The Wilkinson Arms’ Linda pistol and Terry carbine were an excellent example of early 1980s engineering genius. I first read about the Linda pistol at a public library in 1990, when I was 16. Looking at a recent Gun Digest and comparing various weapons, I was fascinated by Linda. Having no firearms of my own at the time and a minimal familiarity with them in general, I was drawn to it by the clean forms and high-magazine capacity. Holding 31 rounds, the Linda pistol was one of the clear winners in my mind. That, along with its distinctive appearance and memorable model designation, implanted the name of that gun in my memory. Discovering that Linda was back in production as a carbine was like having a chance to meet a once-famous musician.

Some History

Designed during the 1960s by Ray Wilkinson of J&R Engineering, the guns were originally designated M68 and M80. They were produced with law enforcement use in mind. Later, once J&R was closed and re-incorporated as Wilkinson Arms, the family of 9mm and rimfire pistols and carbines also became a family in model designations, named after Ray’s wife and daughters. The design then passed to Northwest Arms, and production ran through 2005. For a while, the Linda pistol and Terry carbine were relegated to “A-Team” re-runs on late night TV. Fortunately, in 2015, Wilkinson Arms was bought and revived by a shooting enthusiast named Patrick McFarland, who acquired the remainder of the unused Linda parts and went about setting up renewed production.

Linda as a Carbine

As soon as possible, I got my hands on the carbine version of the Linda pistol. Fitted with a simple tubular buttsock and a 1/2×28 threaded 16-inch barrel, it was an improvement over the one of my teenage dreams. Several details also improved upon the original configuration, including the addition of a Weaver rail on top of the receiver. The new Linda’s overall length with fixed stock is 31.5 inches (underfolding AKMS or collapsible M4 stocks also available) with an unloaded weight of 6.1 pounds. The tubular receiver houses the enveloping bolt concept originated with the Czech Sa. 23 and the Israeli Uzi. Even more efficient than those already compact designs, Linda uses a bolt almost entirely encircling the barrel, with just enough behind the chamber to load the next cartridge. Unlike the submachine guns which use small diameter recoil springs on guides behind the bolt, Linda uses a larger single spring wrapped around the bolt in front of the chamber. At rest when in battery, this spring stretches on firing and returns the bolt into its original position by compression, making the mechanism even shorter. Like the Sa. 23 and the Uzi, Linda uses a barrel nut; unlike them, Linda has a second nut behind the first to retain the bolt. Although, like those two submachine guns, Linda feeds through the grip—Wilkinson improved the grip angle considerably. Using a double-stack, single-feed magazine, it provides a very natural forward-leaning grip instead of the straight (Uzi) or backward-raked (Sa. 23). 

Because of U.S. government regulations, Linda shoots semiautomatically from the closed bolt, requiring a slightly heavier bolt than its automatic competitors. The closed-bolt mechanism reduces ventilation between bursts of rapid fire but yields superior accuracy and improved dust sealing of the chamber. Firing is by hammer and firing pin, with the trigger feeling lighter than its 6.5 pounds of pull thanks to the smooth wide face. Cross-bolt safety stands out by feel, so its state can be ascertained without looking. The overhanging receiver sides fence it from accidental interference in both ON (right) and OFF (left) positions. Since the extra-wide ejection port exposes the back of the receiver behind the bolt to outside dust, Linda uses an M16-like hinged cover.

Take-down is simple but requires tools. Use a 5/32-inch Allen key to remove two screws holding the grip to the receiver and also the set screw locking the shroud to the barrel. A 3/16-inch Allen key is needed to unscrew the charging handle. Unscrewing the barrel nut releases it along with the attached ventilated shroud. Using any flat object for a wrench helps unscrew the second nut retaining the bolt, which comes forward with the attached spring. That’s the full extent of field-stripping the carbine for cleaning. Reassembly is pretty straightforward, but care must be taken to align the locating pin at the base of the barrel with the corresponding open

The signature 31-shot magazine looks like most pistol mags, with the addition of over-insertion tabs. Loading is surprisingly easy for the capacity, with no mechanical loader required. The magazine doesn’t drop free, full or empty. This helps retention but harms reloading speed. The magazine is compatible with 59 and 5900 series Smith & Wesson pistols, so 15-, 17- and 20-round options are also available. Linda lacks any kind of bolt hold-open device, manual or automatic, so an empty magazine or a misfire feels alike.

The iron sights are a throwback to the 1980s. Both front post and rear aperture are fixed for elevation and windage, so matching the point of impact is a matter of luck. They can be bent into regulation, but that’s a pretty crude method. Fortunately, the updated Linda comes with a Weaver rail. Some Picatinny mount optics fit, like the Primary Arms red dot the author mounted; others, like Magpul sling eyelet, do not. The crude iron sights are removable, but finding Weaver-compatible iron sights can be a challenge, and the sight radius is quite limited for a carbine anyway. The problem is less the separation of the sights and more the placement of the front sight way too close for most people to focus. The left-side charging handle reciprocates safely away from the hands, but its knob position has to be considered when mounting optics to avoid hitting knuckles against the sight. With many optic mounts, the optional extended charging handle available from Wilkinson Arms is essential.

Ergonomics are good for action shooting, awkward for prone. The carbine is well-balanced, especially with a full magazine and an optic attached. The balance is very slightly to the front of the pistol grip but is placed behind the support hand on the re-designed wooden forend. The forend is made of nicely finished wood, but the stylishly pointed edges not present in the old Linda pistol reduce handling comfort. It is similarly nice looking, but hard-polished wood is used for the stock buttpad. A layer of soft rubber would have been a welcome addition. The metal tube which is the buttstock could use neoprene insulation for comfort. The angle of drop is considerable, yet the carbine comes to the shoulder naturally, and the eye lines up well with the sights in standing, kneeling and squatting positions. For people who crowd the rear sight and so end up with a higher head position, a slightly raised red dot works better. Prone shooting is nearly impossible because the angle of the stock drop puts the sights well above eye level for a natural shooter pose, especially if optics are used.

Test Firing

Typical for blowback designs in tubular receivers, Linda has some blowback from the ejection post. Use of a linear compensator or muzzle brake increases it slightly; the use of a sound suppressor increases it a lot. The reduction in muzzle blast is partially offset by the ejection port pop, but the overall noise level is still milder.

The most important feature of any weapon is reliability, and Linda carbine shines there; only one malfunction out of about 750 rounds of ammunition ranging from 50-grain Liberty hypervelocity alloy bullets to Seismic 185-grain subsonics. Accuracy was also respectable, amply adequate to keep all hits on the A zone of a silhouette target at 100 yards. With 9mm Luger being, at most, a 150-yard cartridge, this seems sufficient. The author did the first round of testing with a Hi-Lux 4MOA Tac-Dot, a very excellent little optic with a front-facing auto exposure cell that adjusts the reticle brightness to match target illumination. Rather than mount a magnified scope to wring the smallest groups out of the carbine, I wanted to see what realistic results can be expected in a typical fighting configuration. Due to strong wind on the day of the range trip, all of my groups were wider than they were tall, with the vertical component being more an accurate representation of the actual bullet dispersion.

For varmint use, the frangible lightweights would be superior, but for everyday plinking and target shooting the least expensive, most common 115-grain load proved the most accurate. Felt recoil is fairly low, to the point where drop stock didn’t affect follow-up shots. Lighter weight bullets produced noticeably less push, which is a further argument in their favor for rapid fire. 

With both red dots, I have an impression that I was wasting some of the accuracy potential. So the red dot came off, and the illuminated 1-4x Trijicon AccuPoint went up on the Weaver rail. Low rings kept the height over the bore to a minimum, while 4x top magnification enabled more precise aiming. Unmagnified, the scope worked like an improved red dot, with vertical and horizontal references to guard against accidental cant and with MRAD hash marks to enable accurate rangefinding.The best ammunition this time was Remington 124-grain Golden Sabre, at ¾-inch at 60 yards, or 1.25MOA. Groups fired with Fiocchi 115 grain did not change, which suggests the red dot was not the limiting factor. What did improve with the magnified optic was the ability to center the group on the desired point of impact. The speed of target acquisitions at 1x magnification did not change from the red dot.

Despite its distinctly dated look, Linda carbine turned out to be comfortable and ergonomic for everything but the prone position. Compared to straight stock modern PCCs, it rises a little more on recoil, but not enough to make a strong difference. A muzzle brake would reduce that difference. The less hunched-over position afforded by the drop stock design permits better awareness of the environment. 

50-YARD TEST FIRING

Speer Lawman: 147gr FMJ 1.4in -1060fps

Inceptor RNP: 65gr polymer 1.3in – 1715fps

Liberty alloy: 50gr HP 2.15in – 2550fps

Fiocchi: 115gr FMJ 1.15in – 1320fps

Seismic: 185gr 5.5in – 1010fps

Soviet sound suppressor development began during World War II, after it was discovered that “silencers” were being fielded by German snipers. Seeing the great psychological and tactical value, the Soviets soon began to field their own suppressors. They basically copied their design from captured German weapons for use on their bolt-action 1891/30 Mosin–Nagant sniper rifles. After World War II ended, there was little interest in the further development of suppressors. As the world entered the Cold War era, the Soviets once again became interested in silent weapons. During 1955, work began to develop an efficient suppressor for 7.62x39mm weapons at the Scientific Research Institute 61, located in the city of Klimovsk. 

The PBS 

Sound suppressors, also known as “silencers,” were developed for various models of the AK rifle. The PBS (Pribor Besshumnoy Stryelbiy) or “Device for Noiseless Shooting” was designed for use on 7.62x39mm SKS, AK and RPD weapons. 

Lieutenant Colonel Makarenko, an engineer at the Scientific Research Institute 61, was one of the individuals involved in the silencer development project. The Soviet sound suppressor was quite simple and primarily designed to cool and slow down the gases expelled by a fired cartridge. One of the early PBS suppressors was a steel “clam shell” design with a hinge at the front of the unit, allowing it to be opened for easy cleaning and maintenance; inside was an expansion chamber, a rubber plug and 10 baffles. A locking mechanism was used to keep the suppressor from loosening during firing. Approximately 100 units were manufactured before production was transferred over to the Izhevsk Machine Building Plant in 1962. 

The PBS-1 

During 1962, the engineers at the Izhevsk plant changed the original PBS design to a more conventional tube-style, which proved to be far more durable. A new soft rubber “wipe” was used, which was designed for better durability in cold temperatures. The new suppressor was designated as the PBS-1. 

The PBS-1 sound suppressor, like the earlier PBS, was a rather simple design. The internal components were encased inside of a steel tube. At the muzzle end of the tube was a threaded expansion chamber, followed by a cone-shaped chamber, with four 2.2mm radial bleed holes and a 20mm thick self-sealing rubber plug. The rubber plug, or “wipe,” was designed to create back-pressure to operate the weapon’s action with special down loaded ammunition and to keep hot, high-pressure gas from rapidly escaping from the suppressor. Located forward of the expansion chamber section were 10 baffles aligned on three rods, with a central hole for the bullet to pass. After firing each round, the hole in the rubber “wipe” would gradually enlarge, each time degrading the effectiveness of the device and eventually requiring replacement after approximately 200 rounds. 

The PBS-1 has an overall length of 8.15-inches (207mm); the main tube has an outside diameter of 1.57 inches (40mm). The device weighs 1.6 pounds (.73kg). 

Sound suppressors are not especially effective on rifles that fire supersonic cartridges, as a rather loud noise is produced when the bullet exceeds the speed of sound after leaving the suppressor. The speed of sound is approximately 1,116 feet per second (340.29m/s) at sea level, with low humidity and an ambient temperature of 68 degs Fahrenheit. The problem is usually addressed by reducing the bullet’s velocity by using a heavier bullet and a downloaded powder charge, but this greatly reduces the range and effectiveness of the weapon. 

Subsonic 7.62x39mm Ammunition 

Russian subsonic 57-N-231U 7.62x39mm ammunition uses a long, heavy bullet with a slightly larger diameter, which results in an altered trajectory with the bullet dropping 200mm (7.87 inches) every 100m (109 yards). To be effective, specially calibrated sights were fitted to weapons with sound suppressors; the maximum range was 400m. The subsonic ammunition was developed at Scientific Research Institute 61, by M.A. Kuzminov and L.I. Golubevu, under the supervision of the original designers of the M43 cartridge. The final design of the new cartridge was successfully tested from January through March 1955. Manufacture of the subsonic cartridges was initially undertaken by the Scientific Research Institute 61 but was later transferred to the Novopodolsky Punching Plant (renamed the Klimovsk Stamping Plant Number 711 in 1960). The subsonic ammunition was packed in two tins, 1,200 rounds to a case, with six spare rubber suppressor “wipes.” After production began at the Klimovsk Plant, the cartridges were packed 1,360 per case with six replacement rubber “wipes” for the PBS-1. The rounds were sealed in two tins and packed inside of a wooden crate. 

The PBS-2 

During the 1970s, the PBS-2 sound suppressor was designed for the 5.45x39mm AK-74 and AKS-74 rifles. Again, special subsonic ammunition was required to keep the bullet from exceeding the speed of sound. The PBS-2 uses a baffle/wipe system that is similar to that used in the PBS-1. The 

PBS-2 was deemed unsuccessful due to the length of the AK-74’s barrel. The long barrel caused the subsonic bullets to exceed supersonic speeds, which causes unacceptable noise. Downloading the powder charge to reduce the velocity often resulted in the bullets getting lodged in the barrel. 

The PBS-3 

The PBS-3 sound suppressor is similar in design to the PBS-1 and PBS-2, except that the PBS-3 was designed for the 5.45x39mm AKS-74U. The AKS- 74U was more successful than the standard AK-74 when fitted with a sound suppressor, due to its short barrel and reduced muzzle velocity. When fired from the AKS-74U, the heavy bullet from the downloaded 5.45 cartridge would exit the muzzle before reaching the speed of sound. The PBS-3 weighs 2 pounds (.91kg) with an overall length of 8.86 inches (225mm). 

The PBS-4 

The PBS-4 was also designed for the short-barrel AKS-74U and is basically the same as the PBS-3, but the PBS-4 has a slightly different internal design that does not use a rubber wipe. This allows full-auto fire and the use of standard velocity ammunition to be fired through it without seriously affecting its performance. Although the use of supersonic ammunition makes considerable noise when fired through a sound suppressor, it does make it difficult for an enemy to pinpoint the location of the shooter. The PBS-4 had better flash suppression than the PBS-3 and is lighter at 1.34 pounds (.61kg). The overall length is also slightly shorter at 8.66 inches (220mm). The PBS- 4 was often used with the BS-1 silent grenade launcher. 

A Modern Solution 

Sound suppressors have become quite mainstream in the last few years. Many firearms manufacturers now offer factory-threaded barrels on their products, solely for the mounting of a suppressor. 

There are many reasons for wanting a suppressor: it allows the discharging of a firearm in an area where the noise could disturb neighbors or animals; it protects the shooter from hearing damage; and last of all suppressors are just cool. Many states now permit suppressors for hunting. The military is issuing an increasing number of suppressors to protect their troops’ hearing and avoid service-related claims of hearing loss. 

Today, there are a substantial number of suppressor manufacturers, and their numbers are growing. There are suppressors available for just about any budget and application from .22 rimfire to .50 caliber BMG. However, suppressors for one group of an extremely popular weapon are conspicuously absent. The options of suppressing an AK-pattern rifle are quite limited; however, the suppressing options for the AK’s nemesis, the AR-15/M16 rifles, seem limitless. So why has the AK been ignored? 

The concept of a suppressed AK has always been appealing to enthusiasts. However, though most AK-pattern rifles have a factory-threaded barrel, bore to muzzle thread concentricity is a major concern with most AK rifles. While less of a concern when a short, thread protector or a slant brake is attached, adding several inches of sound suppressor to the muzzle, concentricity becomes a problem and will result in baffle strikes or worse. There are several additional issues with the weapon’s design to consider. Much of the legendary reliability of the Kalashnikov rifle is due to the sheer volume of gas the system puts out. Restricting this substantial gas flow with a suppressor causes several issues. Felt recoil is increased, and gas and noise are emitted from the ejection port in close proximity to the shooter’s ear. 

Dead Air Armament Wolverine PBS-1 

The Dead Air Armament of Georgia is well-known in the NFA community for manufacturing high-quality suppressors from the best materials available. They currently offer a long line of suppressors for rifle, centerfire and rimfire pistol applications. 

One product that the company wanted to offer was a suppressor for the Kalashnikov rifle. After much trial and error research and development, the company introduced the Wolverine PBS-1 AK suppressor. The Wolverine was specifically engineered to address all of the issues involved with suppressing an AK rifle. Instead of trying to tailor the AK to the silencer, they decided to tailor the silencer to the AK. In other words, there is no modifying the rifle or rethreading of the muzzle threads necessary. 

The adaptation of a suppressor to the idiosyncrasies of the AK design, due in part to the tolerances of foreign thread patterns, was made possible by a specifically engineered bore taper that allows the Wolverine to be used on all but the poorest examples of non-concentric threads. Dead Air Armament considers it to be the optimal bore diameter and taper to prevent baffle strikes on the majority of rifles without major sacrifices in sound reduction performance. 

The Wolverine was designed to look like an original Soviet 7.62mm PBS-1 AK suppressor. However, that is where the similarities end. The Wolverine PBS-1 features modern, state-of-the-art baffle designs and materials, while the Soviet PBS-1 was a rudimentary design based on 1950s technology, resulting in minimum sound reduction. 

The Wolverine PBS-1 is a direct-thread silencer. The mounting system consists of a thread adapter and a locking collar. The adapter and locking collar are counter-threaded to each other to prevent unintentional removal. To mount the Wolverine, it is simply threaded onto the barrel, and the locking collar is tightened down. There are relief cuts in the locking collar to engage the spring-loaded pins on AK front sight bases to keep the suppressor from loosening during firing. The Wolverine comes with the standard 7.62mm 14L AK thread adapter. Adapters are available for other common AK-pattern threads, including 24mm RH for the 5.45mm caliber AK-74, and a 26mm LH for the Yugo M92. Adapters for popular American thread patterns include 1/2×28 and 5/8×24. 

Built Like an AK 

The Dead Air Wolverine features a stainless-steel exterior with a Cerakote® high-temperature finish. The interior baffles are made of Stellite®, which is exceptionally resistant to heat erosion, making it ideal for rifle baffles. The Wolverine is full-auto and multicaliber-rated up to the Russian 7.62x54R. There are no minimum barrel length restrictions. The Dead Air Wolverine’s overall length is 7.2 inches, with an outside body diameter of 1.5 inches and base diameter of 1.9 inches. Its weight is 20.8 ounces. It comes with a lifetime factory warranty. Manufacturer’s published decibel readings from a 7.62×39 AKM, with a 16-inch barrel are 137dB at the muzzle; 142dB at the shooter’s ear. 

• • • 

Portions of this article were excerpted from the book AK-47: The Grim Reaper II. 

In rivalry with the Wehrmacht, its aerial warfare branch, the Luftwaffe, had developed its own anti-tank rifle grenade launcher for its paratroopers. But in the end, the fin-stabilized grenade was inferior to the Army model. 

After all units had to return their launcher cups to the depots in 1928, rifle grenades were no longer part of the armament in the following years, and they were not considered during training. Only in the course of the 1930s did they gradually shift more and more into the awareness of the military again. The Wehrmacht leadership expressed serious interest in a further-developed rifle grenade and so in early 1938, the company Theodor Bergmann & Co. from Bernau near Berlin began working on a rifle grenade and a new launcher in accordance with the requirements set in cooperation with the Heereswaffenamt (German Army Ordnance). 

The work continued to the early stage of World War II. It was only in April 1942 that the so-called Gewehrgranatgerät (rifle grenade device) was adopted by the German Army. The new device could be attached to almost all Model 98 rifles thanks to its clamp mounting. According to archive files, the delivered number of devices until the cessation of production in May 1944 reached nearly 1.5 million pieces. In the following years, a variety of different rifle grenades like high-explosive, hollow-charge and flare grenades, and even propaganda grenades for leaflet distribution, were developed and introduced. 

Actually, a very effective weapon was created early on. But the rivalry of Heereswaffenamt (Army), Marine-Waffenamt (Navy) and Technisches Amt der Luftwaffe (Air Force) prevented for the time being a combined use in all three Wehrmacht organizations. Each of these ordnance offices developed its own armament program, which competed with the other two for money and material resources. And so the Air Force tried to create its own rifle grenade device while ignoring the Army development. 

Its history began on September 15, 1941. On that day, engineers from the Westfälisch-Anhaltische Sprengstoff-Actien- Gesellschaft (WASAG) from Reinsdorf met with representatives of the Air Force for a discussion on anti-tank weapons for airborne troops. The WASAG presented an already elaborated proposal for an armor-piercing rifle grenade based on the hollow- or shaped-charge principle. Only a special fuze was missing. The company Deutsche Waffen- und Munitionsfabriken Aktiengesellschaft (DWM) assured the accelerated production of the elongated cartridge cases was needed as a propelling cartridge and also promised to try to design a fuze. The DWM Research Institute in Lübeck would become involved. After delivery of the propelling cartridges and the new fuze, a comprehensive test took place on October 20, 1940, on the shooting range in Hildesheim. 

New Device 

At the end of 1940, WASAG completed its development work to the satisfaction of the Luftwaffe. Officially, the new device was called “Schiessbecher mit Klappkorn” (cup launcher with folding sight) and launched the “Gewehrgranate zur Panzerbekämpfung Modell 1940” (anti-tank rifle grenade Model 1940), in short GG/P40. However, the name is very misleading: In contrast to the Army’s device, in which the grenades are inserted into a rifled cup, the Air Force’s device consists of a kind of barrel extension. The hollow tail of the grenade is pushed onto this extension from the front. 

The new weapon was already urgently awaited by the paratroopers. Although the order ran under the highest priority level, the WASAG initially did not cope with the production. General of airborne forces, Kurt Student, therefore in January 1941 changed the delivery order as follows: 5,000 devices and 30,000 grenades until middle of March 1941, and the rest (25,000 devices and 270,000 grenades) were to be delivered over the months of April to possibly July 1941. 

At the end of January, the Führer personally intervened and demanded a lecture from General Student about the new anti-tank weapons. In preparation, on January 24, General Student was once again briefed by a WASAG employee on the Kampfpistole (flare pistol with rifled barrel) and the rifle grenade. At the same time he ordered another trial to be carried out in order to reach a range of 150m, as this range had been demanded in the lecture which he had given a few days earlier to Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring. 

The launcher was now finished. What was still missing, however, was a sighting device. For this reason there was a meeting on February 4, 1941, of representatives of the companies DWM and Mauser at the WASAG plant in Reinsdorf. First, minor changes to the fuze were again discussed, and a final design was determined. Fifteen preliminary series fuzes brought by DWM were fired without any failure after the meeting. In question of the grenade sight, Mauser agreed to design and manufacture a suitable sight. Likewise, Mauser expressed the desire to take over the production of the launchers. 

A month later, three different sights were finished and were demonstrated at a meeting at the Mauser factory in Oberndorf. The decision was made in favor of a sight consisting of a pivoting box, laterally attached to the stock next to the normal rear sight. The box carries an U-notch at its front and a scale for setting the ranges for 25m, 50m, 75m and 100m at its rear. It is attached to the stock by means of a flexible steel band and a clamping screw with a knurled nut. The sighting line is 35mm offset to the left of the barrel axis. All other demonstrated sight models would have required permanent changes to the rifles. 

Sight Production 

On March 17 another meeting was held at DWM in Borsigwalde with all involved companies. It was about the planning and execution of mass production. For the initial production (400 pieces at Mauser and 100 pieces at WASAG) on the basis of the previous drawings, slight deviations of the dimensions were accepted. Also, the foresight was mounted rigidly (instead of hinged) to speed up the production. The delivery date was April 15. For the upcoming large-scale production, Mauser should make and distribute new factory drawings for the launcher, foresight and grenade sight until March 22 at the latest. Mauser’s launchers were manufactured at the Berlin plant. Whether the sights should also be made in Berlin or in Oberndorf, was still open at this time. 

Then on May 9, 1941, it was done. The first 450 complete devices were shipped to the Luftlande-Sturm-Regiment 1 (Airborne Assault Regiment) under the command of Colonel Bernhard Ramcke. Just in time, because on May 20, the operation Merkur was launched—the airborne invasion of the island of Crete. Curiously, on the few known combat and propaganda photos showing the launcher, no grenade sight is visible. Special pouches for storing the launcher, tools for maintenance and cleaning or other accessories have not been mentioned in any documents, let alone issued to the troops. 

The Schiessbecher 

The “Schiessbecher” (spigot launcher) weighs 495g and consists of a cylindrical smooth tube (outer diameter 24mm, length 230mm), a permanently affixed mount (same design as the mount of the bayonet) and a hinged foresight on the left side. This can be folded down when not in use. On the underside of the launcher tube, a leaf spring of 8cm in length is fixed with a small screw. Its purpose is to hold the GG/P40 grenade in place. The cleaning rod of the K.98k can remain on the weapon while the launcher is attached, since the mount has a corresponding through hole. The launcher is simply pushed onto the muzzle until the springloaded locking mechanism of the mount engages in the recess of the bayonet lug. Detaching is done in the same way as with the bayonet by pressing a round release button located on the right side of the mount. Since the launcher does not block the muzzle but acts as a barrel extension, ordinary bulleted ammunition can be safely fired if necessary without removing the launcher. 

The GG/P40 was the only grenade developed for the spigot launcher. No other types of grenades were planned, so the enemy infantry had to be fought with this grenade if necessary; not a very effective use of hollow-charge ammunition because of the low splintering effect in the open. The grenade weighed 515g and was used at distances of 50m to 100m. Its maximum penetration was 35mm of armor, and the maximum range when fired at an angle of 45 degrees was 275m. The special propelling cartridge named “Patrone G” weighed 15g and was filled with 3.6g of powder. Its hollow wooden bullet was yellow-colored to avoid being confused with the standard blank cartridge with purple bullets. 

The Luftwaffe seemed to have created an easy-to-use and flexible anti-tank weapon for its paratroopers, which usually did not have heavy weapons at hand in the early stages of their missions. The device was much handier, easier to use, less sensitive to rough handling and less expensive to manufacture than the rifle grenade launcher of the Army. 

End of the GG/P40 and Spigot Launcher 

But then, quite surprisingly, everything was over. On April 10, 1942, a demonstration of the improved grenade with a lengthened cap, serving as a spacer, took place in Kummersdorf. Thus, the grenade was now 295mm long and could penetrate 50mm of armor. At 65mm it still achieved deep indents with a splintering effect inside the vehicle. According to the WASAG Reinsdorf department, the spin-stabilized grenade already introduced by the Army could penetrate 65mm but only with a diameter of a few millimeters. The GG/P40 was thus more effective. A disadvantage of the fin-stabilized grenade, however, was the gusty wind, which greatly reduced the accuracy. On April 20, the Reinsdorf team received an angry letter from the Berlin WASAG headquarters: “The test firing on 10.4. has unfortunately showed the total uselessness of the current design of the Gg.P.40, as in gusty winds at distances of 50 meters and less, only 9 hits could be scored from 30 grenades fired […] We agree that you will provide Wa Prüf 1/II with about 50 grenades to complete the performance tests but that they will complete the work on this project. We express our surprise that your report, in perhaps misunderstood whitewashing, did not express the total failure of the Gg.P.40.” 

This sealed the end of both the GG/P40 and the spigot launcher. How many launchers had been delivered is not known. Later in the War, the Luftwaffe received an additional 9,585 pieces of the Army rifle grenade launcher. The improved large anti-tank rifle grenade of the Army, which was introduced in October 1942, even achieved a penetration of up to 80mm of armor. Much more than the GG/P40. 

Handbook of Machine Gun Support Equipment and Accessories 1895-1945 

• By Robert G. Segel 
• Foreword by Dolf L. Goldsmith 
• ISBN: 978-1-5136-4013-6 
• Full Color, 415 pages, 1035 pictures 
• Price: $125 (Shipping free in the U.S.) 
• Order from: emmageeman.com 

The machine gun collector community, as well as museums and forensic analysis institutes, have a serious lack of information on the accessories for historic machine guns. There are many individuals with knowledge, and some online sharing, but a comprehensive reference guide to these has been missing from the knowledge pool. We each have our manuals and photos; however, nothing solid to help with general knowledge. 

Robert Segel, long-time Senior Editor of Small Arms Review, who wrote over 400 articles on historical machine guns as well as being published on this subject around the world, decided to take on this task. His lifetime fascination and collecting of machine guns stretches back over 50 years, and it shows in this book. 

The book covers 77 different weapons; no index is needed because the Table of Contents clearly presents the weapons—simply select a firearm, go to the start page, and you’ll be presented with a summary/history of the model firearm with variant notes, then a photo of the firearm to further help in identifying it. After that, there are clear photos (in most cases, some photos had to come from manuals) where the author lays out the gunners’ kits, spare parts and tool boxes with their contents and also number lists what each piece is. Frequently, the belt, link or strip loader for the machine gun is covered with photos, and many times other accessories are covered as well. The Vickers and Maxim sections are amazing. 

When I received the book, we happened to have a 50-year collection of MG parts kits and accessories that came from an estate and were in mixed boxes. Various Vickers and Hotchkiss tools and accessories were quickly identified by some of the newer employees; it made fast work out of the two truckloads. I went into my stash of tools that I didn’t remember what they were and identified a Lahti-Saloranta M/26 Combination tool with brass hammer and some Lewis tools. Now they are labeled and in their proper places. 

We’ve been in the business for well over 40 years, and I have to say that this book has been extremely helpful. There are aircraft sights, spare lock pouches, drum hangers and many accessories identified in clear, precise properly labeled photos. Interestingly, Segel covers many of the machine gun carts used to transport the guns and kits—this information is worth the cost of the book alone. 

It’s not possible to cover every single accessory ever made for every single machine gun ever made; that would be many thousands of pages. Robert Segel has done a tremendous job of presenting the accessories and kits that go with 77 machine guns, as well as preserving some of the lore surrounding how these items were used and imported. While this is a U.S.- based book, it is global in coverage and should be a great addition to any collection or museum library, not to mention to those of us who deal in surplus firearms and kits, where this book is also very helpful. 

Some of the firearms covered in this book include: 

• Alfa 44 
• AA-52 
• Berthier M1917 
• BESA 
• Breda Model 30 
• Breda Model 37 
• Bren 
• M1918 and M1918A2 BAR 
• KG m/37 Swedish BAR 

A whole list of Brownings, Maxims, Lewis, Hotchkiss and Japanese MG variants are discussed in-depth. 

On a personal note, I’ve traveled around the world with Robert Segel, in all kinds of museums and military collections, and his knowledge is exemplary, his research and photography are in-depth; he has used more than half a century of studying and collecting to present to you, the collector, this amazing book. Buy one and start looking through it; you will not regret it. You’ll also be on the internet searching for the parts/accessories for your cherished MG— things you didn’t know you needed but now will simply have to have, or be sitting there, knowing you don’t have a proper clinometer and case for your 1917A1. 

Chiappa is an interesting firearms manufacturer. They are located in Brescia, Italy, which is typically associated with manufacturing of over/under and side-by-side shotguns with manufacturing dating back 500 years. They have a wide portfolio of products catering to a wide array of clientele. From reproduction muzzle loaders to classic as well as modern lever action rifles to the famous Rhino revolver. They even produce 1911s as well as M4/ AR-15s chambered in .22LR rimfire cartridge. 

The company was originally founded in 1958 by Ezechiele (Oscar) Chiappa under the name Armi Sport. With limited budget, he first started working from the basement of his house producing firearms. The company continued to grow, and the Chiappa Group was created. They moved to the current facility in 2002, but they are constantly expanding. 

Oscar’s son, Rino, is now the CEO and president of the company. Rino’s wife, Suzanna, is the head of the export department and handles all of the export paperwork. Their daughter, Giada, is the CFO of Chiappa Firearms and the vice president of Chiappa USA. 

Giada grew up with the company, and she knows the complete production process inside and out. She took time out to act as my tour guide. Being the third generation of a family business, every employee including her must have passion to work. In fact, she started working for the family business when she was 12 years old (those were the days before labor laws were in place). She remembered riding her bicycle through the basement between the workshop machines and recalled the struggles of a small family business. 

With only 85 employees in the company, they have no union. As Giada explained, they treat every employee of the company with great respect. Every person has to do his part in order to succeed long term for the company. They are willing to hire new employees with little to no firearms background as long as they have a strong work ethic and are willing to learn. 

Compared to traditional gun makers located in the valley of Gardone Val Trompia in the North, Chiappa is located south of the city of Brescia in an industrial area along with manufacturers producing various automotive parts. 

Production 

We started the tour in the barrel production section. All the barrels are made in-house at the factory, and currently they are in the process of preparing to receive a new barrel drill and dimple machine from the U.S. in a few weeks. This is surprising as most small manufacturers simply outsource their barrels, but it is usually more difficult to control quality when it is not done in-house. 

They also have a metal injection molding (MIM) machine, making parts designed for rimfire pistols and rifles where the durability and strength from forged steel or aluminum is not required or too costly. Similar to plastic molding, the raw metal, such as stainless steel, is heated to 1400° Celsius (2552° F) then it is channeled into the mold cavities. Once cooled, the formed parts will be pushed out. Although the molds can be costly, it is offset by high-production volume. MIM is also a much quicker production method than CNC machining. 

On another section of the production area, it housed a very wide and tall machine designed to cut the beech wood furniture. Pieces of rectangular wood blocks are fed into it, and it does the majority of the cutting, including its almost final shape and cutting the areas for trigger housing and cavity for securing the stock to the receiver. This machine is not used by wood stock manufacturers, because it originally was designed for the furniture making industry. In fact, it is used by the famous Swedish furniture maker IKEA. 

The final sanding down of the stocks is still done manually with a drum sander. The stocks are transferred to a small room and have oil applied to them to reveal their true colors. They are polished at the end to get a great shine. 

One rather interesting point: They sell a lot of DIY assembly kits with unfinished wood stock to the U.S. market for the people who want to build their own gun, much like a hobbyist kit. 

For semiautomatic pistol slides, they have an automated robotic arm where the bar stocks are fed to the CNC machines and then get picked up by the arm to get polished. The whole process from raw material to finished slide is done with no human intervention. 

While the assembly of firearms is done mostly by men, each firearm is packed neatly into its packaging, then into cardboard boxes by mostly female workers. It’s apparent that every firearm is handled with love and care, even if the packing process is repetitive in nature. 

Throughout the production area, the workers employ a barcode system on each firearm that relates to its specification as well as production progress. Each employee also scans his or her employee card when beginning work at his or her station; management can track time spent per manufacturing step per firearm. This is beneficial as the company can identify if there are inefficient production processes and/ or employees, and once they are identified, they can then find a solution to the problem. 

Right next to the door that took me back to the office, there was a tall, large steel green door with a label “Shooting Range” in English which took us to the basement of the factory. Chiappa has a small 25m shooting range for test firing. Each firearm gets test-fired five rounds, and when the process is complete the computer automatically prints out the results. The shooting range computer also links up to the company server along with the barcode system so the company can pinpoint where the firearm is during assembly as well as during testing. 

All Chiappa shotguns, such as the three-barrel Triple Crown and Triple Threat 12-gauge break-action shotguns, are produced by Akkar in Turkey. 

Rhino 

The Rhino is one of the most recent and unique revolver designs of this past decade. The designer, Antonio Cudazzo, is an architect by profession, but he is passionate about firearms. He wanted a carry gun that has the reliability of a revolver yet be light, compact and have low recoil. He was close friends with Emilio Ghisoni, the designer of the infamous semiautomatic Mateba Autorevolver. 

Chambered in .357 Magnum as well as the more common 9mm cartridge, the Rhino features a short grip compared to traditional revolvers. It looks strange at first, but in reality, it provides good purchase to the shooter’s hand. 

Due to the purpose being concealed carry, the original Rhino features a 2-inch barrel. The Rhino’s unique design featuring the barrel at the bottom of the cylinder provides extremely low bore axis, reducing flip and recoil as the pistol goes straight back close to the middle of the hand instead of top of the hand. This was realized to be an advantage in competition shooting, and subsequent models feature 5-inch long barrels. The latest version, the Charging Rhino, features a 6-inch barrel with a black anodized finish in contrast to the nickel-plated trigger and cylinder along with a grey laminated grip. Due to its longer length, there are Picatinny rails at 12 o’clock and 6 o’clock that can accommodate red dots, lights and lasers. 

Chiappa had been playing with various types of PVD colors and finishes. Their latest idea is to create a Rhino in a chameleon, multi-color PVD finish called the Rhino Nebula. 

Due to its complex manufacturing, the factory currently produces 600 to 800 units a month, and there are 1,000 to 1,500 units on back order. 

“Hooray for Hollywood” 

This revolver is also getting popular on the silver screen. It is used in the latest “Fast & Furious” film, being carried and used by The Rock. It will also be in the upcoming “Terminator: Dark Fate” movie with Linda Hamilton reprising her role of Sarah Connor and Arnold coming back as the Terminator. Previously, it was in “Suicide Squad,” “Total Recall” (the 2012 remake) as well as in video games such as “Battlefield 4” and “Rainbow Six.” 

Chiappa has received numerous requests to produce an identical version of the Rhino as seen in comic book movie “Suicide Squad,” used by the iconic Harley Quinn character. Chiappa reached out to Warner Brothers for its permission and possible licensing agreement; however, the movie studio refused to have any collaboration with any firearms manufacturer. The movie armorer company that did the modification to the revolver had also signed an agreement with the studio not to reproduce these revolvers as they were strictly made for the film. 

CBR-9 Black Rhino 

I was fortunate enough to be one of the few lucky people to handle the prototype CBR-9 Black Rhino, which was recently unveiled at the 2019 IWA Outdoor Classics trade show in Nuremberg, Germany. The Black Rhino is a PDW (personal defense weapon) similar to the likes of the Heckler & Koch MP7 and FN P90. The Black Rhino is chambered in 9mm and feeds from a patent-pending, proprietary double-stack magazine that funnels the rounds to become a single stack for enhanced reliability instead of alternating the rounds left and right. It is extremely compact and is designed to be fired one-handed if the situation requires it. 

Like the Rhino revolver, it is a continuation of the same concept that offers extremely low bore axis in order to reduce felt recoil. This means the barrel is as close to the index finger as possible, and the action is situated above the barrel with the hammer flipped upside down. Giada tells me the prototype has been fired one-handed in full-auto with great accuracy, producing minimal recoil with little to no training. 

It’s designed by Antonio Cudazzo in collaboration with Tanfoglio, and the final design is completed by Chiappa engineers. As a joint project, the commercial semiautomatic version will be sold by Chiappa, and the military select-fire version will be marketed and sold by Tanfoglio. Both versions will be made by Chiappa due to its expertise in rifle production. 

It has a wide aluminum upper receiver with a polymer lower. It has a retractable stock that can be removed. For the American commercial market, it may come with a pistol brace instead, which is still being developed at the time of writing. It has a Picatinny rail on top, ready for optics, but it also comes with bright fiber optic iron sights that are flush-fit and integrated inside the top rail. Right at the shooter’s index finger is the ambidextrous bolt hold-open and release. The magazine release is positioned at the shooter’s thumb just like a semiautomatic pistol. The ambidextrous safety is high up near the top of the upper receiver and requires the shooter to push forward to disengage. The charging handle is at the foregrip and can be switched from the left to right hand with minimal tools. It also has a small, integrated vertical grip up front that can be folded down with a push of the button to unlock it, similar to the HK MP7. 

The gun is held together by push pins that come apart quite easily. It features a compensator as a muzzle device which can be unscrewed by pushing back a locking tab. 

Many would question the effectiveness of the 9mm round. In spite of that, the U.S. Army recently selected Brugger & Thomet’s APC9K 9mm submachine gun for their Personal Security Details. The CZ Scorpion Evo 3 is another SMG that was recently adopted by the Hungarian Defense Forces and Hungarian police, the Finland police and Czech Republic Armed Forces and police, amongst other military and police services in many countries. With budget constraints in many militaries as well as in police departments, the 9mm round may not be such a poor choice as it simplifies logistics instead of procuring a special round like the MP7’s 4.6mm or FN’s 5.7mm cartridges. 

Conclusion 

I have visited a good share of factories across the world, but Chiappa is certainly the most dynamic and adaptable company that sets itself apart and caters to several different clientele with rimfire pistols, revolvers, reenactment rifles to tactical rifles and shotguns. Chiappa continues to innovate with unique firearm designs and finds demand on the products that it produces. As a gun enthusiast, this author appreciates companies that think outside the box to create unique looking firearms that also have performance benefits. 

There will certainly be more Chiappa product placements on the silver screen near you. 

David spun his sling up-to-speed overhead and loosed a stone at Goliath. It hit the giant in the head, killing him and winning the future King of Israel ever-lasting glory. The sling, the first centrifugal force weapon, was a success of Biblical proportions and the high point in its history. 

The sling remained a viable weapon and was joined by other projectile weapons: bows, spears, stone throwers and an array of mechanical launchers from handy cross-bows to trebuchets that could hurl a small car. Mankind constantly brought the latest technology to weapons. 

Gunpowder changed everything. But, gun powder is noisy, dirty, expensive, delicate, sometimes unreliable and dangerous to have around. All this just to accelerate a projectile to high speed and launch it with precision. Surely we can manage that by machine—we’re still trying. 

A not quite so high point in history as David is the Winans Steam Gun. It most likely would have faded into the history books except for several history buffs, Mark Handwerk, Joseph H. Clark and Joseph Zoller III, who constructed a full-scale copy for the 1961 Civil War Centennial. Near the sign on U.S. Route 1 proclaiming Elkridge, Maryland, the hulking beast quietly subsides into the soil and mystifies passing motorists. 

Also known as the Baltimore Steam Gun, the gun is seldom called for its designers, Charles S. Dickinson and his early partner in the project, William Joslin. 

The partners produced several manually powered examples of centrifugal weapons but parted ways when the first patent they were issued named Joslin alone as the inventor. Dickinson then polished the design and patented it himself in 1858. He had the gun built in Boston and set out to sell it. In April 1861, the sales tour took him and the gun to Baltimore, Maryland, just in time for the infamous Baltimore riot. 

Fort Sumter had surrendered to Confederate forces days before, and the alarmed government in Washington, D.C., was calling in troops to man the Capital’s defenses. Baltimore was politically divided, and many citizens were pro-slavers and Southern-sympathizing Democrats. 

No one had died in battle at Fort Sumter: The only deaths were the result of a Union gun explosion during the formal surrender ceremony. Until the Baltimore riot of April 19, no blood had been shed in this “fraternal” conflict. 

Baltimore’s decision to not allow steam engines to run through the center of town resulted in two railway stations a mile or so apart—the President St. Station and the Camden St. Station. Railway cars had to be pulled by horses from one station to another before continuing their journeys. 

When the men of the 6th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Militia arrived on their way to Washington, they disembarked their train and marched along Pratt Road. Trouble started when hundreds of protesting citizens turned out onto the street. Hurled shouts and vegetables gave way to gunfire, and the troops, civilians and police clashed bloodily. Four soldiers and 12 civilians died. Dozens more were injured. The battle is acknowledged as the first blood spilled in the American Civil War, and it was the point of no return. 

In the excited days before the trouble, the City of Baltimore’s leadership had tried to assure the citizens they would be defended against the ever-villainous, Washington, D.C., forces of darkness. In the display of weaponry shown to the public, were pikes made at the factory of Ross Winans, a wealthy local industrialist. Dickinson had taken the gun to the Winans plant to work on it and gladly allowed the city to show it off for him. While Dickinson’s gun did not take part in the battle, it was drafted for defiant display. 

The steam gun’s purported power sent the press on a predictable trajectory: 

“It can be constructed to discharge missiles of any capacity from an ounce ball to a 25-pound shot, with the force and range equal to the most approved gunpowder projectiles …” 

“… the musket caliber engine would mow down opposing troops as the scythe mows down standing grain …” 

“… will strike terror to the hearts of opposing forces and render its possessors impregnable …” 

Dickinson modestly added, “… its very destructiveness will prove the means and medium of peace.” His pitch is evocative of Gatling’s later claims, and similar words are still later attributed to Hiram Maxim. Whatever … whoever … they were wrong. 

It all did not translate to sales for Dickinson. For all the considerable publicity, the gun gained fortune for no one, and the brief flare of fame it garnered didn’t even illuminate Dickinson as the press erroneously dubbed his brainchild “the Winans gun.” 

Even the renowned Scientific American muddied the history; saying the gun was built by Ross Winans. The article at least acknowledged the gun was Dickinson’s design. 

In the weeks after the riot, the U. S. federal government exerted more and more pressure on the petulant city, arresting pro-Southern politicians and even police officials. Ross Winans was feeling the heat for his pro-Southern leanings. 

Dickinson decided to dispatch his gun to Harper’s Ferry and offer it to the Confederacy. Mounted men of the 6th Massachusetts Militia intercepted the gun at Ellicott Mills, Maryland, on May 11. These were some of the same men attacked during the riot. 

The gun and crew were seized and the weapon commandeered for United States’ use. Back in Baltimore, Winans was arrested, but released 2 days later after promising to build no more arms for Southern sympathizers. Dickinson, describing the moving of the gun as a dastardly rebel plot, hastily tried to make amends by offering to build the Union an improved model for $10,000. There is no record of President Lincoln responding to the offer. 

After testing, the steam gun ended up at the Thomas Viaduct, a railway bridge joining Relay and Elkridge, Maryland, over the Patapsco River. 

How It Worked 

The gun required at least two horses to move its four-wheeled mount. The steam engine occupied half the vehicle. A firebox generated steam to power the gun. In the initial excitement around the gun, some reporters mistakenly said the engine could propel the vehicle as well. This was not the case. The steam energy was harnessed to rotate the single barrel. This barrel was L-shaped and spun at about 250-rpm. A ball released from the stack in the vertical portion entered the rotating portion and was driven outward by centrifugal force. At the right moment, the muzzle passed by a gate where the round was released. As a safety measure, the barrel spun in a steel drum. This resembles a barrel of another kind, further confusing people. To protect the crew and gun from enemy fire, a funnel-shaped shield was provided. This featured a slit allowing the barrel to be aimed and discharged in the desired direction. 

All the centrifugal guns of the era were smooth-bored. Accuracy was abysmal. The stealth afforded by the lack of a loud gunshot was often offset by other factors. There was the issue of keeping the steam pressure ready. The smoke and fire also made concealment difficult, and a supply of fuel had to be carried or scavenged. But, after all this, when the gun was running, it spewed out a fearful stream of balls that were capable of painful, if not always lethal, effect. 

It was never called into action and ended up being scrapped after the War. 

Myth Busting 

The MythBusters television show constructed a steam gun based on the Dickinson design, with a pair of water heaters providing the steam. On their test run, a single round struck the gun’s steel safety shield creating a deep dent which suggested potentially lethal damage to a person. The MythBusters tested the gun at a range of 500 yards and attained a rate of fire of 400 rounds per minute. The gun performed well, firing five rounds per second to a range of 700 yards. However, the weapon lacked lethal force at that range and was not very reliable. The MythBusters concluded the steam gun, as a weapon, was too unreliable and impractical. 

Others Enter the Field 

The Dickinson/Winans gun was far from the last hurrah of the centrifugal gun. As told in Lincoln and the Tools of War by Robert V. Bruce, the McCarty gun was developed independently and demonstrated in New York. It gave such good results it was sent to the Washington Arsenal. President Lincoln himself arrived to meet the inventor and his friend, Colonel George D. Ramsey, Commandant of the Arsenal. Although an open-minded man, Ramsey was no fan of centrifugal guns. He’d seen attempts fail before and loudly disparaged the concept, the inventor and the gun itself. His contempt threw McCarty off to the point he misadjusted the gun and when the President himself fired it, several rounds bounced backwards to strike spectators’ ankles. 

But John A. Dahlgren, of Dahlgren gun fame, was also watching and not so easily put off. He tested McCarty’s device and built a larger version capable of throwing 15, 12-pound rounds a mile away in 16 seconds! Once again, accuracy was terrible and doomed the project. 

Another notable attempt was described in the Baton Rouge Advocate in 1861. Henry Cowing’s design was an adaption of a road-worthy steam locomotive equipped with a steam-air cannon. The gun was silent, smokeless and could be dismounted to restore the locomotive to other tasks. The device was arguably an early self-propelled gun, or, if equipped with armor, an advanced early tank. Unfortunately, little else has been recorded about it. 

The 1862 horse-drawn armored Land Monitor reportedly began construction in Leavenworth, Kansas. It was meant to fire 5,000 rounds at 600 rpm. It did, however, weigh 25,000 pounds. 

According to Scientific American, Dr. Draper Stone demonstrated his centrifugal steam gun at the La Cross Roundhouse in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. While the May 1861 demonstration was judged a success, his project got no further mention. 

Scientific American recorded an even earlier centrifugal gun designed by Benjamin Reynolds of Kinderhook, New York. When tested at West Point in 1837, it fired 1,000 rpm of 2-ounce balls able to penetrate 3.5 inches of hard pine! Similar results were shown to Congressmen and notaries at a demonstration in Washington. The project then faded from view. 

WWI 

The centrifugal gun came up yet again in WWI. Edward T. Moore was granted patent #1332992 for his silent electric machine gun. Moore replaced the L-shaped barrel of Dickinson’s design with a grooved rotating disc. Moore’s weapon dropped rounds onto the disc which whirled them up to speed and spewed them out with a disconcerting lack of accuracy. 

Still, the idea had such appeal, another First World War attempt was made using an aircraft engine for energy. E.L. Rice proposed it, and the idea was vigorously pursued by the American National Research Council. As in other attempts, the apparent simplicity of the idea proved deceptive, and technical problems eventually frustrated the effort. 

A further WWI patent is #1311492 from Herbert A. Bullard. His design departed from all the others by firing a disc rather than a ball. He used a rotating arm with launching points on both ends. This was driven to high speed and fed with a series of disc projectiles. 

The DREAD System 

Around the turn of the millennium, Charles W. St. George, the Australian designer of the Leader T2 MK 5, applied his talents to develop the DREAD™ system. A slick video on YouTube touts the weapon’s major advantages. The ammunition consists of balls, capable of carrying explosives, chemicals or whatever the user chooses. The feed system regulates the fire rate by timing the release of the ball-bearing projectiles. 

Because combustible propellant is not used, the ammunition is safe and easy to store. Pistol-like velocities are cited but the rate of fire is stated to reach 240,000 rpm. Where automatic rifle bullets are spaced out roughly 100 feet apart, the DREAD projectiles can be launched about one third of an inch apart! The weight delivered to the target is huge; almost a solid projectile of whatever length the user chooses. The promotional material emphasizes the stealth aspect of the weapon as the usual weapon signatures of flash and noise are all but eliminated. In addition, the negligible recoil allows for easy aim and a light mounting. The developers show the weapon in use on land, sea, air and space. 

A number of firms and partners entered the development at various times, but although at least one prototype was apparently produced, the project never came to fruition and is no longer being pursued. The promotional video remains on YouTube of the DREAD and an interview with St. George is on Forgotten Weapons. 

St. George eventually lost interest and moved on to work on the M17 bullpup 5.56mm rifle and the .50-cal version. His earlier Leader T2 MK 5 rifle saw limited production, and roughly 2,000 examples were landed in the U.S. before laws ended the importation. 

Current Projects 

At the moment, the gunpowder-powered, bullet-firing gun, has no competition. But, there is no reason to think the interest in centrifugal weapons will fade away. It is one of the few alternative ways to achieve lethal velocity in a portable device. Technology improves daily, and the problem of accuracy that bedevils centrifugal weapons may well be solved. Meanwhile, other technologies are meeting the desire for stealthy, flashless, noiseless and smokeless weapons. The U.S. Navy will soon deploy an electric ship’s “cannon” using electrically charged magnetic rails to accelerate projectiles. 

Finally, in 1963, Popular Mechanics published plans for construction of an electric miniature centrifugal gun. Materials and technical skills would seem in reach of most teens. Designer Roy L. Clough, Jr., claims the semiautomatic fires BBs at a velocity of 25 fps. 

• • • 

Thanks to James Samalea, Carol Mintoff, Popular Mechanics, John W. Lamb, author of Strange Engine of War; Chesapeake Book Company, Roy L. Clough, Jr., Charles W. St. George, Trinamic LLC, and Movie Armaments Group. 

Since the double-barreled Villar Perosa submachine gun did not prove successful in the infantry role, numerous pieces remained unused in the depots. Of course, that was a waste of resources, and so in 1917 three companies worked to transform them into suitable weapons.

The Villar Perosa with its spade handle and the two independent coupled weapons, each with its own barrel firing mechanism and separate magazine, looks pretty bizarre from today’s perspective. But at the time of its creation no one suspected that it would even count among the forerunners of a new species of weapon, namely the submachine gun. None other than the well-known Italian weapons designer Abiel Bethel Revelli di Beaumont developed this weapon in 1914 for the company Officine di Villar Perosa (OVP), which was then adopted in the following year by the Regia Aeronautica officially as the Pistola Mitragliatrice Mod 1915. 

The more famous name was derived from the location of the production site, the municipality of Villar Perosa near Turin. Originally designed as a weapon for aircraft, it did not prove itself in this role. These used pistol ammunition in caliber 9x19mm Glisenti (an underpowered version of 9x19mm Parabellum) offered an inadequate range for air combat and showed too little effect on the target. In addition, the rate of fire was much too high at 1,200 to 1,500 rounds per minute. A quick pull of the trigger and the whole magazine emptied in barely one and a half seconds. As early as 1916, the Italian Air Force handed over its stocks to the Army, where the weapon, often provided with protective steel shields, were initially used as a defensive weapon like a light machine gun. 

Villar Perosa Failings 

The Villar Perosa has a pair of spade-style grips with thumb triggers that allow the gunner to fire the barrels independently. This leaves time to change the magazine of the other barrel. If not enough filled magazines were on hand, the floor-plate of the inserted magazine could be opened to drop in the cartridges—a time-consuming task in the middle of a fight. The mechanism is the usual one of bolt and recoil spring, but the bolt is controlled by a milled out track in the receiver body that causes the bolt to rotate 45 degrees as it closes. The striker carries a lug bearing on the receiver track that also bears on a cam face on the bolt, 

so that the firing pin, driven by the recoil spring, cannot go forward to fire the cartridge until the bolt has rotated. The noise caused by the extremely high rate of fire earned the weapon the nickname “pernacchia” (fart sound). 

However, it soon became apparent that the range, penetration and accuracy of the Villar Perosa were also insufficient for use by ground forces. One soldier was constantly busy with changing and filling the 25-round magazines. There was neither a shoulder stock nor a practicable pistol grip, so the guns were mounted on bipods and tripods or ring mounts incorporated in protective shields. Due to its weight of 6.5kg (14.33 pounds), the Villar Perosa was sometimes used with a special frame that fixed it in front of the chest of the gunner. That way it was used by stormtroopers from 1917 in mountain warfare. Also a special bracket was tested as a swivel mount for the handlebars of the troop bicycles. 

BERETTA M1918 

• Caliber 9x19mm Glisenti 
• Length 776mm 30.55in 
• Barrel length 318mm – 12.51in 
• Weight (empty) 3.26kg -7.18lb 
• Weight (loaded) 3.72kg – 8.20lb 
• Magazine capacity 25 Patronen 
• Rate of fire 900 rpm 

Conversion of the Villar Perosa 

The Villar Perosa could sometimes intervene effectively in the action, but overall, the successes were limited. And so the weapons gradually went to the depots. In order to do something useful, the Italian Military High Command requested a conversion of the Villar Perosas into more practical infantry weapons. And so in 1917 three companies got to work. Common to all conversions was the separation of each Villar Perosa into two single-barreled weapons. The receiver was embedded in a wooden stock and received a traditional trigger assembly and front and rear sights. The magazine feed from the top remained, as well as the caliber in 9mm Glisenti. 

One of the participating companies was Beretta, in whose service the weapons designer Tullio Marengoni took care of the conversion. He was to develop many famous pistols and submachine guns for Beretta in the following decades. In appearance, the result of his work resembles a carbine with a wooden stock and a folding spike-bayonet permanently fixed to the barrel. Internally it is identical to the Villar Perosa and still works as a delayed blowback weapon. The only major internal difference is the redesign of the trigger mechanism. 

The design worked reliably and so the weapon stood out in the presentation to the Army Test Commission against the competitors from FIAT and Ansaldo Crocetti. The Italian Army thus decided its adoption as the Moschetto Automatico Beretta Mod 1918, or shortly MAB 18 (Beretta M1918). In the following months, all available Villar Perosas were exploited and rebuilt at Beretta. The first and by far the most produced model was the “Monogrillo.” It had no selective fire capability and fired exclusively in full-auto. Many components were taken from other Italian military weapons, such as the wooden stock and trigger guard of the Vetterli-Vitali 1870 rifle and the folding bayonet from the Carcano cavalry carbine. Later, a second model called “Bigrillo” was created with a two-trigger selective fire capability, as well as redesigned furniture. This model lacked the folding bayonet. According to Italian sources, approximately 5,000 pieces of both types were manufactured. Some of them arrived at the front with the Arditi stormtroopers shortly before the end of the War. Many years after the War, Beretta put hands on these weapons again. Beginning in 1930 many of them were converted to semiautomatic rifles with magazine feed from below for the Italian and Argentine police and adopted as the Moschetto Automatico Beretta Mod 1918/30 (MAB 18/30). This model fired from a closed bolt, and the cocking operation was changed from a handle on the right side of the receiver to a retractable ring housed in the rear end of the receiver. 

The manufacturer of the Villar Perosa also tried to get a piece of the cake by converting its original weapon in cooperation with the Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino (FIAT). Abiel Bethel Revelli got back to work. He used the Villar Perosa system almost unchanged, adding a fire selector lever to the receiver and a deflector for the empty cases underneath the stock. The rate of fire was 900 rounds per minute. The FIAT was trialed in 1917 and lost out against the Beretta Model 1918. 

The OVP 

But Revelli did not give up that quickly and thoroughly revised his design. The result was officially called Moschetto Automatico Revelli (MAR), but today is mostly known only as the OVP (for Officini di Villar Perosa). This weapon was now somewhat more elaborate to manufacture than the Beretta Model 1918. The cocking system was designed as a cylindrical sleeve that ran along the length of the receiver similar to a pump-action shotgun. This was grasped and pulled to the rear to retract the bolt and then pushed forward again. The weapon has two triggers, the front one for continuous fire and the rear one for single fire. The rear sight is fixed for 100m. 

MAR (OVP) 

• Caliber 9x19mm Glisenti 
• Length 900mm – 35.43in 
• Barrel length 279mm – 10.98in 
• Weight (empty) 3.67kg – 8.09lb 
• Weight (loaded) 4.08kg – 8.99lb 
• Magazine capacity 25 Patronen 
• Rate of fire 900 rpm 

Too Late 

Unfortunately, the development work had taken too much time; in the meantime, Beretta had already collected most of the available Villar Perosas. The Officini di Villar Perosa had to be satisfied with the rest, and accordingly only small numbers of the new weapon were built. It came too late for use in World War I, but it entered into post-war submachine gun trials and was accepted into Italian service in 1921. Revelli tried to find customers on the international market for his “Revelli Automatic Rifle” in the early 1920s, but his efforts were unsuccessful. He even presented the weapon to the British Small Arms Committee (SAC) in 1928 but again without success. Unlike the double-barreled Villar Perosa, which Revelli had introduced to the SAC in 1915 in caliber .455 Webley (11.6x19mmR), the presented MAR was still chambered for the Glisenti cartridge. The British considered the cartridge too weak, and there were no further demonstrations or even orders. 

The Italian Army itself used the Beretta and MAR in combat only in 1935-1936 in the Second Italo-Ethiopian War in Abyssinia and later in small numbers in the campaign in North Africa. At this time, these weapons were already gradually replaced by the submachine gun Beretta Model 1938. 

In Chechnya, the Stechkin Automatic Pistol (APS) is considered a badge of honor. Like the AKS-74U in the mountains of Afghanistan, the APS carries with it a social weight in the Caucasus that denotes command, courage and longevity in service to the state. It is also considerably a rarer sight among local combat arms in the region, adding to its intrigue. Despite being a 60-year-old design and having cultural reverence just as long, the sturdy long slide pistol is still fulfilling the role of a personal defense weapon among Russian special operations groups and air crews currently serving in Syria. 

The pistol began development in 1948 in the hands of the young engineer Igor Yakovlevich Stechkin, the newly appointed 26-year-old designer and Tula native, at the Tula Central Design Bureau No. 14. This same bureau would become the famous Tula Instrument Design Bureau after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but before experienced more humble stats as one of the dozens of “central design teams” across the Union. In 1949, Stechkin had his first shop floor prototype of the APS (or Automatic Pistol of Stechkin in its native Russian), and after trials and series of improvements, it was adopted into Soviet service in 1951. This was a breakneck pace from concept, development and adoption, by any standard. The weapon was fielded simultaneously alongside the smaller and far more common Makarov Pistol PM (Pistolet Makarova) and was intended for soldiers with unique specialties, where wielding a Kalashnikov would not be reflective of their primary role. Armored crews, pilots, RPG-7 gunners and PK/M machine gunners were a few of the approved users. These soldiers would be exposed to more severe combat conditions in which a PM would not be sufficient for self-defense, but the APS, with its 20 rounds of double-stacked 9×18 Makarov and select-fire capability, would possibly close the gap. 

Much like the PM, the APS features a fixed barrel. This feature improves grouping consistency and accuracy for single fire. The weapon’s accuracy in burst, when in the hands of a trained shooter, is more or less controllable when compared to other weapons of its type. This is due to the rate reducer located in the grip, which moderates the rate of fire. However, at the height of the Cold War and the further development of the USSR’s compact weapons program, the little APS soon lost its commission in 1958 and was placed in arsenal storage. 

A Second Chance 

In the criminal chaos of the 1990s, the APS saw a second life. Russian law enforcement agencies needed greater firepower over the PM, and full-sized Kalashnikov assault rifles over-penetrated in urban and pastoral criminal 

situations. The Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs looked to submachine guns, but none, including the AKS-74U, were in sufficient production to arm both the armed services and the police force. Russia’s police special tactics groups, such as OMON, SOBR and others, began to purchase the moth-balled crates from Soviet warehouses and found, to their delight, the little APS. 

These units had to overcome some minor inconveniences. The large shoulder stock, which doubled as a holster was too large to be comfortably carried on the belt by most officers. Many APS users also lacked the trigger time to fire the weapon on automatic with any practical effect. The weapon was not the choice for everyday use. Quickly, the agencies realized why the weapon was retired in the first place. However, the pistol excelled in accuracy and lower recoil over the PM, with an accelerated muzzle velocity. The agencies looked to the experience of the KGB, which never fully handed in their APS pistols, and in the 1970s alongside military intelligence, the GRU, encouraged the development of the APB, a silenced variant. A.S. Neugodov’s design, developed at the Vyatskie Polyany Machine-Building Plant, was essentially a converted APS. It was formally adopted in 197 and given the GRAU index of 6P13. It was produced by the venerable TsNIITOCHMASH, a key design bureau for various Spetsnaz equipment and modernizer of the APS. 

The APB 

The APB served in the hands of the Soviet armed forces, reconnaissance groups and the special tactics divisions of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs. The APB was used widely during the Afghanistan conflict from 1979 to 1989 and saw great effect among the Spetsnaz. It proved to be resilient in the harshest of environments and benefited from an upgraded stock. The lower profile wire design was more comfortable to stow and folded to attach to the suppressor. The bore of the suppressor was not centered but indexed higher to be closer to the standard sights. Its construction reduced the initial bullet velocity and reduced the report signature as designed. The barrel is fixed with two sets of ports, one near the chamber and one near the muzzle. This allows the expanding gasses to pass into the sound suppressing expansion chamber from the barrel sleeve. It is one of the earlier suppressors put into standard production within the Soviet Union, with a set of bent washers consisting of three baffles. Surprisingly, the APB is reported to have reduced shot dispersion over the original APS. 

Test Results 

Having personally tested the APS in Chechnya, with no stock attached, this author can testify that it is an outstandingly accurate pistol. At close range, the weapon maintains its accuracy even in short bursts. The weapon does feel heavy in the hand, being of all steel construction; however, it is manageable and contributes to lower felt recoil. Nonetheless, the APB and APS failed in their goals to be a PDW and a silenced submachine gun. Better designs fill this role and are currently deployed by the Russian forces. Still, these pistols have found a niche market and are still used by some of the most proficient fighters in the Russian military and intelligence services. Despite their shortcomings, this last of the machine pistols seems adamant to continue fighting for years to come. 

An “area effect” weapon was a requirement from the outset of the SA80 program and appeared in wooden mock-up form in the “1970 Preliminary Study” (published 1971). General Staff Requirement (GSR) 3518, issued in 1974, notes that the individual weapon was required to “… be able to accept an area target capability for muzzle or tube-launched grenades.” GSR 3518 goes on to note that “[t]he area target capability may be provided by tube-launched or muzzle-launched grenades but will have recoil forces no greater than 80 joules.” 

Interestingly, the only existing grenade launcher assessed in early studies was the Colt XM148, but it appears that no attempt was made to adapt this system for the SA80 prototypes. However, a quite detailed design and mock-up were produced for an Enfield-designed, under-barrel grenade launcher (UBGL). In a forward-thinking move, this was designed to pivot out to one side with the press of a lever, permitting the use of cartridges with a greater overall length. The mock-up included a rifled barrel, and its mechanism was fabricated from metal, with a support arm running in a track to guide and retain the breech end of the tube as it pivoted outward. 

Given equal weight in the study was the alternative or supplement of the traditional muzzle-launched rifle grenade, which was already in limited anti-tank service with the L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle (FN FAL). The ENERGA high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rifle grenade, produced by MECAR of Belgium, was formally issued to British forces in 1952 as the “Anti-Tank Grenade, No. 94 (ENERGA).” Early in the SA80 program, a wooden rifle grenade was made that could be slotted into the muzzle of the various mock-up rifles. Unfortunately, this mock-up rifle grenade appears to be no longer extant in the former Pattern Room collection. These two solutions, UBGL and rifle grenade, would be investigated in parallel for a number of years. 

UBGL 

The fairly elaborate mock-up UBGL design was built into a fully functional weapon and fitted to a single example of the XL64E5 rifle, probably in early 1976. As in the mock-up, the barrel was rifled. No grenade sight appears to have been fitted; if it was, no evidence of it exists today. Similarly, no replacement upper handguard was produced, leaving the gas parts exposed. This XL60 series grenade launcher features an unconventional and not wholly practical trigger mechanism, which surprisingly enough is also present on the mock-up in functional form (that is, it cocks and dry fires). This is located on top of the UBGL, placing it between the barrel of the grenade launcher and the gas block of the host rifle. The front portion is grasped between thumb and forefinger and pulled back against spring tension to cock the weapon. In much the same way as the cocking handle of an open-bolt machine gun, it must be manually returned to the forward position. At this point, the cocking slide may be left in the rear position, covering the trigger lever and acting as a safety. In the firing prototype, an additional safety shroud with grasping grooves has been fitted behind the cocking slide. This slides backward to place the weapon in a more positive safe condition. A short lever on the right side acts as the trigger, requiring the firer to either reach over the weapon with the left hand or to abandon the pistol grip with the right in order to reach forward and fire the weapon. 

XL60 SERIES GRENADE LAUNCHER 

• Caliber: 40x46SRmm 
• Overall length: 770mm 
• Barrel length: 534mm (21in) 
• Weight: 3.98kg (8.8lb) (all-up weight on gun with no sights fitted) 
• Feed device: Single-shot 

Rifle Grenade 

There is no information on any trials that this weapon may have taken part in, and it was not carried forward as the SA80 platform continued to develop. Meanwhile, work continued on the potential rifle grenade. This was initially intended to be launched with a specialist Ballistite-loaded cartridge as the previous No. 94 grenade had been on the L1A1 SLR. This concept was eventually dropped, and a bullet-trap-type rifle grenade was sought. The profile of the flash eliminator (flash suppressor) was designed with an annular grenade-launching flange a short distance behind the slotted “birdcage” of the muzzle device, which, as of the “0 series” guns, was provided with a groove and circular spring to properly retain a 22mm diameter rifle grenade. Sights for the rifle grenade were conceived as auxiliary additions to the improved version of the Sight Unit Infantry Trilux (SUIT), soon named the Sight Unit Small Arms Trilux (SUSAT). Two experimental solutions were attempted, one pivoting aperture sight graduated from 25m to 125m, and another plastic clip-on design with a simple open combat-style sight. The body of the SUSAT was at first machined with an integral dovetail bracket on the side for a more elaborate grenade launching sight, but this feature was not pursued and was eliminated from the design as the SA80 family matured. 

M203 

In the mid-1980s, as SA80 neared its in-service date, the UBGL concept resurfaced. By this time the U.S. AAI M203 (largely produced by Colt) was well-established as an industry standard, and one example was adapted to the bullpup shape of the L85A1. More effort was made this time, with a standard L85 handguard cut away underneath to permit attachment of both launcher and handguard. However, the front mounting point was still a clamshell, bolted-on arrangement as per the first (side-opening) UBGL, making quick detachment impossible. The overall length of the full-size M203 (at that time the only variant available) resulted in the barrel of the grenade launcher protruding a couple of centimeters beyond the flash suppressor of the rifle. The surviving combination weapon pictured here is lacking any sighting arrangement. 

COLT M203 

• Caliber: 40x46SRmm 
• Overall length: 380mm 
• Barrel length: 305mm (12in) 
• Weight: 1.36kg (3lb) 
• Feed device: Single-shot 

ENCAW 

A home-grown offering came in 1988 from Royal Ordnance plc, which threw out its own original side-opening design in favor of what it called the Enfield Close Assault Weapon (ENCAW), allegedly designed in only 20 weeks (see Steve Raw’s, The Last Enfield, p. 244). Royal Ordnance offered the weapon for sale simply as the “Enfield Grenade Launcher,” and a sales pamphlet gives the range as 350m and the weight as 1.8kg, while emphasizing the weapon’s “automatic opening and ejection” and “positive safety mechanism.” 

The ENCAW was certainly a novel design, the grenade launcher barrel being sleeved over the rifle’s barrel and encased in an enlarged LSW-style handguard, with the release catch at the rear, just above the trigger guard. At the far end, a substantial barrel-support bracket held the GL muzzle to the grenade launching ring on the host rifle’s flash suppressor. This arrangement was enabled by the unique rotating loading mechanism whereby the launch tube pivoted around the rifle barrel to expose the breech. Like a side-opening design, this theoretically allowed the use of grenade cartridges with a greater overall length than would be compatible with a slide-forward breech design. However, due to the compact design, the barrel’s length was dictated by that of the rifle barrel above, resulting in a barrel which would not be compatible with many longer projectiles. The prototype SUSAT on the weapon was furnished with a folding leaf sight after the fashion of the existing U.S. M79 standalone launcher. In this prototype form the launcher was bolted in place around the barrel and onto the front of the body (upper receiver). 

Neither of these designs was apparently satisfactory. Ultimately, the weapon entered service without a UBGL and relied upon the old-fashioned rifle grenade launched from the flash suppressor with a live round. An optical sight, designed to clip over the front part of the SUSAT was issued under the designation L15A1. 

ROYAL ORDNANCE ENCAW (Enfield Grenade Launcher) 

• Caliber: 40x46SRmm 
• Overall length: Approx. 340mm 
• Barrel length: 175mm (6.9in) 
• Weight: 1.8kg (4lb) 
• Feed device: Single-shot 

HK79 

At least two other grenade launcher designs were trialled with the SA80 in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The first is a variant of the German Heckler & Koch (HK) HK79, which was also seen during testing with the L85A2 during the Future Integrated Soldier Technology (FIST) program of the early 2000s. A contemporary of the M203, the HK79 has seen limited export success. The variant seen in SA80 trials replaces the host weapon’s handguard, as it does on HK’s G3 and HK33 series of rifles, placing minimal strain on the barrel of the rifle. The HK79 is manually cocked after loading, and the weapon is fired using the support hand (for right-handed users) via a trigger on the left-hand side of the handguard replacement unit. The HK79 uses yet another different loading mechanism from those types examined previously; a drop-breech design results in the barrel pivoting downwards from the point at which it meets the supporting bracket, allowing for longer munitions to be used. 

HK79A1 

• Caliber: 40x46SRmm 
• Overall length: 357mm 
• Barrel length: 297mm (11.7in) 
• Weight: 1.67kg (3.7lb) 
• Feed device: Single-shot 

HG40 

The second was the HG40, produced by the Hilton Gun Company, a small, now-defunct British firm based in Derbyshire. A two-piece bracket arrangement clamps over the barrel behind the grenade launching ring on the host rifle’s flash suppressor. Much like the HK79, the HG40 employs a drop-breech system. The trigger mechanism for the grenade launcher sits almost directly below that of the host weapon. Little else is known about the weapon. The 1991 edition of Jane’s Infantry Weapons gives the statistics below and indicates that the HG40 was undergoing UK military trials at the time of publication. 

Hilton HG40 

• Caliber: 40x46SRmm 
• Overall length: 388mm 
• Barrel length: 310mm (12.2in) 
• Weight: 1.5kg (3.3lb) 
• Feed device: Single-shot 

AG SA80 

In 1995, a decade after the SA80 entered service, Heckler & Koch offered British forces a variant of their AG36 UGL known as AG SA80. This design has proved to be a popular replacement for the legacy weapons of several nations, including the United States, where it is known as the M320. The AG SA80 was adopted and received the designation L17A2, the parallel A1 variant being an accessory for the L119A1 (Diemaco C8 SFW). The weapon is aluminum in construction with a polymer mount that replaces the host rifle’s handguard. This mount includes a hinged top cover to access the weapon’s gas parts. This includes an integral folding tangent sight mounted on the left side and graduated from 50m to 350m. A Picatinny rail strip opposite allows the mounting of the laser/ light module (LLM). These also feature a polymer bracket to accommodate the activation switch. The barrel has six grooves with a 1:1200 twist. The AG SA80 features a double-action trigger; the other models are single-action or cock-on close. Comparable with most other 40x46SRmm weapons, the L17A2 has an effective range of some 400m and develops a muzzle velocity of 76m/s. The example pictured in this article is a developmental iteration of the L17A2 marked simply “SA80 GL.” It is installed on an L85A1 rifle, which is not a configuration that ever saw service. 

However, the L17A2 was not actually issued until the A2 program had been completed in 2002, at which point it became the L123 (the current service variant being designated the L123A3). The folding ramp quadrant sight may be removed and replaced with an elevating bracket mount for either the EOTech reflex sight or the RAAM UGL-FCS electro-optical fire control system. Needless to say, this package of rifle, GL and two optical sights is significantly heavier than the base rifle with optic. A more conventional form of the AG36 appeared in 2016 on the prototype L85A3. That weapon’s new rail system enables the much more compact launcher to be fitted directly to the 6 o’clock rail. Given that the new top rail is integral to the new handguard, it seems very likely that this new launcher will replace the L17A2/L123 series in service (the alternative being to continue using legacy rail adaptors for UBGL-equipped rifles). 

HK AG SA80 (L17A2 Grenade Launcher) 

• Caliber: 40x46SRmm 
• Overall length: 348mm 
• Barrel length: 279mm (11in) 
• Weight: 1.5 kg (3.3lb) 
• Muzzle velocity: Approx. 76 m/s 
• Feed device: Single-shot 

• • • 

Special thanks to the National Firearms Centre at the Royal Armouries, who graciously allowed us access to their world-class collection and other videos and photos. 

This article is adapted from a chapter in Mr. Ferguson’s forthcoming book on British bullpup rifles, which will be published by Headstamp Publishing in 2019, headstamppublishing.com 

This is the eighth and final installment in a series of articles examining the developmental history of the United Kingdom’s SA80 family of firearms. These articles ran in Small Arms Review between issues Vol. 23, No. 1 and Vol. 23, No. 10. 

World War II cast iron Japanese paperweight of an infantry soldier manning a Type 11 light machine gun from the prone position. Details include full Japanese uniform complete with full field gear, star on helmet and the Type 11 with side feeding ammunition tray. The art is signed on the rear with three kanji indicating “Made by” and the artist’s name, possibly “Gorou.” The overall length is just under 12 inches. 

Post-World War II British Air Gunners Association automobile bumper bar badge. The Air Gunners Association was a veteran’s organization of bomber air gunners that typically manned turrets and side guns to protect the bomber from aerial attacks. Their emblem consists of a winged cartridge with AGA to the center. Made of steel, it measures 3 inches in diameter not including the mounting lip. 

World War I Australian brass shoulder title for the 12th Company Machine Gun Corps on black felt backing. 

Tiffany & Co. 14k gold Thompson brooch in its original Tiffany presentation box. This pin is featured prominently in a 2011 book titled, Lest We Forget—Masterpieces of Patriotic Jewelry and Military Decorations by Judith Price, President of the National Jewelry Institute. Ms. Price cites Annamarie Sandecki, Director of the Tiffany & Co. Archives in the book concerning Tiffany Thompsons. While it is known that there were nearly 100 Tiffany Thompsons made in sterling silver as pins and money clips for promotional purposes and marked on the bottom of the stock “Tiffany & Co. Sterling,” only two pins were made in 14k gold making this brooch exceptionally rare and previously unseen anywhere. It should be also noted that the silver brooch has the drum flattened on the rear should it be mounted on a money clip, whereas the gold brooch has the full round drum. Pin back and approximately 2.25 inches long and maker marked on the bottom of the stock, “Tiffany & Co. 14 kt.” 

German World War I headquarters flag for the 1st Machine Gun Section (1st Maschinengewehr-Abteilung). Stitched black, white and red flag (Germany colors) with stitched MG 08 Maxim machine gun on sled mount and the identification of “1. M.G. Abt.” Measures approximately 20 inches wide by 14 inches high.