mentioned that although they don’t advertise it they also carry mounts for SVD’s, AK’s, and FPK’s. Like everything else they make I quickly noticed that their mount is very well thought out, well made, and rugged. Slightly offset to the left, this mount is very low to the bore, just barely high enough to allow the weapons top cover to be removed for maintenance. It features a rail that accepts both Weaver or Stanag rings for your convenience. No cheap junk here, this mount is definitely mil spec. Either mounted on the AK-74 or my SVD this mount proved to be an awesome performer.

I also tested three scopes from Valdada that will be of particular interest to AK/SVD owners. They offer two fixed 4x scopes with straight 30 mm tubes, BDC’s, Tritium illuminated military reticle with range finder, and matte finish. One is calibrated for the 7.62x54R/7.62 Nato and the other is calibrated for the 5.56/5.45’s trajectory. They both feature the Soviet military SVD reticle and the rangefinder is calibrated for a standing person out to 1000 meters. Of extremely high quality I tested one on my AK-74 out to 300 yards with excellent results. Also of interest to someone looking for a true Tactical scope for their SVD/FPK is Valdada’s 2.5x10x42. With optics that put my Leupold on the trailer, handsome good looks, and flawless performance at 600 yards this is simply an incredible scope. The clarity is good enough to allow you to easily spot .30 caliber holes at 300 yards. A modified mil reticle is utilized allowing ranging of a 6 foot figure past 1000 yards. The mil marks can be used for hold over points out to 1000 yards. Adjustment repeatability is flawless. I could go on and on, suffice to say you will be hearing a lot about Valdada and I.O.R.’s scopes in the future.

Throughout testing I was extremely impressed with the quality of the Wolf Performance Ammunition and I recommend it highly, it is definitely a cut above. Both their FMJ and HP 5.45×39 loads shot extremely well. High quality 7.62x54R ammunition is extremely hard to come by and I was incredulous when their soft point hunting ammunition shot into 3/4 of an inch at 100 yards. For someone looking for reloadable 7.62x54R I highly recommend Sellier & Bellot’s 180 grain FMJ. Inexpensive and reloadable it shot sub-MOA at 600 yards. I have had very poor results from their soft point load however. I also cannot say enough about Ace Technology’s AK stock, it simply must be experienced to be appreciated.

If you intend on putting optics on your AK do it the right way, the way the Soviet military did. There is no excuse for using cheap junk that uses the pistol grip or top cover to hold your scope onto the weapon. If the military rail will securely hold a huge Night Vision Device it will hold your scope. I have found all of these companies to be excellent to deal with from a customer’s point of view. Decide what your needs are and give them a call.

Acknowledgments:

Thanks to R&D Outfitters of Warren, Maine for allowing us the use of their 600 yard range during renovations, it was greatly appreciated. Also thanks to Gabe Sende of THE RUSSIAN STORE for providing the uniforms and field gear used in the photo’s and Paul J. Martin (The Red Rifle Man) for allowing us to pick his brain and Jim Mcloud for letting us shoot his Krinkov and RPD.

References:

A RIFLEMAN WENT TO WAR
by H.W. McBride,
Lancer Militaria, Mt. Ida,
Arkansas 1987.

THE GERMAN SNIPER
1914-1945
by Peter R. Senich,
Paladin Press,
Boulder, Colorado 1982.

SOURCES

KALASHNIKOV-USA-LTD
1-561-337-3398
(Scopes, Mounts, Rifles, Shotguns, Target Rifles, Parts, More!)

I.O.R. VALDADA
1-970-879-2983
(Scope Mounts, Tactical Scopes, Hunting Scopes, Binoculars, Rings)

K-VAR
1-702-364-8880
(Scope Mounts, Parts, Accessories, Krinkov kits)

SPORTING SUPPLIES INT. INC.
1-714-635-4246
(Wolf High Performance Ammunition)

WESTERN INTERNATIONAL
1-503-887-6921
(Sellier&Bellot Ammunition)

INTERNATIONAL MILITARY PUBLICATIONS
1-703-221-4339
(English Translation of Soviet SVD and other Russian Weapon Manuals)

TENNESSEE GUNS
1-423-577-1939
(Pre-Ban style AK-74’s, Guns, Ammo, More)

ACE LTD
1-530-346-2492
(U.S. made Pre and Post Ban AK Stock Conversions)

THE RUSSIAN STORE
1-818-999-1257
(Soviet Uniforms, Gear, Medals, More)

Advanced Ultimate Sniper
Author: Major John L. Plaster

ADVANCED ULTIMATE SNIPER
By Major John L. Plaster
Paladin Press
P.O. Box 1307
Boulder, CO 80306
1-800-392-2400
ISBN 0-87364-916-8
$59.95 Plus S&H
Aprox. 120 Minutes
Reviewed By David Fortier

This is the sequel to sniping authority Major Plaster’s book and video “The Ultimate Sniper”. For someone interested in the subject of sniping this is quite a video! Starting off at the famous Gunsite Training Center, founded by Jeff Cooper, Major Plaster gives the viewer a in depth look at some state of the art sniping equipment. Demonstrations are given with .50 caliber sniping rifles, suppressed weapons, laser range finders, and the latest night vision equipment.

Advanced lessons in fieldcraft are taught in the desert, at night, in the mountains, and in the winter. There is something here for everyone. The night classes are superb with the footage being shot at night and filmed with the aid of night vision. Fieldcraft and shooting techniques are both taught, and this information is relevant to anyone no matter their location. Light discipline is taught, using a normal rifle scope at night, Night observation devices, use of tracers, flashlights to illuminate targets, infrared lasers, and much more.

The mountain classes are directly applicable for use in Yugoslavia or Korea. The effects of elevation on a cartridge and its ballistics are discussed. Normal troop movements in mountainous terrain are discussed and how to foretell where targets are likely to appear. Picking a hide location and what to look for. Making a hide and operating in one.

Winter operations was of particular interest to me as I live in Maine, and the information is excellent. Scope fogging, camouflage, skiing, snow shoes, temperature effect on trajectory, stalking, scope glare, and more are all covered. There is not a lot of information on this subject so this is a welcome addition.

The quality of this video is much better that Major Plaster’s previous video. The material is first rate and now the camera work and sound is up to snuff. I highly recommend this video, while it is expensive, it’s worth it.

The Stoner Machine Gun: A Navy SEAL Remembers

Written by Dennis J. Cummings and Ron Erb
Special guest appearance and co-narration by LCDR Michael J. Walsh, USN (Ret.)
35 minutes Paladin Press,
$29.95
Review by Rob Krott

Dennis Cummings, author of Men Behind the Trident (Naval Institute Press) and producer of Navy SEALs; America’s Secret Warriors and other SEAL oriented videos, has once again come through with a winner. This one on the Stoner 63 machine gun. Eugene Stoner (designer of the M16, in case anyone forgot) and a Cadillac Gage engineering team developed the Stoner 63 weapons system. The weapon had six different configurations based on the Stoner receiver. The Stoner 63A light machine gun was the model most frequently used by the US Navy SEALs. Although the US Army and the USMC tested and evaluated the Stoner as a possible replacement for the M60, only the SEALs used the Stoner in significant numbers in Vietnam. It was the primary machine gun of the SEAL teams in Vietnam and the Cadillac Gage engineers received technical reports and requests directly from the field. The opening clips of this video show the various Stoner variants being fired on a range while the weapon’s technical aspects are described. The video also shows the Stoner being tripod mounted in its medium machine gun role.

The focus of the video is provided by LCDR Michael J. Walsh as he reminisces about the Stoner and its role with the SEAL teams in Vietnam. Walsh served five tours in Vietnam, three of them in assignments where he was intimate with the Stoner. In fact, the front cover of Walsh’s memoir, SEAL! Depicts a young Mike Walsh geared up for a mission and holding a Stoner. According to LCDR Walsh, “This added to our firepower like no other weapons could have… The Stoner was like nothing else around. It was different.”

LCDR Walsh’s participation in this video lends real credence to its historical and technical accuracy and really “makes” the video. He provides an informal technical brief on the weapon detailing its high-points and its foibles including the problems with its feed pawl mechanism and the infamous “dead man’s pin”. The “dead man’s pin” was a receiver pin which when it vibrated loose caused the weapon to fire. It caused the death of one SEAL by his own weapon before being corrected. Walsh discusses various field expedient modifications made to the weapon in Vietnam. He explains how the SEALs carried additional ammo; the adaptation of the box and drum magazines; and the expedient use of captured RPD drum magazines. Walsh gets off the subject a little, but only to make some interesting comments about the SEALs participation in the Phoenix Program and to provide some interesting operational observations such as “Most SEAL operations in Vietnam didn’t go past one evolution of darkness…you didn’t eat ‘til you got home.” Producer Cummings wisely decided to leave these interesting tidbits in the video.

War stories from LCDR Walsh’s personal experience make the video especially interesting. His on and off camera narration is accompanied by combat file footage on patrol. Vietnam film footage includes a mission brief. One thing you’ll notice is the long hair, mustaches, and beards.. especially the more “beatnik” styles. Some of these guys look like a cross between the Hell’s Angles, the Grateful Dead, and the “Green Berets”. Nobody I’d want to mess with. Other interesting spots on the video is the frequent wearing of Levi’s; what appears to be a SEAL on patrol barefoot; VC rice paddy farmer hats; and most impressive; an M60 gunner carrying a gun equipped with an aircraft feed mechanism and humping the door-gunner ammo pack on his back.

A professional narrator picks up the narration from time to time during the film clips, many of which apply directly to Walsh’s narration. Two of the clips are actually of Walsh’s platoon on actual combat operations. It’s a good summation and discussion of the Stoner’s use by the SEALs in Vietnam, however, I would have liked to have seen a disassembly-assembly of the gun and more technical data, including nomenclature on the weapon. But then again, this wasn’t meant to be a how-to video and a field stripping sequence might bore other people. Weapons aficionados, fans of the Stoner, SEAL buffs, and SEAL veterans will want a copy of this video tape.

Robert Krott is a former US Army M60 machine gunner (PFC) and Infantry officer. He is a senior foreign correspondent for Solider of Fortune and a staff writer and columnist for Behind the Lines: The Journal of US Military Special Operations, as well as the Military Affairs Editor for SAR.

From a Stranger’s Doorstep to the Kremlin Gates: A Word from the AK Man

By Mikhail Kalashnikov
Published by Military Parade Ltd., Moscow 1997
ISBN 5-7734-0009-X
Review by Charles Madurski

For most of his career, Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov was surrounded by a state controlled “impenetrable veil of secrecy”. In the paranoid days of post World War II and well into the cold war, his work and existence was considered critical to the defense of the Soviet Union. Not allowed to travel outside of the country and limited in his movements internally, he managed to change the world of military weapons forever. With the break-up of the Soviet Union and other political changes in the world, he decided the time was right to tell his story.

Written in a style reminiscent of a letter to one’s great-grandchildren, “From a Stranger’s Doorstep to the Kremlin Gates- A Word from the AK Man” is a fascinating read. It’s an important one too. A large part of the book is devoted to detailing Kalashnikov’s development of the AK-47. Many arms enthusiasts are familiar with the generalities of the story, how the wounded tanker somehow came up with the idea during his recovery and managed to have prototypes made while convalescing. Few knew, until now, that when he was injured it was because of an encirclement deep in German held territory and he had to travel for days on foot through enemy lines to get to help.

Drawing from an extensive personal archive of letters, commendations, notes and drawings, he recreates the events of his life in great detail, giving new insight into the process of Soviet small arms procurement and exposing new information to complete the legend. Such as the fact his first design was really for a 7.62×25 chambered submachinegun, and it was after this design was rejected that he was invited to compete in the design of a new arm using the then very new M-43 (7.62×39) cartridge.

Through his years of service, Kalashnikov crossed paths with nearly every Russian arms designer of note. They are almost all here, Degtyarev, Goryunov, Makarov, Shpagin, Simonov, Sudayev and Tokarev. Due to the circle he worked in, he is able to discuss other well-known Russian designs from some of his contemporaries. Arms such as the Pistolet Makarov and its adoption or the SKS carbine and the circumstances surrounding its removal from front line service. Unfortunately, his detail is a little lacking when he goes over the development of the AKM, RPK, PK/PKM series, and the AK-74 generation of weapons. At least he does explain, once and for all, that the so-called rate reducer in the AKM was designed simply to “achieve closer grouping of shots”.

Kalashnikov delves into philosophy, poetry, politics, hunting and more. He sheds light on the Russian trait to consider all Slavic people brothers, an important lesson to remember. In a special chapter near the end of the book titled “My Black Box Data Recorder”, he recalls the events that led to his family’s internal exile to Siberia in 1931. Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, he expresses a tremendous love for Mother Russia constantly throughout the book, which may explain his involvement in Party politics.

Kalashnikov doesn’t directly address his political career; he only mentions it as part of larger tales or where it needs to be included to fill out some details. He does, however, give the reader a look into the dichotomy of Russian politics, stating at one point that he “never was a staunch communist”, yet it seems he worked his way from being a member of the Young Communists League to his multiple terms as a Deputy of the Supreme Soviet.

At one point during a sales trip to Argentina, Kalashnikov considers all of the gifts he has received while there, mostly souvenir cartridges and several pistols, and he frets over the trouble he will have with customs if he tries to return home with these things. He expresses amazement over the Argentine’s lack of control over such objects, the expectation of responsibility. In contrast, he muses over the inability of his homeland to react the same way. “…how much trouble, grief and sorrow Russians would have to suffer and how much tragedy Russia would have to go through until it outgrew its obsession with arms the way Argentina had…” The lesson is clear.

Mikhail Timofeyevich “Miktim” Kalashnikov’s autobiography is full of history. Entertaining on many levels, it should be considered a companion volume to the late Dr. Ezell’s AK-47 Story, at least. When viewing all of the innovations and weapons systems and equipment to come from this man and his design teams, Kalashnikov could be called ‘Russia’s Browning”.

Death From Above, The German FG 42 Paratroop Rifle

By Thomas B Dugelby
and R Blake Stevens
Produced and edited
by R Blake Stevens Published by Collector Grade Publications Inc.
PO Box 1046
Cobourg, Ontario
Canada K9A4W5
Price $39.95 plus $4.50 S&H
Reviewed by Stephen Stuart

The German FG 42 was born out of ‘Operation Merkur’ in May of 1941. The operation called for German paratroopers (Fallschirmjager) to attack the island of Krete in the Mediterranean Sea. The German paratroopers, unlike their American counterparts, jumped without their primary weapons. These were dropped in canisters to be retrieved later, once the paratroopers were on the ground. The British took advantage of the situation, decimating the German troops in the beginning with their full power .303 Enfield rifles and BREN machine guns.

Because of this reason, when the opportunity arose to field a new rifle for the paratroop force. The call was for a rifle firing the standard 8mm Mauser cartridge, instead of the new 7.92x33mm Kurz round for the Sturmgewehr rifles. This new rifle was the FG 42. There are over twenty different variations of the FG 42, they are divided into a basic alphabetical series starting at ‘A’ and ending at ‘G’.

From a personal perspective, I have only seen two FG42s in my entire life, both of them in museums. The author pacifies one’s appetite for information by detailing the different models in pictures and line drawings. Accessories are given special attention in the text; particularly the scope, and field manuals (which have been reproduced in English). Of particular interest to small arms historians is the legacy of the FG42, and the weapons that were derived from it’s earlier innovations.

If you are a history buff of the German Fallschrimjager, or just want to trace the lineage of your pet M-60, this is the book in which to start. As with all of the Collector Grade Publications, this is truly an excellent text. I highly recommend it for your small arms library.