It’s election year. This is the year we get to try to throw off the yoke of the Clintons. This is the year we get to “Make a difference”.

Y2K has been a bust for all the hypesters. The paranoia, the “Deadline”. Well, here we are, and I am just about where I expected to be- at the shop, preparing for the New Year. Are there some computer problems? Yes. Can they still get bad? Yes. Wait until about a week has gone by to see if things pan out. I don’t think it is anything we can’t handle in the course of a day, though. I think we are being distracted. Maybe on purpose, maybe not… but I do know that many of us haven’t had our eye on the ball. As an aside, all those MRE’s, candles, and extra cases of ammo are things you should have had anyway, so don’t lose any sleep over being properly prepared for any eventuality now.

Once again, it’s election year. In 1994 we kicked ass and took names. We really did. By the end of 1995, the various constitutional activists had either been discredited from without, or from within- all kinds of people showed up and tried to ally our causes with their own. Use our momentum as a vehicle for their own pet projects, which proved detrimental to our cause.

What is our cause? Well, I can’t speak for you, only for me. I believe that every day that we drift from the basic concepts of the founding fathers, is a day we are closer to tragedy- tragedy like Stalinist Russia, like Nazi Germany, like any people who have lost their moral compass. One of the signs of this is the weakness of the people in general, their selling out for the easier softer way in all walks of life. Bill Clinton represents that. While he has tirelessly worked towards his goals, it is his goals that are corrupt. He has no moral compass other than power. To a man like Clinton, sex is power… everything is rooted in power…. compassion is power…. and his wife is ten times worse- a true Marxist.

The seeds of our future problems have been sown over the last seven years. Some will say more, and I would agree. Yet, the unmitigated, unabashed sellout of our National Security has been in high gear during Clinton’s watch. Our military is weakened and scattered, with their mission blurred, and their morale is generally low. And the kicker? Well, our normal military readiness is totally compromised. It’s evident in many ways, but to those of us in the small arms community, it is evident when we look at the condition of the equipment we see in use.

Our military needs to be strong, well prepared, and with a high morale. ANY policy that interferes with that condition is counter to our national interest. It is incumbent on those of us who understand this to get the message out.

My point? There is a lot more at stake in the November 2000 elections than whether civilian ownership of firearms is threatened. There is a much bigger picture here. I intend to keep pushing people to vote, but it is not only based on whether I can leave my machine guns to my children- it is the entire legacy of America that I wish to leave to them, and that has been seriously undermined by the last seven years. Let’s start getting the vote out today.

– Dan

So, What’s Next— Hand-Control Laws? Registration of Fingers?

I’ve got to admit that even though I know there’s a lot of anti-gun hysteria in our country, this one I found hard to believe when I first heard about it. But, alas, it happened. And we can, no doubt, expect more such craziness in the future.

As reported in Time magazine (12/6/99), MeShelle Locke, 16, of Lacey, Washington— a National Honor Society student— was kidding around with a boy in her English class at North Thurston High School in early November. When he made some wisecrack to the teacher, Locke looked at him, made a gun with her thumb and index finger, and said, “Bang.” The boy, with whom she often joked, wondered if what she said was a threat? “No,” said MeShelle lightly, “it’s a promise.”

Following this incident— which was, obviously, a joke— two girls in MeShelle’s gym class confronted her about her “threatening to kill” (!) the boy, according to a story in “The News Tribune” newspaper (11/13/99). Exasperated by this absurd accusation, MeShelle made the same thumb/finger “gun” gesture to them.
Well, the next school day MeShelle was confronted by a police officer who read Miranda rights to her (but didn’t arrest her). Then she was expelled from school for four days.

The News Tribune quotes North Thurston High Principal Karen Eitreim as saying, presumably with a straight face: “I think schools are taking every precaution. And that includes looking at students’ threats and really taking them seriously and analyzing whether there is a threat to safety or not.”

But, this is idiotic beyond belief!

What possible “threat” is there from one student pointing his or her finger at other students and saying, “Bang”? Even the most cursory “analysis” of this incident would reveal that this is nothing more than-well, one student pointing her finger at other students and saying, “Bang.” Period. That’s it. By no stretch of the imagination, and by no definition, is this a “threat.” No way.

Incredibly, Bob Locke, MeShelle’s father, says that school district officials told him that his daughter fit the profile of a student who might hurt the school. And what, exactly, made them think this? Well, for one thing, she often ate lunch alone or in a small group!

Wow. A real profile of a potential terrorist, yes? No.

In an interview with Gun Owners of America (GOA), when it was facetiously suggested that maybe what we need now is a hand-control law, and for all the fingers and thumbs of students to be registered, Bob Locke replied, with a laugh: “Right. Lethal fingers. We gotta have ‘em banned from the schools.”

Locke— who says he’s against gun control because it’s unconstitutional— tells GOA that to get back into school his daughter had to sign a “behavioral contract” in which she promised “not to threaten any other students or to hold grudges against any other students.” But, of course, he adds that MeShelle never really “threatened” any students in the first place. This is why he says that if his daughter had the whole thing to do over again, she would do nothing different.

Locke says their friends and acquaintances have been “shocked” by this entire affair. He says they originally found the school’s actions to be “annoying, painful and embarrassing” to MeShelle. But, as it was resolved, it was “more of a joke.”

Well, maybe, maybe not— a sick joke at best, to be sure.

All the sicker when we consider that the school would have never noticed MeShelle if she had chosen to extend her middle finger rather than her index finger.

But, this kind of thing is not funny, not at all. And— sad to say—this sort of so-called “zero tolerance” lunacy appears to be happening more often across the country in our government-run schools. This same issue of “Time” magazine reports that a seven-year-old boy in Cahokia, Illinois, was suspended for having a nail-clipper in class.
And a high school in Nevis, Minnesota, turned thumbs down on a yearbook photo which showed an Army enlistee in the senior class posing atop a 155-mm howitzer at a Veterans Of Foreign Wars post. The photo was approved when a U.S. flag was draped over this cannon.

Obviously, in many cases, this “zero tolerance” policy is being implemented by people with zero brains.

SAR received this “Short” from Larry Pratt, and I thought it should be passed on to the readers. GOA is at the front of the battle for the Second Amendment in the US. GOA doesn’t cut “Them” any slack, and Larry calls it like he sees it.

Larry Pratt is Executive Director of Gun Owners of America. Their website is http://www.gunowners.org. Gun Owners of America is a national grassroots lobbying organization of over 200,000 members located at 8001 Forbes Place in Springfield, Virginia 22151. Its web address is http://www.gunowners.org. GOA’s phone number is 703-321-8585; John Velleco is the contact person.

We should all be in contact with GOA.

– Dan

Miniature firearms have held the fascination of those interested in weapons for centuries. The art of producing scale models of firearms goes back to the 15th century and continues up to the present day by just a few highly skilled craftsmen. These firing and non-firing examples of high quality craftsmanship are not toys nor were they ever intended to be toys. These beautiful and exact works of art were designed and built to convey the skill of the arms maker and had to be exact in every detail. Cherished in museums all over the world are precise miniature examples of wheel locks, flintlocks, rifles, handguns, shotguns, Gatling guns and machine guns.

The skill of the craftsman is evident as they must use many different manufacturing techniques to produce a miniature that looks and feels “right” and is proportionally correct to its big brother right down to the proper sizing of the grain in wood stocks and fixtures. This was essential as not only were they made especially by commission for the demanding wealthy, but many of these miniatures were actually used as salesman samples by the arms makers themselves.

Manually operated rapid fire weapons are not technically classified as machine guns since the firing mechanism is not self sustaining. Though rapid fire is obtainable, each shot is the direct result of a deliberate physical action by the firer. They were, however, the first to provide a fairly reliable operating principle that afforded a higher volume of fire that was never achieved before especially with the advent of what we now consider to be the modern cartridge. Gatling guns have always held a fascination in the hearts and minds of shooters and collectors. Developed in the early years of the Civil War by Dr. Richard Gatling, his invention could fire at the previously unheard of rate of 200 rounds per minute. It was truly revolutionary. Used by many countries from around the world, his guns saw service from China to the Sahara and in conflicts from the Civil War to the Rough Riders charge up San Juan Hill.

One of the very first to tackle the complex task of creating quality operating miniatures of Gatlings was Dennis Tippmann of the Tippmann Arms Company. Dennis, a true mechanical genius, made a name for himself in the late 1970s by producing in 1/2 scale approximately twenty five Model 1862 Gatling guns in cal. .38 Special. It seems fitting that he chose the Model 1862 as that model was the very first model of a long line of Gatling guns made for almost 50 years with many incarnations and modifications.

In the 1980s, Furr Arms Gatling Gun Company produced a wide array of beautiful working Gatling guns in 3/4, 1/2, 1/3 and 1/6th scale in a variety of calibers. Models produced included the 1874 Gatling, 1876 Camel Gun, 1883 Gatling and 1893 Police Gun. A family business, Furr Arms always had the greatest emphasis on attention to detail in every aspect of their manufacturing process. Castings were designed in miniature from original Gatling parts and cast in their own foundry. After many hundreds of hours of work on each gun, the result is a working miniature that is so graceful and beautiful that one can hardly believe their eyes.

The legacy of making operating Gatling guns in multiple scales in the 1990s has been taken up by master machinist Richard Pugsley of Thunder Valley Gatling Gun Company in Palmyra, Nebraska. His Gatlings range from full scale in .45-70 govt. to 3/4 scale in 9mm and he is working on a 1/3 scale in .22 caliber. His guns are always a crowd pleaser at the semi-annual Knob Creek shoot. His quality and attention to detail carries on a culture of arms making that goes back many centuries. But even his Gatling manufacturing future is in doubt thanks to the Gun Control Act of 1994 which prohibits the manufacture of magazines, clips and feeding devices of over 10 rounds. He still has some guns in inventory with the full magazine capacity but when they are sold he is about done. Would you want to then buy a ten barrel Gatling gun for ten or twelve thousand dollars with a ten round magazine? And for you do-it-yourself types, there are ads for operating Gatling gun plans for sale but be warned. You can build the gun but if you build a magazine for it of more than ten rounds you may very well be looking at doing hard time in the Big House.

The Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon was invented by Benjamin Hotchkiss, an American, who went to France in 1867. He originated the 37mm projectile with a bursting charge and his revolving cannon was specifically designed for flank defense. Unique to it was that each barrel was rifled with a different pitch allowing the target to be “swept” by shrapnel. Though resembling a Gatling gun in its outward appearance, it is an original design. It has a single firing pin and a single loading piston and the barrels rotate intermittently thus allowing a pause during rotation at the moment of firing. This innovation eliminated the centrifugal force affecting the bullet when firing such guns as the Gatling where the whole mechanism revolves continuously at a high rate of speed during firing. The 1/4 scale Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon as built by Mike Suchka is a faithful operating rendition of the original.

Also commonly confused with the Gatling gun is the Gardner gun invented by William Gardner of Toledo, Ohio in 1874. It can be readily identified by the square receiver and horizontal alignment of the barrels with a bolt behind each barrel. The reciprocating bolts fired each barrel alternately left, right, left right, etc. in the two barrel model. There was a later version that had five barrels that operated in sequence. It was an extremely reliable weapon but the U.S. already had their Gatlings and dismissed it. Though the British used Gatlings very successfully, it was the British Royal Navy and then the British Army that ultimately embraced the light weight and dependable Gardner gun and it was deployed around the world to the far corners of the British Empire. It proved itself in battles in the Sudan at El Teb, Tamasi and the Upper Nile in the mid 1880s and in multiple skirmishes wherever the Empire needed to exert itself.

Of course any firearm can be the subject of a miniature rendition but it is the skill of the machinist that dictates the care and quality in which it is made. In a tradition dating back almost 500 years, it is still carried on today by a small group of craftsmen who do it for the love of the craft.

The firearm that has become known as the assault rifle originated in Nazi Germany during World War Two, a fact that is fairly common knowledge to most students of small arms, given the weapon’s true milestone status. Details of its development history are less well known, however. In this brief article, we will give an overview of the design and development of the earliest assault rifles and describe most of the different variants. The reader who seeks a definitive and detailed history of German assault rifles should purchase The German Assault Rifle 1935-1945, by Peter Senich. (Paladin Press, 1987)

The assault rifle concept had its origins in the First World War, when the German military in typical methodical fashion, studied infantry engagements and came to the conclusion that the vast majority of infantry combat took place at ranges of less than 400 meters. A corollary of this conclusion was that the long-range effectiveness of the standard 7.92x57mm cartridge was generally wasted and the cartridge thus was inefficient under normal combat conditions. After the war ended in defeat for the Central Powers, German ordnance studied several “intermediate” cartridges, but nothing really came of the experiments until the late 1930s. In 1938, the cartridge manufacturer Polte was directed (or undertook as an initiative – history is unclear on this point), to develop an intermediate cartridge for use in an undeveloped family of infantry weapons. The Polte design was accepted in 1941 and designated “7.9 Infanterie Kurz Patrone.” (7.9 Infantry Short Cartridge) The cartridge was similar in many ways to the standard military cartridge, except in terms of overall length. The new cartridge essentially was a shortened 7.92mm cartridge case. The case was made of lacquered steel, with a 125-grain bullet whose jacket was either of copper washed steel or cupro-nickel clad steel. Standard bullets also had a steel core. By the time it was adopted in 1941, the new cartridge was ready for production, but required a weapon. The new cartridge’s ballistics were nominally 2,247 feet per second at the muzzle with energy of 1,408 foot-pounds, compared to the standard 7.9mm “S” cartridge’s 2,880 feet per second velocity and 2,835 foot pounds of energy, respectively.

Although the cartridge did not have a weapon at the time of its adoption, the German Waffenamt had not been idle. At almost the same time as development of the 7.9 Kurz Patrone was undertaken, the firm of C.G. Haenel Waffen und Fahrrad Fabrik was contracted to begin development of a weapon for the new cartridge. For those who do not speak German, the Haenel firm’s name indicates that they manufacture weapons and bicycles. At any rate, the Haenel firm’s head of design and development was Hugo Schmeisser, famed as designer of the MP38/40 submachine gun. The new weapon, however, was to be designated mascheinen karabiner (Mkb), which distinguished it from any previous firearm. Prototype weapons chambered for the new Polte cartridge were undergoing testing by 1940. Although Haenel was the official contractor, Walther also undertook an unofficial design in 1940 for an Mkb based on an earlier semiautomatic rifle. Walther submitted a prototype to the Waffenamt, and was also given a development contract in January, 1941. The two firms continued to develop their respective prototypes and by 1942 both had final prototypes ready. Haenel had actually produced about 50 of their Mkb42 weapons by July. It appears that Walther produced approximately 200 of their Mkb42 (W) assault rifles by autumn of that year, but the number cannot be confirmed. The exact history of the Walther design at this juncture is open to speculation. Small Arms of the World claims that some 7,800 of both the Walther and Haenel designs were produced and tested on the Eastern Front, where the Walther design was found wanting. Peter Senich disputes this in his authoritative The German Assault Rifle – 1935-1945, claiming that the Mkb42 (W) was never produced in significant numbers, but in the final analysis the reader will have to decide for himself which is correct. Whatever the case, by November 1942, the Mkb42 (W) had been taken out of production because its annular piston system was considered unsatisfactory.

The Mkb42 (W) and its piston system is worth a brief examination before we move on to the Mkb42 (H) and its successors, the MP43/44 and StG 44. Rather than a conventional gas tube, the Mkb42 (W) used a annular piston that encircled the barrel and operated inside a sheet metal sleeve that also formed the front handguard. There were two gas ports in the barrel and the piston acted on a sliding sleeve that operated the bolt, which had two front locking lugs. Without knowledge of the official reasons for the rejection of the Walther design, we can come to a number of reasons for doing so simply by examining the annular piston operating system. First, the system would be subject to stoppages if the outer sheet metal tube were to be dented or bent, as the piston’s travel would be interrupted. Second, since the hot gases from the fired cartridges were in direct contact with the outer tube, it probably got very hot in a very short time, especially when being fired on full auto. Although there is no concrete evidence to support these conclusions, the design of the Walther annular piston system logically leads one directly to them. Needless to say, the Walther Mkb42 (W) design has yet to be duplicated in a gas operated small arm.

The Haenel Mkb42 (H) was similar to its MP43/44 and StG44 successors in overall design, but differed in several ways, which are easily and readily distinguishable, even to the untrained eye. The MP43 which followed the Mkb42 (H) is difficult to distinguish from the MP44/StG44. The primary differences between the Mkb42 (H) and MP43 are as follows:

-The Mkb42 (H) fired from the open bolt, rather than the closed bolt like its successors.

-The Mkb42 (H) gas piston is slightly longer than that of the MP43 and is carried in a separate tube above the barrel, rather than in a tube that is integrated into the handguard, as with the MP43. The gas tube of the Mkb42 (H) is also visibly separate from the barrel and extends almost to the muzzle.

-The Mkb42 (H) has a bayonet lug, while the MP43 does not.

-The Mkb42 (H) has a receiver cut so that the bolt handle can be locked to the rear similarly to that of the MP38/40. This is not a very safe method of locking the bolt, was really only useful on weapons that fire from an open bolt and was replaced by a conventional safety on the closed bolt MP43.

It is at about this point that Adolph Hitler directly influenced the assault rifle development program. He ordered the program to be terminated. The “machine carbine” as it was then called showed so much promise, however, that the Herreswaffenamt covertly continued the program, changing the designation from machine carbine (Mkb) to machine pistol (MP). This suggested to all but those “in the know” that the new weapons were merely improvements on existing submachine guns. Hitler discovered the deception in March 1943 and again ordered the program ended, but allowed a limited production run restricted to those components already in the production “pipeline.” The proponents of the MP43, however, took a liberal view of what constituted components “in the pipeline,” and sufficient numbers of the new weapon were produced to equip a number of units on the Eastern Front, where Soviet “human wave” attacks usually overwhelmed German defenses. The reports from the east were so enthusiastic that Hitler finally gave in and approved production of the new weapon, which was officially designated Maschinenpistole 43 (MP43).

The adoption of the MP43 by the German military was one of the rare turning points in small arms history. The weapon would not be given the name “assault rifle” (Sturmgewehr) until December 1944, but the salient features of this new class of small arm have been retained by every assault rifle design since, including the latest ones. These include:

-Chambered for an “intermediate class” cartridge, in between pistol caliber and full battle rifle classes in terms of exterior ballistics. The MP43 was chambered for the 7.9x33mm cartridge. Virtually all assault rifles are presently chambered for the 7.62x39mm, 5.56x45mm, or 5.45x39mm cartridges, whose ballistics are similar to those of the original. A few Russian assault rifles and carbines, mistakenly called submachine guns in Russian literature, are chambered for a new 9x39mm cartridge. They are still assault rifles or carbines, NOT submachine guns, which by definition fire a pistol caliber cartridge.

-Select fire capability. Whether semi and fully automatic; semi, full automatic and burst; or semi and burst only, all assault rifles are select fire.

-Detachable box magazine with capacity of over 20 rounds.

-”In line” barrel/stock configuration to reduce muzzle climb when fired in fully automatic mode. This necessitates the use of a pistol grip for the trigger hand.

-Optimum use lightweight or nontraditional materials, such as sheet metal, aluminum extrusions or forgings for metal components and plywood or plastic for furniture.

There are two versions of the MP43 – the basic MP43 and the MP43/1. The two rifles differed in the method by which grenades were attached to the muzzle and by the front sights. The original MP43’s front sight was easily damaged or knocked off and lost, so the MP43/1 was fitted with a redesigned front sight of a more robust design. The MP43 used a clamp on type grenade launcher, while the MP43/1 used a screw on type. There is no apparent difference between the MP43/1 and MP44. All MP43/1 and early MP44/StG44 rifles have a “V” type mount for a telescopic sight on the right side of the receiver just below the ejection port. Later StG44 rifle eliminated not only this, but the threaded muzzle, as well in order to reduce costs and expedite production. The designation was officially changed from MP43 to MP44 in April 1944, but rifles bearing the designations “MP43, MP44 and StG44 were manufactured right up to the end of the war.

By late 1944, production of the MP43/44 rifles had increased, despite the Allied bombing campaign. One of the great fallacies of history was the notion that the bombing would both demoralize the German people and reduce industrial output. In fact, the bombing strengthened the resolve of the people and the Nazis were actually able to increase industrial production right up to the end of the war. This included small arms like the MP43/44 and total projected monthly production rates ran from 40,000 to 80,000 weapons through the final months of 1944.
The actual status of the rifle was clarified in December when the nomenclature was officially changed to Sturmgewehr 44. The new designation was most likely chosen to improve morale and give the impression that German scientists had come with yet another new “wonder weapon” in the face of certain defeat. Legend has it that the new designation was personally chosen by Hitler himself. Whatever the reason and regardless of whose mind coined the term, the words “assault rifle” not only distinguished the new weapon as different than submachine guns, but distinguished it as an entirely new class of small arm.

The final page of the German assault rifle story is the StG45 (M). After the success of the MP43, a number of German small arms manufacturers set out to design weapons that were lighter and easier to produce than the Haenel weapon. The only one which achieved any success was a Mauser design that weighed only 8.18lb as opposed to the StG44’s 11.5lb. Early versions of this rifle were designated GeratO6 (H) and functioned by a combination of gas and blowback operation. The final design was designated Stg45 (M) and introduced the roller bearing delayed blowback operating system that has been incorporated into several postwar rifles, including the German G3, Swiss StuG57 and several others. The Stg45 (M) was an innovative design in more ways than its delayed blowback operating system. Its production was “progressive,” with components welded together. The receiver was cylindrical and held a sleeve in which the barrel was assembled, along with ribs that guided the bolt assembly as it reciprocated. The magazine housing was designed to accept standard MP43/44 magazines. The trigger group was assembled separately and attached to the receiver via a hinge and pin similar to that of the MP43/44. It was not removable, but rotated downward clear of the receiver for field stripping and cleaning. Other than the barrel, bolt assembly and a few minor components, the StG45 (M) was made entirely of stamped steel. While not a true milestone weapon in the sense of the MP43/44, the StG45 (M) had a decided influence on modern small design that continues to this day in firearms such as the Heckler & Koch HK33 and 53 rifles, the MP5 submachine gun, and the Spanish CETME, in addition to those already mentioned.

In the final analysis, the German assault rifles of World War II constituted one of the rarest events in firearms history – a single design that defined an entirely new class of small arm. While Kalashnikov assault rifles may have been more widely distributed, that is because the Soviet government virtually gave them to client states. And while the AK was itself a significant design, it was basically no different in concept than the MP43/44/StG44 that preceded it. Kalashnikov claims that the MP43/44/StG44 did not influence his design, but given the configuration of the AK, this is doubtful. The German design also influenced many other small arms designers who used its basic configuration as the starting point for their own designs. From Eugene Stoner to the weapons designers of today, the basic assault rifle configuration and cartridge class established some 55 years ago by Haenel continues and shows few signs of fading into history. Despite claimed “revolutionary” small arms such as the American OICW and French PAPOP, these weapons will never have an influence on firearms design approaching that of the German assault rifles. They are simply too expensive, too complicated and too bulky to ever replace the assault rifle as a class of weapon. The MP43/44/StG44 will thus continue to influence small arms design for many years to come.

Colt’s Cuts Handgun Line, City Suit Fails – UPS Rates Up

In a flurry of activity during the early autumn, a trio of developments occurred greatly affecting the sale of firearms in the future.

First, Colt’s Manufacturing Co., one of the oldest names in American gundom, announced in early October it will discontinue the major portion of its handgun product line. Second, one of the suits in the recent wave of municipal lawsuits against the shooting sports industry has been dismissed, giving a resounding victory to the industry. And third, United Parcel Service, the major land common carrier for the firearms industry, has announced all handgun shipments must now be delivered by air, greatly increasing shipping costs of handgun makers and distributors.

Let’s begin with Colt’s. In an October 5, 1999 dated letter to the company’s distributors obtained by Small Arms Review, Thomas H. Kilby, vp/marketing & sales, announced Colt’s “will accept no new orders” for the following products:

•Magnum Carry .357 Mag. snub nose revolver

•DS II .38 Special snub nose revolver

•Python Elite .357 Magnum revolver

•Anaconda .44 Magnum revolver

•.380 ACP pistols (models 06891 and DS6891)

•The new Pocket Nine 9mm compact pistol

•The 1991 family of 1911A1 style auto pistols (models 01991, 04691, 09091, 01091, 0409IU, and 09191U). A Colt’s spokesman notes this entry is in error, and that in fact the 1991 series will be continued.

•All standard model variations within the above listed products are also Discontinued.

Colt’s will continue to manufacture the following handgun models:

•Single Action Army series

•Cowboy single action revolvers

•Model O series, including the new model XS, Defender and Custom .45’s

Despite the product discontinuances, Colt will still have 35 separate models within its handgun lineup, keeping it as a viable manufacturer within the handgun arena.

Kilby’s letter takes note of the rumors circulating in recent months, regarding Colt’s possible withdrawal from the civilian handgun market. In explaining the reasoning behind the consolidation, the letter reads, “In developing our 2000 business plans and identifying strategic needs beyond 2000, we have had to face the harsh reality of the significant impact our litigation defense costs are having on our ability to operate competitively in the marketplace. Accordingly, we have made the decision to consolidate our product lines.”

While instantly creating collector’s items of the discontinued models sure to rise in value as word of Colt’s decision reaches the public, prices of those handguns still in production are being raised by the factory as well.

“Due to the continued escalation of our litigation costs, coupled with our strong desire to maintain a meaningful presence in the handgun segment of the business, the prices of (existing) products will be increased by 6%, effective immediately.

“Our marketing objective,” Kilby’s letter continues, “is to streamline our handgun product line into a smaller, but higher value collection of real Colt ‘Classics,’ which best represent our brand, with much more emphasis on providing custom features and custom appearance for serious gun enthusiasts. We are committed to taking a ‘Classic’ approach to the future development of our product lines and plan to focus more on what we have been best known for and done best for the past 164 years.”

Colt’s Match Target rifles, its new Colt Light Rifle bolt action line and its military products are unaffected by the streamlining decision.

A Colt’s spokesman (who requested anonymity) said the firm is, “rationalizing our product line based on sales expectations and demand. Part of the decision was based on the poor sales projections for some models, more than concerns over litigation.” The spokesman would not comment on whether any of Colt’s approximately 800 employees would be laid off as a result of the line consolidation.

New Colt CEO

In a related development, Steve Sliwa, appointed chief executive at Colt’s only about a year ago, is stepping down from his position. Sliwa will head up a new venture, to be known as “iColt,” which will work on developing and marketing Colt’s user-recognition handgun technology often called a “Smart Gun.” By spinning off iColt as a separate entity, Colt’s may be able to distance itself from the “Smart Gun” controversy, which has generated ill-feelings against the gunmaker by some firearms rights activists, who fear the firearm user-recognition technology may be legislatively mandated for use on all guns.

The problem is there are numerous firms developing such devices. Many of the prototypes developed thus far are based on the technology employed in the keyless entry systems built into better automobiles. So the technology itself is already here, it is the reliable application of it to firearms that has not yet been perfected. If Colt’s gets there first with a viable system, it will have a leg up on the competition.

As this issue of Small Arms Review goes to press, SIG Arms, Inc. has announced it has developed and is ready to market a workable electro-mechanical user-recognition system for one of its handgun models. However, the technology employed in the SIG product appears to be different from that used by Colt’s.

Retired US Army General William Keys, a Colt’s board member, has taken over the helm of Colt’s Manufacturing’s daily operations as the new chief executive.

Handguns reportedly account for about 30% of Colt’s revenues, but a much larger share of the profit. In December 1998, Colt’s completed the acquisition of Saco Defense Corp., of Saco, ME, a producer of military arms and bolt action hunting rifles. During 1998, Colt’s and Saco Defense reportedly had a combined revenue of $136 million and an operating profit of $13.4 million.

“While some firearms firms will see slight increases in their insurance premiums as well as higher deductibles in their policy proposals next year. Overall liability premiums are not expected to rise significantly next year,” says Bob Chiarello of Joseph Chiarello & Co., Inc. of Elizabeth, New Jersey, a broker of much of the insurance for the firearms industry. “The insurance companies overall feel the industry is being defended in the suits by competent attorneys and recognize the suits are a reach for the municipalities involved. Defense costs, in most cases, will continue to be paid for by the insurance companies,” he detailed.

Unfounded Rumors

There have been industry rumors circulating to the effect that other handgun makers, particularly Smith & Wesson and Glock, Inc. are planning to get out of the civilian handgun market or will curtail production for sale to consumers.

Glock, Inc.’s corporate legal counsel, Paul Januzzo, denied any move by his company to curtail consumer sales. He noted his company was actually experiencing lower liability insurance costs at present than it had faced several years ago.

“There is no truth to the rumors to that we are getting out of the civilian handgun market. Such sales are our bread and butter,” declared Chris Killoy, Smith & Wesson’s vp/consumer products. “While we are looking at a possible increase in our liability costs, we are definitely not backing away from the consumer market.”

UPS’ New Handgun Rules

In an unrelated move, but one having wide impact on the marketing of handguns, United Parcel Service (UPS) the firearms industry’s common carrier of choice, announced in early October that all handgun shipments will no longer go through the company’s ground transport network, but will have to be shipped by air. The decision will raise handgun manufacturer and distributor handling costs significantly.

In a statement distributed to the media, UPS says, “As a responsible corporate citizen, UPS wants to ensure handguns are transported as safely as possible by restricting handguns to designated handling channels. Effective October 11, handguns may only be shipped via UPS Next Day Air. We will continue to accept handgun shipments but all packages containing handguns must be segregated from other packages.”

Industry Seeks Alternative

Reaction from the firearms industry was swift. Richard Lipsey, owner of Lipsey’s, Inc., a major shooting sports wholesaler located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, minced no words when he commented, “Their (UPS’) decision stinks and is a very poor excuse for them in not being able to control theft by their own employees. They ought to clean up their own act first before trying to shift the blame to someone else. They said their decision is ‘part of their social responsibility,’ but it just irks me that they are just not taking responsibility for their own actions. Consumers should be aggravated as hell about this.”

Not all manufacturers will be adversely affected by UPS’ move. For instance, Smith & Wesson’s Chris Killoy said his firm does little business with UPS as it usually ships out product in large quantities to its wholesalers via land freight companies. By contrast, Glock, Inc., which uses UPS heavily, is apparently not that upset by the UPS decision. “They cannot get a handle on their employee theft problem, so you really can’t blame them for their decision,” says corporate counsel Januzzo.

Brian Tucker, president of Davidson’s, Inc. another major firearms wholesaler headquartered in Prescott, Arizona, said he is in favor of anything that, “helps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.” On the other hand, he admitted paying overnight air shipping rates is likely to have a detrimental effect on gun sales and said RPS, Inc. is emerging as the most viable alternative carrier for the firearms industry, in place of UPS.

A call to RPS confirmed the company is considering becoming a rival to UPS for the firearms industry’s business. “We currently handle very few handgun shipments, but in light of UPS’ change in policy and the potential increase in demand for alternative services, we are taking a very close look at the firearms market,” revealed Betsy Momich, the company’s public relations coordinator.

“About 95% of our shipments are transported to their destinations by ground in 2 to 5 days. If the package is traveling within the same region, it is usually delivered overnight. We have 369 facilities in all 50 states and Canada and are UPS’ primary competitor,” Momich disclosed.

Cincinnati Suit Dismissed

In a decision of wide import, a suit brought by the City of Cincinnati, Ohio against the firearms industry has been dismissed. The suit was part of the recent wave of lawsuits by states and municipalities alleging negligent firearms marketing and distribution practices.

The suit, City Of Cincinnati vs. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., et al, in which 11 other manufacturers, one distributor and three firearms industry trade associations were named as co-defendants, was “dismissed with prejudice” (meaning it will be very difficult for the city to file a future action).

Cincinnati (in a manner similar to the other suits which are still pending) sought to recover for “costs incurred in providing police, emergency, court, prison and other related services in connection with shootings which occur in Cincinnati, regardless of whether those shootings were homicidal, suicidal or accidental.” The city further sought damages for alleged “diminution of property value and loss of tax payer revenue, punitive damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief” which would have required the defendants to change the methods by which they design, distribute and advertise their products.

In the view of the court, the city’s complaint was, “An improper attempt to have the court substitute its judgment for that of the legislature.” Something the court said it was “not inclined, nor empowered to do. Only the legislature has the power to engage in this type of regulation.”

In regard to the city’s claim that the firearms industry’s activities are a “public nuisance,” the court said nuisance laws, “do not apply to the design, manufacture and distribution of a lawful product.”

The court also quashed the city’s contention that firearms had no value in self-defense. The complaint had alleged the gun industry had committed fraud by asserting that keeping a firearm in the home increases home safety and security. Such an assertion, the court found, “is merely a statement of opinion of future events which does not constitute fraud under Ohio law. Indeed, the statement can be simply construed to reflect that which is set forth under the Ohio Constitution and the laws of the state of Ohio, which recognize the legitimate use of firearms for self-defense.”

As to one of the city’s more outrageous claims, for recovery of costs related to police, emergency, court and prison services, the court said these expenses arose out of the city’s “duties to its citizens,” and could not be recovered.

SADW is a monthly electronic publication from Nick Steadman Features. Nick, intrepid world traveling reporter for much of the arms industry, files this 40,000 to 50,000 word report once a month to his loyal subscribers. Those lucky ones pay a mere $50 (US) £32.50 (UK) per year for the privilege of getting the hot tips and insights from one of the industry’s insiders. Nick’s unique perspective is globally based, as is his wit. Each issue is full of insight and information for those with an interest in Small Arms, as well as his observations on world travel.

1. WEAPONS, EQUIPMENT, FUTURE SYSTEMS, TRAINING & RELATED NEWS

PARKER-HALE 9mm IDW DEBUTS IN UK SUNDAY PRESS: under the lurid headline ‘No escape from the Eliminator’, the Mail on Sunday tabloid profiled the 9mm IDW (formerly Bushman) machine pistol, now being promoted by its UK licensee as the Parker-Hale Personal Defence Weapon (PDW). The report claimed the weapon ‘has been put through its paces by both the Ministry of Defence and the police, and is seen as the replacement for the German-made Heckler & Koch MP5 sub-machine gun’. It added that sources maintained ‘orders for the PDW are being prepared for SAS counter-terrorist teams and for the anti-piracy and drug-enforcement squads of the Special Boat Service’.

However, we’re at a loss to know on what the paper bases its strange comment claiming the weapon ‘has a barely audible firing action’ – last time we fired the IDW in Florida it went ‘bang’ like any other 9mm. Maybe they’d picked up on the fact it can be fitted with a muzzle suppressor? We assume the press coverage resulted from Parker-Hale’s recent presence with these guns at the Esher COPEX security show in the UK. What the 400 rpm rate-controlled IDW does have very much in its favour is its minimal burstfire dispersion, which makes it potentially able to defeat – with closely-placed multiple hits of ordinary ball ammunition – Kevlar body armour which would normally resist single shots.

But there are many other factors which will influence the IDW’s popularity. For example, loyalty to the 9mm MP5 family is still strongly entrenched amongst UK special forces, and British police would not be permitted to use automatic fire even if they adopted the IDW. Our prediction is that the real market for this gun still lies abroad. Unless, that is, the UK MOD eventually gets its thinking together on PDW requirements and decides it is better to go with a 9mm weapon than continuing to examine the various small-calibre PDWs now in development.

It’s thought that a major factor driving UK military interest in PDWs is the likely cost of having to modify the 340,000-weapon inventory of 5.56mm SA80s to meet NATO reliability criteria. Because of its poor functioning, SA80 has currently been struck off the NATO list of approved weapons (see footnote).
The MOD’s position at 10 Nov 99, as stated in a minister’s Parliamentary Answer, goes:

‘It is our practice to keep the effectiveness of weapon systems under continual review. SA80 is an effective weapon system and is planned to remain in service well into the next century. We are, however, currently investigating potential improvements to the SA80 and I expect to receive recommendations in due course.’

Sources close to the problem believe the MOD still plans to retain SA80, suitably modified, for non-critical applications, but to procure another 5.56mm weapon for harsh operating conditions, equipping everyone else (about 15,000 personnel) with a PDW of some description.

If this is the case, whoever wins the PDW contract stands to make quite a lot of money.

The jury is still out on what any additional 5.56mm weapon might be – logic suggests the H&K G36, since Heckler & Koch is currently still owned by Royal Ordnance (maybe not for long?), though based (inter alia) on comments from Northern Ireland, we would imagine the M16 series would be the troops’ preferred option. Either way, SA80 must stand as one of the poorest-conceived & executed small arms systems of all time.

As to the Parker-Hale gun, about a dozen examples currently exist, representing various stages of refinement, incorporating modifications which have been suggested by the UK MOD and others. The company could well have orders for as many as 1,000 pieces by the end of the year. Weight is down to 4.75 pounds and is likely to drop to 4 pounds in its final form, the buttstock has been improved and Parker-Hale has even developed a test rig to allow experimentation with other calibres as required. It has also developed an alternative (and much cheaper) method of rate control which is now being patented, and is currently seeking renegotiation of the expensive licencing deal with DTL, the US end of Bushman.

Footnote: it’s worth reiterating details from the letter about SA80’s shortcomings (as below) of 2 Jun 97 from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. As far as we’re aware the situation now (two and a half years on) is still largely unchanged and, in any event, a rectification programme for all SA80s in service would take forever.

‘John Reid wrote to you, on my behalf, on 10 September last (nb: 1996) to inform you that the SA80 weapon system had been suspended from the NATO Nominated Weapons List as the result of difficulties when firing ammunition natures in service with our NATO Allies. He undertook to write again once we had decided a way ahead.

John also mentioned our own national trials, from which a number of reliability issues have emerged. A review this February of the results of trials over the period from 1995 to 1997 has raised the possibility that there may be underlying problems with the reliability of the system, including its use with UK ammunition, and particularly in the hottest and dryest conditions. The evidence remains inconclusive, and the work we are planning with Heckler and Koch will be important in determining a clear understanding of the current performance, along with the options for improvement.

Heckler and Koch have now presented their proposals to us for modifications to the breech block and chamber magazines, gas plug and barrel geometry. We have decided to place a contract with them, through Royal Ordnance, to incorporate the proposed modifications on a statistically viable batch of 200 weapons, including different combinations of modifications, to allow full visibility and confirmation of quantifiable increases in reliability. This work and subsequent detailed assessment are not expected to be complete until around the end of the year. We will then consider what, if any, wider modification programme to implement.

In the meantime, the NATO panel, with our agreement, decided in March to continue the temporary suspension of SA80 from the NATO Nominated Weapons List, pending the results of our programme of action to rectify the problems.’

CANADIAN .50 TP-S & API MATCH CARTRIDGES: another new line from SNC Technologies in Canada, touched on before in these pages, is .50 calibre match-grade ammunition in two natures never before available – Target Practice Spotter (TP-S) and Armour-Piercing Incendiary (API). We assume the latter is intended to compete with the Raufoss .50 MP. The projectiles for the two match-grade rounds are similar, with jacketed steel cores and an airgap in the bullet nose. But while the penetrator of the API bullet is hardened steel and the airgap is filled with incendiary composition, the TP-S core is mild steel and the nose contains a spotting charge.

SNC has been assiduous in optimising the production quality of its match-grade .50 bullets and cartridge cases, as well as the assembled ammunition. Particular attention has been paid to case-neck concentricity, head-to-shoulder dimensions and the angle of the head to the axis of the case. The current bullet designs are two of five options originally studied. Propellants are spherical with low muzzle flash, and primers the standard SNC variety. SNC also confirms the new ammunition complies with all standard NATO requirements for pressure, velocity, action time, waterproofing and weapon functioning.

All this attention to detail has resulted in .50 ammunition claimed to achieve accuracy of 7.5” (19cm) mean radius (0.65 MOA) at 1,000 metres, averaged over 20 strings each of five shots, all from a ‘short’ (29”) sniper rifle barrel. By comparison, the .50 M33 ball round is said to deliver 1.13 MOA (which sounds too good to be correct) in longer M2 machine gun barrels. Both the API and TP-S rounds are ballistically matched and deliver recoil energy from muzzle-braked rifles of 20-25 Joules. The API bullet is claimed to defeat 22mm armour plate at 100 metres. We don’t know how the Canadian API Match compares pricewise with Raufoss MP (which we recall is about $8 a round), but it should prove popular with those requiring an accurate anti-materiel round with visual hit confirmation for taking on small targets. These could include visors of armoured vehicles, IR detectors, radar antennae, claymores and anti-personnel landmines. The TP-S provides the same hit confirmation for range practice.

This interview was conducted at the NDIA Small Arms Symposium at Ft. Benning, Georgia, with a follow-up in Vero Beach, Florida.

SAR: Reed, give me a background on yourself and tell me how you got into the business.

Reed: In the mid 70’s, I was competitively pistol shooting and had spent quite a bit of time with the Secret Service pistol camp. They’ve done a lot of training in Florida. I was shooting the revolver for police combat. I had spent a lot of time at Beltsville, and they spent a lot of time in Florida. I had met one of the Secret Service agents that had gone down to Little Creek, Virginia. While he was down there, he had found that they had some Stoner 63’s that were inoperable. He told the armorer there that he knew a guy that had parts for Stoners and that he could call me, and I could probably get his guns working. I went up to Little Creek somewhere in the mid 70’s and repaired a bunch of Stoner machine guns there on site. I had the parts and the knowledge. They had crossed some of the 63’s with the 63 A’s, but I got the guns up and running.

SAR: How did you become interested in Stoners, and find all the parts and weapons you have?

Reed: In the mid ‘70’s, I was at a gun show and a friend of mine gave me a barrel for what appeared to be some type of a machine gun with a carrying handle on it. It was in a canvas, asbestos-lined bag, and I had no idea what that barrel fit, or what it was. I started asking everybody I knew what it was to, and it was like a giant Easter egg hunt trying to figure out what the barrel went to. Finally, I found out the barrel was for a Stoner 63 automatic rifle, which was the one with the offset front sight. From there, I questioned what a Stoner was, and began researching everything I could find on the Stoner and the Stoner system. I became more and more involved in it and I bought a couple guns form different people. Roger Cox, of Law Enforcement Equipment Company, was pretty heavy into them. He had a Stoner 63, that I bought from him. I started chasing more leads down, finding a couple more Stoners, and some parts here and there. Then one day, I called Mr. Stoner down at his house and introduced myself. He had a business up at Fort Pierce, which was about 5 miles away from my shop. One day, he stopped by for lunch. We talked, and our friendship grew from then on.

SAR: What about items from Cadillac Gage?

Reed: In about 1981, Stoner had a warehouse up in his factory in Port Clinton, Ohio, which he wanted to clean out. I went up to look at it all, and we loaded up 3 semi-truck loads of stuff. It was 13 tons of Stoners, Stoner parts and tooling.

SAR: How did Mr. Stoner collect so much ?

Reed: All this stuff had been given or sold to him at the end of the project. They had spent so much money for so many things, chasing so many things, that they just gave it to him for his efforts.

SAR: When did you establish a working relationship with Mr. Stoner?

Reed: It was shortly thereafter. We did a lot of projects together. I did some consulting work for him on the 5mm Advanced Combat Rifle Project. We would go to shows together because of our close proximity. We would travel together, have lunches together, and discuss different projects together. We built a pistol together, the SR 25 we did one summer, and we had a lot of other projects as well.

Trey: He was very open with his information as a mentor. He appreciated the fact that someone was interested in his work. He was happy to share his knowledge.

Reed: Every day, when I would go home from work, I would get books out, and research the older guns. You amass a knowledge that helps you to find the rare guns that are out there. When the book The Black Rifle came out, there were pages and pages of guns in there that I didn’t know existed. Today, I own many of those same guns-not one like it, but that exact, same gun. I consider myself very lucky that I was able to be at the right place at the right time. I got all of Stoner’s personal guns, which were not a lot, but were very significant and meaningful due to the fact that he bothered to keep them. He had an H&K that was a very early ‘60’s .308. I have a picture of him shooting that same gun. From there, he introduced me to the Fairchild Corporation, and I was able to buy all of their guns which were the early protoypes of the ones that he did not own, or have in his name. I was able to accquire Stoner’s guns, Fairchild’s guns, Chuck Dorchester’s guns, the president of Armalite, the Armalite guns from Burt Jenks, as well as Sam Cumming’s guns and the Colt collection. The chance of one person being able to put all these collections together is phenomenal! It has taken me over 20 years to do this.

SAR: Did one thing lead to another?

Reed: On some things, one thing did lead to another, but on others, it was just pure luck! Absolutely being in the right place at the right time, and the right person, and dealing the right cards. I cannot imagine the luck of some of these occurrences, and the odds of finding them. I can show you some parts and pieces where I found half of the gun in California, and the other half in the Colt factory.

Trey: Mr. Stoner, himself, when he would walk in and see the collection, couldn’t believe it! He would see different stages of his life, from when he was in totally different sides of the ocean, all in one place. All of the evolutions, and all brought back together in one spot, has been quite a feat. A lot of people really don’t understand the magnitude of the project with the detail and energy that went in to it.

Reed: Let me give you another example. I found a belt-fed AR-10 at the Colt factory. Five years later, I found the bolt and carrier in a private collection in California. The owner knew it was an AR-10, but he didn’t know it was of a one of a kind prototype part. Five years before I got the gun out of Colt, I had gotten the charging handle and the bipod from a lady who’s husband had died, but who had bought it from Armalite. So five years before I got the gun, I got some parts for it, and five years after I bought the gun, I got the rest of the parts for it. It is finally all put back together. What is so phenomenal about all this, is acquiring parts that are one of a kind, and with only one gun built. I found a box of parts in 1974 that I bought. In 1986, Mr. Stoner transferred Stoner 63, serial number one to me. The lower trigger group was missing off the gun, it was just the receiver. I looked in the box of parts I had bought in 1974, and found the lower trigger group that matched up to gun number one. I determined this by examining photographs of serial number one, which had the same scratch as one of the lowers in my box of 200 to 300 parts. The chance of seeing that scratch and putting that back together, knowing that it fit that gun was one in a million.

SAR: How did you get started with the Military and silencers?

Reed: A month or two after I fixed the Stoners at Little Creek, the SEALs had a problem with what they called ‘vapor lock’. Basically, they were shooting the green tip Supervel subsonic ammo in the Smith and Wesson 39’s with a screw on Hushpuppy. This system had a slidelock and the high pressure cases would stick in the chamber. When they went to eject the cartridge case, the extractor would climb out over the cartridge case. The gun would have a malfunction because it couldn’t clear that cartridge case once the extractor ripped off the side of the rim. I did a lot of work with that and found it mostly to be an ammo issue. I built them a better system using the old 92 Beretta. It was not a military gun back in the late 70’s. I spent time doing that and improving the old Hushpuppy design, which was a Smith and Wesson product on the old 39’s and later the 59’s. The Beretta had a stronger, wider extractor which grabbed the cartridge case, even with that high pressure ammo, the Beretta would actually work better. So we built slide locks on the Berettas, and built thread-on suppressors.

In the late 70’s, a requirement came out of JSSAP for suppressors for the Air Force. We built a product and submitted a proposal and lost. Two companies got an award-one of them was Smith and Wesson, and the other one was Beretta. I didn’t get an award, so I funded the project with my own money. I called the project Snap On. It was an aluminum suppressor with wipes, and simplified the system. In the early 80’s, they were ready to test this program. The Air Force went out to buy parts for the Hushpuppy as the baseline. I just happened to be the only manufacturer for the Navy at that time making parts for the Hushpuppy. When I found that they were going to be doing these tests, I asked the testing committee if they would throw my gun and product into the test. I explained to them I had proposed my system earlier, but didn’t win the contract. The government had spent a quarter of a million dollars with each company to develop this product.

SAR: Had you been supplying the wipes?

Reed: I had been supplying the wipes to the Navy all during that time. The wipes were in a little can, prestacked in a little aluminum sleeve, with the sleeve rolled up. It looked like a roll of quarters, with 8 wipes in it, pre-X’ed. This assembly was put in the front of the original Hushpuppy, with a spring, “O” rings, and a little mechanism inside there. That was the original Smith and Wesson design that they copied from Walther, in Germany. My system used threads, it didn’t use springs, and was a much simpler system. When they got through with the tests and the trials from the Air Force at Eglin, my suppressors won out over the Smith and Wesson and the Beretta. In the mid’80’s, they bought 3800 of these systems from us. They sent us the barrels, and we put the barrel extensions on, and gave them back a barrel and a suppressor in a little plastic box. That was one of the first major contracts that we had on suppressors.

In 1982, which was prior to that, the Navy had gone out on the street, and Mickey Finn, Don Walsh, and myself had proposed silencers for the M16-A1, that the Navy had. It had a very strong endurance test. It had to fire 200 rounds in a very short period of time, and the suppressor had to live through that. Our suppressor was very large, very robust, and used double wall tubing. Our suppressor was the only one that lived through the endurance test. The others would melt down. Don Walsh’s suppressors made out of aluminum would only go about 110 to 115 rounds. It actually burst on the very first trial, so we won it by endurance. It was a fairly large contract in ’82 for us. It was about 1400-1500 Navy suppressors made out of stainless steel. These had a barrel collet on the back of it. You took the flash hider off the gun and threaded the silencer on the end of the barrel. You tightened this collet and it squeezed down on the barrel to make it sturdy. This also kept it in alignment and kept it from vibrating off. It was heavy, and big, but it was effective. It was about 30 – 32 DB’s, which is pretty good. It was an inch and 3/4 in diameter, and it was about 12 inches long. Part of it telescoped over the end of the barrel.

Trey: I think a side note to that is that at the time, he was involved in (orange) grove care. We had a small machine shop set up. I can remember that summer working on those Navy cans, with one other person and myself in this little shop.

SAR: Which is much different from your facility today, which is pretty large?

Reed: Exactly. We didn’t realize that once you won the contract, then you had to figure out how to get it built. All we were looking to do was win the test. We didn’t have enough sense to know that once you got it, and it was a tar baby thing, that you had to figure out how to build it. We subcontracted some of it out, and did the rest in the shop. A local guy did the blackening of the stainless steel, and we did the engraving. Everything was done in a little Mom and Pop shop. At the time, it was the largest silencer contract that the Navy had ever bought. When the Air Force bought the 3800 Snap On’s, it was closer to the largest silencer contract the entire government had ever bought. We had won the two big, major silencer contracts in the ‘80’s that came out, even though the premier silencer technology house was Mickey Finn, where Doug Olson had been working. They had the leading technology at the time. We won not by default, but being in the right place at the right time, and paying attention to the requirements. I think their product was better than ours, but I don’t think their product totally met the requirements. It’s like wanting a fast car or a station wagon-it depends on whether you’re going to haul something to the dump or whether you’re going to go do a race. That was the early years with suppressors, up to the mid ‘80’s.

SAR: What was the next suppressor that you worked on?

Reed: It was a suppressor for Colt, who did it for DEA. It was an integral 9mm in the late ‘80’s. In ’86 or ’87, we did a suppressor for Colt, like an MP5-SD, only it was Colt 9mm. We vented the barrel, and built an intricate suppressor under the hand guard of the 9mm Colt submachine gun. At that time, I was quite cozy with Colt. I had been doing some work, being a subcontractor for the ACR program, the Advanced Combat Rifle. I did the muzzle break for it. I had gotten in with all their engineers, which helped us when we built the suppressor for their 9mm for DEA. In the late ‘80’s, we developed a suppressor for revolvers, using telescoped ammunition. It was called the Revolver Rifle and was based on the Ruger Blackhawk .44 magnum handgun frame. This was novel, because it was a short gun, light weight, and could come apart to go into a small briefcase. The ammunition used an o-ring gas seal and forcing cone to obtain maximum suppression. We built some very effective suppressors with this system. That was the first time we could get 30 caliber suppressors to go down to 116 DB. It was large, light weight, and a very effective suppressor.

SAR: By that time, would you say you had full machine shop capabilities?

Reed: Yes, we moved into our new building in 1990 and installed our four CNC machines, which were originally purchased in 1986. Today we have about 15 CNC machines. We have grown to about 92 employees, and we do a lot of other things now.

(Author’s note: Reed left at this point in the interview to attend another meeting and Trey Knight and Doug Olson continued the interview.)

SAR: The building you’re in now, you have about 2 other businesses. Can you tell me about them?

Trey: Lawmen’s and Shooters Supplies, is a law enforcement distributor company, selling other peoples products in the state of Florida and the Southeastern United States. Knights Armament Company, is the military side of the house. Knight’s Manufacturing is a company that we set up more for commercial business when the SR-25 was introduced. That was our first time out of the closet, so to speak, with a product we could take to shows and talk about. Mr. Stoner was on board with us fully at that time, allowing us to do things that we would have never been able to do before then.

SAR: Doug, when did you come on board?

Doug: I started to work at Knight’s in January of ’92. I was hired specifically as program manager on the Offensive Handgun suppressor. And at that time, they had the subcontract to Colt on the Offensive Handgun, which was in competition with H&K.

SAR: So you began working with Colt on the suppressor, and this transitioned to H&K?

Doug: That’s correct. At the end of that contract, both the Colt and H&K guns went to the Navy for trials. The H&K gun was the clear winner. The Knight suppressor was the clear winner. The follow-on contract was marrying the two together.

SAR: What were the challenges with this suppressor?

Doug: There were a lot of challenges, and this was a major project! Up to 1992, the state of the art was about 19DB reduction with a plain, dry, suppressor. Not very much. The problem was with the straight-through baffles, which have a large hole and a small outside diameter. It was a major step forward to try and meet the Navy’s requirement of 30 DB reduction. That seemed an incredible task at the time. Everybody knew that this was going to be a very severe challenge

SAR: Did you have a lot of trial and error, then?

Doug: (Laughing) Much! I spent almost two years working full time on this, trying to solve all the problems. We went through a lot of optimization on the baffle. We had a can that we could put the parts in and out of, and we went through a lot of different baffle configurations. We made a matrix of all the possible combinations of components, built them up, and tested them trying to figure out what to do. Some of the things we came up with weren’t obvious. We built them in both directions from where we were, and we were very lucky and very successful.

SAR: Did the manufacturing present many problems?

Doug: We were set up primarily as a machine shop. It turned out that this baffle and the entire can involved an awful lot of fabrication, tooling, and tig welding. That’s how we were able to keep the weight down, and get the suppressor to function so well. The baffle actually turned out to be a follow on from work that I had done with Qual-A-Tec and AWC. We actually dropped that baffle in and we changed how many we used in the can. We changed the shape, but that was what got us to the final solution.

Trey: I don’t think anyone else could have produced that suppressor, even once they had the technology. The manufacturing was almost as much of a challenge as the design was.

SAR: Did you exceed the requirements in the end?

Doug: In the end, we were never able to get to 30 DB dry, but we ended up with 27 DB dry. If you add a little water, we were getting 39 DB, which was unheard of prior to that. On the manufacturing side, once we won the contract, then it was how were we going to produce these things. We bought a welding robot, and a wire EDM. This gave us the capability of getting the bore through the center of the suppressor uniformly, and in line with all the parts.

SAR: Does the EDM burn a hole through the suppressor?

Doug: Yes, you start with an undersized hole, and then the wire puts a bore through the center hole that’s in absolute alignment. That has turned out to be one of the keys to making this a successful suppressor. That’s where H&K was having all their problems building the Mickey Finn suppressor. By the time you weld all these baffles together, and weld them in the tube, how do you machine a hole through the center of it and keep it straight? We found out we had to completely weld the suppressor together to get it to line. A good suppressor gets hot very fast, and so the challenge is how to handle the heat. How do you keep the baffles from melting down? You have to get the heat to the outside of the suppressor, and radiate it out, while keeping the inside from collapsing when it’s red hot.

SAR: Did you have to use any special materials?

Doug: Not on the handgun. We went to a 321 stainless, which is one of the better high temperature stainless steels. This material was enough to handle the volume of fire anticipated.

SAR: Tell me about the H&K SD suppressor.

Doug: What we did with all the H&K suppressors was to take the baffle stack we developed for the .45 Colt, and scale it down to 9mm. We made an all welded can, trying to use as much of that technology on the H&K suppressors. We did both the screw on short cans as well as the SD cans, which utilized the same baffle stack as the .45, and that worked very well. We were able to keep the size down to a 1 and 3/8th inch tubing. What we did was take the Colt Offensive Handgun suppressor and adapt it to become the H&K SD suppressor.

SAR: Did you achieve some dramatic reductions in DB’S with these cans, as well?

Doug: They’re very quiet, but I wouldn’t say it’s as dramatic as the .45, because it’s always easier to make the 9mm quiet. It’s certainly very quiet, very rugged, and more durable. To me, there’s a lot more important things to suppressors than how quiet they are. Everybody dwells on how quiet they are, but to me, it’s how long do they last. Most rounds in the military are used up in training. They’ll go out, take two or three guns with them, and run ten people through the shooting houses, putting several thousand rounds through a suppressor in a day. It’s the durability and no maintenance issues that count in the military. You can’t be changing out wipes thirty-seven times during the course of a day. What Knight’s has done is bring suppressors into the ‘90’s, so that they’re really user friendly.

SAR: Tell me about your current M16 suppressors.

Doug: The M4-QD is what we call it. When I came to Knight’s, they were working on a suppressor for the M16 carbine. They were looking at shortening the barrel, machining baffles on the lathe, milling parts, and putting it all together. There was always a durability problem. We tried putting tungsten carbide inserts in there to take the initial blast, which worked well, until it got so hot that the tungsten carbide cracked. Once that cracked, the whole suppressor was useless. We ended up going to real high temperature alloys, and welded a tube within a tube, which was the key to being structurally sound, and getting through all the tests. It would take 210 rounds within three minutes, and be able to go back into the field with a full compliment of ammo.

SAR: What’s the most number of rounds that you’ve heard have been through one of these M16 suppressors?

Doug: I don’t know, but I have heard they are using it on the M249 Minimi quite successfully. The SOCOM is issuing the M4 in large, unprecedented numbers. They are planning on buying 8000 of these. They are getting to be used more and more. Part of this is that if you are planning to “own the night”, you don’t want to give your position away with flash. That’s why you need a suppressor like ours for the M16. I know that Crane has put over 5000 rounds through our suppressors in testing, and there’s almost no loss of DB reduction.

Trey: We have suppressors in house that have over 10,000 rounds through them, and we haven’t had a failure yet.

SAR: Are these being issued to all the Services?

Doug: I’m not sure exactly who’s getting them. They’re being issued throughout SOCOM units.

Trey: That brings up an interesting point. We’re up against the ideology that a suppressor is only a sniper’s tool, or an assassin’s tool. There are so many other benefits that a suppressor gives you—properly done, there’s an increase in accuracy, the shot time is decreased due to reduced recoil, as well as other benefits. When you have a supersonic round, you’re going to have a ballistic crack. It’s going to be known that someone’s firing, anyway.

Doug: I think one of the big keys of the supersonic is that if you’re down range, and I shoot past you with supersonic, my position is much more masked than if I shoot past you with subsonic. Subsonic rounds are very directional. If your object is to come back from a mission alive, I would rather shoot supersonic. If the object is that you have to get in and out undetected, then, of course, you have to shoot subsonic. You’re at more risk using subsonic, because if there’s somebody out there when you shoot, your location is more compromised. I think the users are getting more training in the use of suppressors and ammunition. The future will see more and more suppressors used, including in regular army units. They will be a part of “owning the night”.

SAR: Tell me about the SOPMOD system.

Doug: Really, this has been a number of contracts. Reed started with the idea of coming up with ways to mount things to the M16 rifle. When I went to work for Reed, one of the things that they were doing was building some test guns for the Marine Corps. I became involved with that and helped come with the first prototype that mounted in place of the handguard. The more we worked with it, the more of a systems approach we’d take.

Trey: The SOPMOD kit is adding performance to a known weapon.

Doug: It’s going to keep moving forward. The kit is going to change over time. That’s the whole idea. As new pieces appear, they’ll be added, and as pieces become obsolete, they’ll be taken out. The suppressor became part of that kit really because it could be abused and used through all the training, and still survive. It is becoming more of a standard issue piece of equipment.

SAR: Are there any other products which you see yourself working on in the future?

Doug: Yes, as we go into the future, I see more and more suppressors for big guns. We’re expecting a contract from Holland for a 25mm gun, which is a discarding sabot gun.

SAR: How do you deal with the sabots?

Doug: It’s going to be interesting. What’s driving this is that their test range is beside an environmentally sensitive area, with nesting birds. We hope to build a suppressor that will at least take the muzzle blast out of that. They look at DB, not just as a peak, but based on an average. It’s going to be a challenge because the sabot starts to open up immediately upon exiting the muzzle. The suppressor has to accommodate this, and we’ll take our best shot at it. I’d like to do work on the 155mm, as I think there is a need there. How many cannon cockers do you know that have all their hearing? People need to look at the environmental side of suppressors. In Europe, they are accepted because if you go hunting, you don’t want to disturb anyone, or hurt your own hearing. This feeling that suppressors are only assassin’s devices is going to change slowly.

SAR: Tell me about your work with the .50 caliber.

Doug: One of my first projects at Crane was the .50 caliber sniper rifle. Back then, Qual-A-Tec was one of our contractors. We built an aluminum tube .50 cal suppressor with all titanium baffles. We were able to do some real good work with that. We were able to shoot 16 inch groups at 1500 meters, with the suppressor. I see a potential need there, but so far there hasn’t been a large contract for these.

Trey: We are finally getting our .50 caliber rifles into production and start working on the suppressor in the near future.

(Author’s note, Reed rejoins the group at this time).

SAR: Tell me about the Military Armament Corporation auction.

Reed: There were about 15 people there. It was a bankruptcy auction for the entire factory and inventory. It was cash and carry or certified check only. One guy, Fred Rexler, who was a large Class 3 dealer at the time, put in a bid for everything to be sold for $250,000. The auctioneer rejected it, and the auction lasted for 3 days. The most significant thing I remember was them trying to sell guns, but there were no buyers. They had pallets of Mac 10 .45’s, with 100 guns on a pallet. There were 3000 to 4000 guns all together. The auctioneer asked how many people wanted to buy a pallet at a minimum bid of $650. I raised my hand and bought a pallet of 100 guns for $650. The guy next to me told me I was crazy because they wouldn’t be good for anything other than bookends, and I was just wasting my money. I thought to myself that I had just thrown away $650. I raised my hand again when another pallet came up, and bought it. After a while, with no one else buying them, I questioned myself, and what I was doing. I owned two machine guns the day I walked into the auction-an MG 42 and a Mac 10. I walked out of that auction owning 750 NFA weapons. I bought all I wanted, and there were plenty left. Everyone was telling me I would never get them transferred to me, and I would never get my money back. We didn’t know if the government was going to destroy the guns, or if they would transfer them to us. The ATF was struggling with a federal judge and a bankruptcy auction, and since these were assets, the judge wanted them sold. The ATF said maybe they’ll transfer, and maybe they won’t.

SAR: Were these completed guns?

Reed: Most of them were completed guns. All were in boxes and packaged for sale, with matching suppressors in other boxes and lots for sale. I bought some of everything. I had $50,000 in cashiers checks that I took to the auction, and I only spent $11,000. I could have spent a lot more money, but I looked at it, and I was very conservative. If I had been more knowledgeable, I would have done better. At that time, I didn’t know what to get and what not to get.

SAR: What does a Mac 10 sell for today?

Reed: Somewhere between $850 and $1000. I still have 200 to 300 of them left.

SAR: Were you a Class 3 dealer at that time?

Reed: Yes, with my 2 machine guns. I was just setting myself up. I had no real knowledge of what to get or what not to get. I went by myself to the auction, but met Pedro Bello who sat next to me. He cost me a million dollars, and I remind him of that every time I talk to him. He scared me off from making money.

SAR: Who else was at the auction?

Reed: Romalee Skinner was there, the people from Interarms, Ron Martin, and others whose names escape me at this time.

SAR: How did you hear about the auction?

Reed: It was in Shotgun News, and it was just a blitz to state there would be a bankruptcy auction. Nobody really went, though. It was just a fluke that I went. After that, every time someone had an auction, there were a million people there, because they thought it would be like the Military Armament auction.

SAR: I want to thank all three of you for sharing your thoughts and experiences with me and the readers of the Small Arms Review.

OSS Special Weapons & Equipment, Spy Devices of World War II.

By Keith Melton
Foreword by William Colby
Published by Sterling Publishing Company, Inc.,
387 Park Avenue South, New York, New York 10016
Price $14.95 plus $4.50 shipping and handling
Reviewed by Stephen Stuart

During World War II the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the British Special Operations, Executive (SOE) produced a catalog type text that listed all the equipment that was available at that time for it’s personnel. In OSS SpecialWeapons & Equipment, Mr. Melton reprints the entire catalog (copy number 40) for the intelligence historian. The manual is very straight forward in the manner it presents information; first it gives a brief description of the device or item and its intended purpose. This is followed by a complete run down of its characteristics which include, the weight, length, and in some instances, how many per shipping carton and the total weight of the carton in pounds(useful information for clandestine air drops over occupied Europe). Some of the items listed are; brass knuckles, garrotes, and a variety of different knives. Items of interest for the Class III buff are a stinger (.22 long rifle) type pen gun, a .22 lr single shot cigarette, and of course suppressed rifles and pistols. There are other weapons as well that are designed to cause fear or psychological trauma, these include the dart pen and “Who, Me?”. The latter comes in a tube and smells like feces, something that Orientals considered offensive.

For those of you interested in coded messages, a one time pad is covered. As well as the M-94 cipher device. This little device allowed agents in the field a quick method of encrypting and decrypting messages. The larger M-209 cipher machine is listed. Unfortunately, the book does not go into depth on how to operate the different machines or one time pads.

Personally, since I like spy equipment, I found this text a worthy edition to the library of strange (and in some instances forgotten) spy paraphernalia. The best thing about this book is that it covers only the time period during the operation of the OSS and SOE. This allows one to use it as a reference for World War II spy activities, and as a way of dating certain devices, if they are found at antique or gun shows. When used in this regard the text proves extremely useful in the field.

SOVIET RUSSIAN POSTWAR MILITARY PISTOLS AND CARTRIDGES 1945-1986

By Fred A. Datig
Available from
Handgun Press
Box 406
Glenview, Illinois 60025
(877) 852-0966
$29.95 plus $5 S&H
152 pages well illustrated
Reviewed By David M. Fortier

Datig’s work on Postwar Soviet Military pistols is interesting for a couple of reasons. The most obvious is of course for the topic being covered. There are chapters on the PM Makarov pistol, the Stetchkin machine pistol, the diminutive P.S.M. 5.45×17.8 pistol, clandestine handguns and weapons, and Postwar Soviet pistol cartridges. Up until fairly recently not very much was known about any of these handguns. Datig’s work sheds needed light on these interesting weapons.

Datig was working at Aberdeen Proving Ground in the late 1940’s and developed an affinity for Soviet small arms. Over the years he has meticulously collected every scrap of information on Soviet weapons that he could come across. In doing so he has accumulated the wealth of information that is contained in this volume. Covering the weapons, markings, and ammunition Mr. Datig backs up his statements as if he is making a Theological Doctrinal Statement. The photographs are truly excellent, including photos of ornately engraved presentation Makarovs. The section on clandestine weapons is interesting, especially the firearm that looks like a pack of cigarettes, used in a murder in West Germany.

The book’s weakness stems from its publication date, 1988. At this time we were still locked in the Cold War and there was no access to Soviet records or information. Therefore the information contained in the book is reverse engineered. Datig had access to weapons and some information, but he was forced to theorize simply because all the needed information was simply not available. Eleven years down the road with the Wall down and a Makarov in every gunshop we can see that some of his suppositions were incorrect. Never the less, this is still an interesting and valuable resource written on a level not often seen. If these weapons are of interest to you, consider it.

Astra Automatic Pistols

By Leonardo M. Antaris
Published by FIRAC Publishing Co.
PO Box 104, Sterling, Colorado 80751
Price $41.95 plus 4.50 shipping and handling
Review by Stephen Stuart

When I was growing up in Southern West Virginia, the only thing I ever heard about Astra or Spanish firearms for that matter was, “they aren’t worth having, the barrels are nothing more than a sewer pipe”. This opinion of Spanish firearms has been largely passed down in the firearms community. But the truth is, Astra has produced some of the nicest weapons in the firearm community, some of the special engraved editions are truly works of art. In Astra Automatic Pistols, author Leonardo Antaris introduces us into the unique field of Astra handguns.

The original business was Esperanza y unceta and was formed in July 1908. The firm as of the 1980’s has produced in excess of 1.5 million handguns. The earliest model was the 1911 (not to be confused with the American 1911 handgun in .45 ACP). The 1911 was produced in 7.65mm, and was basically a pocket pistol design. Models such as the 1913 (9mm Largo) and the Compo-Giro model 1913-1916 (also in 9mm Largo) helps round out some of the early produced Astra handguns. German World War II handgun collectors will be most interested in the M300 series procured for the Condor Legion during the Spanish Civil War (the author lists all the serial numbers of all these acquired for German consumption). German purchased models such as the Models 400 and 600 are also nicely featured. For those of you who love fully automatic firearms you will not be disappointed. The author includes the Model 900 series select fire pistol (a variation of the German M712 Schnellfeuer pistole). Several of these models are featured; the M900, M901, M902, and M903. These fully automatic pistols are definitely a treat to rapid fire fan. For those of you who can remember the 1950’s and 60’s, the Model 2000 (cub) is covered in great detail. Unfortunately due to the 1968 Gun Control Act, these small pistols are no longer able to be imported. Modern automatic pistols are also in the text, the Mod A-80 is featured (available in 9mm, .38 super, 7.65mm, and .45 ACP), this pistol has a very striking resemblance to the SIG produced handguns, such as the P220-228 series.

I must admit, I only own two Astra handguns (a Model 400 and 600), but I loved this book. I originally bought it to allow me to gain a complete serial number list for the Spanish produced pistols sold to the German Government. After reading the test from front to back, I was able to become more familiar with an often misunderstood series of automatic handguns. The author in 248 pages covers the entire line of semi-automatic and automatic handguns produced from the Astra factories. The tables on serial number ranges is the most complete in any book I have ever found. The black and white photos are sharp, and clarity is excellent. If you were ever curious abut Spanish pistols, this is definitely one of the top books in the field at this time.

Inside The NRA; Armed And Dangerous

By Jack Anderson
Reviewed By Chad Haire

Let me start off by saying this book is an anti-NRA, anti-gun, pro ATF regulation, Pro Bill Clinton script from start to finish. So why review something like this in a firearms magazine? I can give you two reasons. First, it never hurts to know what your enemies are up to. And make no mistake, Jack Anderson is the enemy of all gun owners – something that’s obvious after reading this book. Secondly, this $22.95 book was being dumped in the “we can’t sell them, so by it cheap” section of the bookstore for on $3.95. So even if Jack was getting a percentage of the profits, I doubt he is now.

So who is Jack Anderson? Years ago, he was a well known investigative journalist with a national newspaper column and numerous television spots. However, over the years Jack made many “goofs” that questioned his credibility. But the most questionable story Jack did was on a newly (then) introduced handgun called the “Glock”. Writing in his weekly newspaper column, Jack warned his readers that the Glock was a cheap, disposable, all plastic “terrorist weapon” that could pass through security airport metal detectors and X-ray machines. After this story, the media (and liberal politicians) went on a feeding frenzy, calling for a ban on the Glock, and even got a bill introduced, banning all “plastic” guns. The bill never passed, and all the claims about the Glock passing through metal detectors and X-ray machines were proven to be lies, but Jack is the guy who started the nonsense.

Now that we have some background on the author, lets review this book:

1. On page 50, Jack mentions the Glock again. Does he apologize for the misinformation he printed about the Glock? Nope. In fact, incredible as it seems, he STILL insists all the claims he made were true! For example he tells a story where he smuggled a Glock pistol past the Washington D.C. Capital police metal detector system (which is illegal), then took the pistol to the office of then Senator Bob Dole to demonstrate what he did, and how dangerous the Glock is. What’s interesting here is that Jack admits he had a quantity of 9mm ammo that got through the metal detector too! Sounds like a problem with the metal detector to me.

2. On page 52, Jack claims that the Constitution does not apply to states, only the federal government. So there is no misunderstanding, let me quote his exact words:

“The Second Amendment is a limitation on the power of Congress – That is, on the power of the federal government. It does not impose a limitation on the states, which are free under the Fourteenth Amendment to enact laws as local officials see fit… Thus, Washington D.C., can ban guns with the approval of the city folks, but Montana or Wyoming would be ill advised to try the same thing””

Say what? It states can ignore the Second Amendment, then how about the First, Fourth, and all the others? If what Jack is saying is true, then the states could outlaw freedom of the press, religion, free speech, and everything else! Obviously this claim is totally absurd, but he said it, not me.

3. On page 43, he attacks the NRA for contributing money to “right wing Republicans”, whatever that means. Funny he has no problem with the money taken from the groups like Handgun Control Inc. by left wing Democrats.

4. On page 69, Jack claims the NRA is funding right wing “Militia groups”, who want to take over the government. Of course, his definition of right wing militia is anyone who believes in the Second Amendment, and is against gun control. Any they (meaning you!) are, of course, racists, Ku Klux Klan, Posse Comitatus, anti-abortion, hate mongers, and crackpots if we are to believe Jack Anderson.

5. Jack has plenty to say about WACO and Ruby Ridge too. The ATF were the clean cut all American good guys, while Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians were a bunch of criminals who got what they deserved, he claims. On page 137, Jack tries to convince his readers that it was the “paranoid imaginings of the NRA leadership” that fueled the Branch Davidians and Randy Weavers behavior! Oh sure, Jack.

6. On page 19, Jack tells us there is no way the federal government or Bill Clinton would ever take away our guns, and the idea is a silly NRA fantasy. To quote him:

“They (NRA members) don’t want laws that would take away their guns, but they know perfectly well that Congress is not going to pass an such law and that the president – including this president, Bill Clinton – would veto the law if it were passed.”

Bill Clinton veto a gun bill? Obviously, anybody who believes this line of garbage is totally out of touch with reality! Jack tops this off by saying.

“With or without the NRA, a handgun ban would not pass through Congress in this century or the first half of the next, A rifle/shotgun ban has not chance at all. If the NRA ceased to exist tomorrow, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would be completely secure.”

Of course, anyone who has read the pending Brady Bill part II knows otherwise! And how can the right to keep and bear arms be secure when Jack has already told us there is no right to keep and bear arms throughout this book?

CONCLUSION

I could go on about the total nonsense that’s in this book, but I think you get the idea. This whole publication is nothing but a slanderous piece of anti-gun trash written by a has-been journalist who appears to be attempting another comeback. But more important, it shows just how out of touch the anti-gun kooks are, and why it is more important that ever to stop them. You can be sure I will be renewing my NRA membership next year!.

Genius in Suppressor Design

The design of sound suppressors took a quantum jump forward on May 13, 1986, when the U.S. Patent Office awarded Patent Number 4588043 to Charles A. “Mickey” Finn. In my opinion, the three baffle designs covered by this patent represent the most significant achievement in sound suppression technology over the preceding three-quarters of a century. Not since Hiram P. Maxim’s Patent Number 916885 was awarded on March 30, 1909, had the field of silencer design seen such genius applied to the problem of stealthy shooting. Taking the time to understand how Finn’s innovative baffles work is a great way to jump well up the learning curve on how to effectively dampen the sound signatures of gunshots. In fact, one can make the argument that mastering the information in Finn’s patent will provide the moral equivalent of a Master’s Degree in sound suppression.

Much of the progress in the field of suppressor design throughout the late 1980s as well as the 1990s has been stimulated by analyzing the principals revealed by Finn’s work, and then applying those lessons in new ways. That, in a nutshell, is how progress in science and technology always works.

The easiest way to get your hands on Finn’s patent is to visit IBM’s Intellectual Property Network on the World Wide Web (the URL is http://www.patents.ibm.com). Once you’ve digested this patent, searching the database with key words such as “silencer” or “suppressor” or Boolean phrases such as “silencer + gun” or “suppressor + firearm” will reveal a number of additional patents worth studying if you are a serious student of suppressor design. Using a Boolean search phrase will help avoid a lot of extraneous hits related to automobile mufflers and silencers for air conditioners. But the cornerstone of such a quest for knowledge should be Finn’s ten-page Patent Number 4588043.

The patent describes three distinctly different baffle designs based upon a central concept—the slanted sidewall—which is defined as “a cylinder whose axis passes through the central axis of the sound suppressor at a predetermined angle so as to direct propulsion gases passing through the opening.” The slanted sidewall directs a gas jet diagonally across the gas stream following the bullet, deflecting a portion of that gas stream away from the central axis of the suppressor, where the gases can be slowed and cooled, robbing them of energy that would be perceived as sound. Four of the twelve figures in the patent are included here.

Figure 1 shows the preferred design of Finn’s Type 1 baffle (called the “first embodiment” in the patent, it has subsequently come to be known as the Type 1 baffle by suppressor cognoscenti). While this is a versatile design with a great deal of subtlety, it requires a fair amount of machining. I have seen simplified versions of the Type 1 baffle used for some applications. In fact, a photograph accompanying this discussion shows a Type 1 baffle simplified as much as possible; it’s just a flat disk with a slanted sidewall. Two noteworthy aspects of the preferred embodiment of the Type 1 baffle include the use of asymmetric surfaces to maximize turbulence and the use of geometry to enhance the effectiveness of the slanted sidewall. The Type 2 and Type 3 baffles also incorporate radial openings into the rear of the slanted sidewall (see Figures 2 and 3, respectively). These openings are designed to increase the diagonal gas jet formed by the slanted sidewall.

The preferred embodiment of the Type 3 baffle includes an integral conical spacer and a flat baffle. The baffle incorporates slots in the rear surface that communicate with an annular chamber inside the baffle. The annular chamber dumps gas into the rear of the slanted sidewall via three radial ports. A cut-off chord in the rear surface of the baffle (which is perpendicular to the aforementioned two slots) provides a large third pathway into the annular chamber inside the baffle.

The preferred embodiment of the Type 3 baffle also includes a mousehole at the wide part of the conical spacer (see Figure 4). This mousehole has several functions. It permits the flow of gasses from the coaxial expansion chamber (formed by the conical spacer) back into the central axis of the suppressor. And it releases gas pressure from the front of the coaxial chamber, which prevents the buildup of back pressure that would prevent more gas from entering the rear of the coaxial chamber.

While one can learn a great deal about the outstanding Type 3 baffle from the text and drawings of Finn’s patent, there is no substitute for seeing the actual object being described. Therefore, the photos accompanying this discussion provide details of the Type 3 baffle used in the Large Suppressor designed for the MP5SD-N. The Large Suppressor was manufactured by Heckler & Koch for the U.S. Navy under a licensing agreement from Qual-A-Tec in Oceanside, California. Heckler & Koch used a proportionately smaller but otherwise identical Type 3 baffle in the Small Suppressor, which was designed for the HK P9S pistol as well as the MP5-N and MP5K-N submachine guns. While the designs of HK’s Small and Large Suppressors are discussed in a two-part article that appeared in The Small Arms Review [see 2(4):28-32 and 2(5):28-31], photos illustrating the details of a Type 3 baffle as used by Heckler & Koch were not available at that time.

Note from the photos that the Type 3 baffle design used by Heckler & Koch moved the mousehole from the front edge (wide part) of the conical spacer to the rear (narrow part) of the conical spacer opposite the front edge of the slanted sidewall. Placing the mousehole here increases the efficiency of the slanted sidewall, directing its diagonal gas jet into the coaxial expansion chamber formed by the spacer.

Heckler and Koch began producing robust, accurate and quiet silencers based on Mickey Finn’s Type 3 baffle in 1986. The specific suppressor designs were developed by Finn’s company Qual-A-Tec and manufactured under at HK’s facilities at Chantilly and Sterling, Virginia. The photos of HK’s Small Suppressor accompanying this article were provided by Hays Parks, who was involved with the Navy’s development of an effective 9x19mm subsonic round in the 1980s based on a 147 grain projectile. The goal was to develop a 9x19mm cartridge that would provide an optimum mix of accuracy, incapacitation of the target, and lack of overpenetration. The latter criterion was important since the mission of certain elements within the Navy had been expanded to include in extremis missions such as counter-terrorism and hostage rescue. The HK P9S pistol and Small Suppressor were used during the course of this research program, which spawned the Winchester 147 grain JHP subsonic round that has stimulated the proliferation of 147 grain rounds in the marketplace.

The U.S. Navy is seldom seen as the originator of innovative developments in small-arms ammunition. But in the case of the 9x19mm JHP subsonic round, Navy innovation made a significant contribution not only to military technology, but to technology available to the law-enforcement community and private citizens as well. (The Navy’s development of this round is discussed at length in Silencer History and Performance, Volume 1; ISBN 0-87364-909-5). It is reasonable to assume that 147 grain JHP will play a major role wherever 9mm ammunition is used for decades to come. While the HK 9mm suppressors using Mickey Finn’s Type 3 baffle are now out of production, they remain in the Navy’s inventory, and they should provide service well into the future as well.

Most important of all, Mickey Finn’s innovative baffles and suppressor construction have fundamentally changed the field of silencer design. If one uses a yardstick based upon the number of practical and effective suppressors developed by other designers based directly or indirectly upon the principals revealed by a designer’s work, then one could make the case that Finn’s slanted sidewall baffles represent the most important contribution ever made to the field of sound suppressor design.

That may overstate the case only slightly, for Hiram P. Maxim provided the first commercially successful silencer designs, proving that gunshot noise could be reduced substantially by a simple, compact and practical device that could succeed in the marketplace. We might not be having this discussion at all without Maxim’s contributions. Furthermore, Maxim’s outstanding designs still work pretty well by modern standards even though they date back to the era of primitive canvas and wire biplanes.

When Finn turned his genius to suppressor design, the state of the art was not much different from World War II technology developed during the era of the radial engine. Finn’s work catapulted the field of suppressor design into the Space Age, providing a quantum jump in the state of the art and fundamentally changing the direction of subsequent developments. It is my contention that the contributions made by Hiram P. Maxim and Charles A. “Mickey” Finn to the field of suppressor design can best be described by the word “genius” since they have contributed “extraordinary creativity” to the field of suppressor design. That’s quite a legacy.

Hawaii has a lot of firearms enthusiasts. Those of us from the Free Zones tend to think of the Controlled Zones as places where no interest in firearms is evident- but nothing could be further from the truth. SAR has a huge following in places like California, New York, and yes, Hawaii. Personally, I love going to the islands, so it didn’t take a lot of convincing to get me to pack up and go set up SAR at the Labor Day Weekend Gun Show at the Blaisdell Center in Honolulu. I had other business on Oahu anyway, so a small gun show might be fun- that was what I was thinking….

The Hawaii Historic Arms Association puts on this show twice a year, on Labor Day Weekend, and in early March. The show is a 250 table show, and it goes for two days. I expected to shake hands with a few subscribers, sell a few back issues, and generally enjoy some camaraderie with a few like minded individuals. Silly me. At the end of the weekend, SAR was sold out completely, and we had two new dealers on the islands.

From the moment the doors opened, the SAR tables were busy. Mark Genovese from Maui had arranged for a nice display of semi auto beltfeds, and these were set up with SAR. The interest there was amazing. From grizzled old vets to Gen-x comp shooters, there was a constant flow of people there with either interesting stories about firearms use, or interest in obtaining their own semi autos. These belt fed semis are legal in the islands, after following the local ordinances.

It is important to note that high capacity magazines (Over ten rounds) that are for a handgun are illegal. If you are going to a show, be very careful of what you get involved in. Rifle caliber mags are alright. Someone offered me a Luger snail drum for $275, under their table in a box. Scary incident… until we looked closer, and it turned out to be one of the European copies that only fit 9 rounds, with the snail on it just for appearances. Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean there isn’t someone out to get you.

My scavenging turned up some really interesting parts- optics for an M9A1 Bazooka, scope mount for my 57mm recoilless, various small parts for WWII guns, etc. Although it was only a 250 table show, it was a great scrounging show for me. There were also a lot of connections to be made with people who had stores of military collectibles. On the table across from SAR was a rather interesting sword. It was a presentation model, with the inscription “To L.M. Judd from members of the Machine Gun Company, 1st Infantry, NGH”. Unfortunately for me, the owner was a collector himself, writing about the subject, and no amount of browbeating or whining would get him to name a price.

If you are planning a trip to the Islands, I would highly recommend this show as a place to visit. The people that run it are enthusiasts, and it shows in the way that the gun show operates. It is geared toward the collectors and the shooters.

The next show is March 3-4 2000. As I understand it, some tables might still be available. Aloha, and I will see you there!

Contact:
Hawaii Historic Arms Association
PO Box 1733
Honolulu, HI 96806
808-623-7234