Dear SAR,

The 2nd issue of SAR looks great, however an ad in your November classified section reguarding the sale of “Pre-Ban” H&K Socom 12 round magazines annoys me. Other “dealers” around the country have been offering these mags as well. This may be a good subject to address in your reader information pages.

There never was any such animal as pre-ban high capacity (12-rd) OCOM pistol (MK23) magazines! Regardless of what anyone says, these magazines are simply stolen US Government property! The production contract for the MK23 pistol and all the spare mags was not even awarded until June 1995, after the Crime Bill was enacted.

The MK23 contract called for the USG-ordered magazines to be delivered to the USG without the Crime Bill markings, with an exception granted by BATF of course. This is how the more than 20,000 magazines ordered and received to date after May 1996 by the USG in support of the 1,950 MK23’s purchases were delivered.

The 12-round Mark 23 magazines that we order and stock here for general sales with “commercial” Mark 23’s to Law Enforcement and Military customers are marked with the Crime Bill markings as is required by law. The exception was/is only for those weapons delivered to the USG.

There were never any USP45 12-round magazines made intentionally without the Crime Bill markings. While it is possible to insert magazines of the MK23/Mark 23 in the USP45 (not vice versa due to the different floor plates), these magazine are different and should not be interchanged. The feed lips and floor plates are different between the two magazines. Swapping these magazines can reduce the reliability f the weapons when the incorrect magazine is utilized

You may wish to inform your readers that if they buy (or sell) 12-round unmarked magazines for the MK23/Mark 23/0, they are buying/selling stolen US Government property, plain and simple.

If their claim is that these unmarked magazines were produced prior to the Crime Bill and imported through another source beside HK Inc., that’s a lie as well. If their claim is that the magazine housing is UPS45 pre-ban with a MK23/Mark 23 floor plate fitted to it, that’s also untrue. Ask the “dealer” his source for the magazines in question and see what his response is.

While there could be a few (less than 60) prototype, 12-round unmarked SOCOM OHWS Phase I or Phase II magazines floating around, most of these were delivered to the USG with the prototype pistols (except for a handful that we kept here) and were thus purchased by the USG and are thus USG property also. However, the Phase I prototype magazines do not fit in Phase II or production MK23’s/Mark 23’s or USP45’s.

I have inspected one of these so-called pre-ban magazines actually purchased from one of these “dealers”. It is in fact one of the mags we sold to the USG on the contract.

Be advised, that the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) is aware of this issue and have an ongoing investigation into the loss of this controlled, USG property. Buyer/Seller beware!

Jim Schatz
HK, Inc.

Thank you for the facts on these magazines Jim. Hopefully you have helped keep some of our readers out of unwanted trouble.

Ed

Dear SAR,

I am reading your Small Arms Review Vol 1, No 1 which came in the mail today, and like it very much. You asked for suggestions as to future content of the magazine. I was reminded of the various issues of Life Magazine during the early 1940’s during World War II (A long, long time age) which had in almost every issue one or more articles dedicated to explaining some sort of military small arms of both the Allies and the Axis nations. I was absolutely fascinated by these articles at the time, and wish that I had put them aside to look at in the years since then. I think your current readers would also be fascinated by reprints of these articles (as would I), perhaps one to an issue of Small Arms Review. That is to say, if the current publishers of Life Magazine could be persuaded to allow them to be reprinted.

Thomas J. Horton
Sun City, AZ

Dear SAR,

I am so thankful that you have picked up were Machine Gun News has left off. I like the street address of 223 Sugar Hill Road. I Like 223, but I am writing with regards to page 36 of Vol. 1 No. 2 In the photo number 11, would that be a XM177 or the XM177E1 model and not the E-2 model? Help me out on this one. Thanks

Jeff Hooper

Number 11 is correct for either model. Later models had the collar added, as illustrated in number 12, but still shared the same moderator. The extension at the front was a Flash Hider.

Ed

BY The Small Arms Review Editorial Staff

Dear SAR

Situation Report March 2000 Issue – As always, you are right on! I have collected firearms all of my adult life – for over thirty five years – and as we become second class citizens in the eyes of those who would destroy the Second Amendment it is time to become politically active. There is little time left. Many people from the President to the media are ready to take away our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

John de Groseilliers

John, I personally, and everyone that I know at SAR feels just about the same. Complacency is our enemy- and as we move towards the November 2000 elections, we need to be ever vigilant and help reminds our friends to get out and VOTE!

Dear SAR

Have you every heard of anyone converting a 9mm Uzi to full auto, firing from a closed blot? This would be a big improvement! If you haven’t heard of this being done (with your experience with full auto guns) it probably has never been done. Would you write me back on this?

G. Greynolds

Certainly. IMI has manufactured closed bolt Uzi’s in each of the three basic sizes, but it was after the point that the importation was practical, thus most Uzi’s in the United States are open bolt guns. The concern was the first round accuracy loss that is somewhat inherent in open bolt firearms-or rather the perception of it. When your major competition in the LE market is the HK MP5, well, you have a lot of things going against you. The MP5 is a fine LE firearm, and the Uzi doesn’t really compare in that role- my opinion. The opposite can be said for having a mass of soldiers running through the desert- the Uzi is easy to “hand” in combat, and point fire is a proven combat advantage for the Uzi operator- also my opinion. The MP5 series is much more surgical, and very popular with LE users for that reason. This might open up an argument similar to the “9MM or 45” Tastes Great Less Filling wars, but to your question, yes there are closed bolt Uzi designs, but they never really made it to the states in any quantity. – Dan

Dear SAR

I don’t write many complimentary letters, but felt I must express my particular satisfaction with the Feb 2000 issue of SAR. Every article was interesting and well written, I particularly enjoyed the article “Johnson’s boys” I would encourage SAR to include one such firsthand article in every issue. The true life history of those using our most interesting weapons in battle provides us a deeper understanding of the practical use of our weapons. More importantly, articles of this type deepen our gratitude to the brave men who went in harm’s way. We all owe continuing gratitude to Mr. Bardwell for his insight on NFA legal issues. For many of us, the ever changing complexities of gun laws are as interesting as the guns themselves. The always well written article by Captain Monty portray our sport in the positive light it deserves. Reed Knight interview, Gatlings, Industry News, Ma-deuce – – All rounded out what I thought was the best ever SAR.

Norbert N. Smoot

Thanks for the “Up” on this. We need an attaboy every once in a while. I agree that we need to have user perspective stories on small arms, however, we try to keep them to that- related to the small arms. There are other magazines that do a wonderful job of covering the tactics and history of wars. Our job is the guns.

Dear SAR

I just wanted to express how much I enjoyed this particular issue of SAR particularly the section dealing with 50 assembly-disassembly timing etc. I hope in the future you can continue these pictoral breakdown articles in guns such as MG-34’s, MG-15’s and MG-13’s (old German stuff in particular) as it is very hard to find manuals that deal with this stuff. Keep up the good work.

Dave Wright

Dave, we have a lot more planned in the future, and it is our desire that issues of SAR will always be used as a reference for the firearms community. If you have particular firearms you wish to see this done with, please let us know.

By The Small Arms Review Editorial Staff

Dear SAR and Fellow NRA Members:

Gun owners are being legislated and litigated to death. Our hunting and shooting rights are vanishing before our eyes. Most gun owners are not NRA members. Most are with us in spirit, they’ve just never gotten around to actually joining or they’ve let their membership drop. If all of us in the shooting community were NRA members at the same time, the anti-hunting, anti-gun crowd would be rendered powerless. Our sheer numbers would overwhelm them.

After I realized that we either increase the membership fast or continue to lose our rights one piece at a time, I decided to see how many NRS members I could sign up on one year. I originally hoped I might sign 100. That seemed like a lot to me. Well, my year is now up and I’ve signed over 4,000 members! I was amazed how easy it was. All I did was get permission to ask the customers at two local gun stores if they were current with the NRA memberships. People signed up like crazy. They signed their wives, their children and their In-laws and friends. I actually signed 85 people in one day. Every one of them is a nail in the anti-gunners coffin. What a glorious feeling that day was. No more was I helpless. I was fighting back and winning. One person can’t make a difference? BULL!

If you would like to know how satisfying this can feel, please consider becoming a volunteer NRA recruiter. It’s easy. If you are good with people, know how to sell, can keep your temper, have a good appearance, and a little or a lot of time and want to make a difference, you can do it. Men, women, young and old can all be successful recruiters. I’ve already helped 38 people get started. It perfect for retired folks, college students, or a husband and wife looking for the perfect part-time job. A friend of mine recruits on a Saturday. He has 4 kids and a full-time job. He makes on average $200 every Saturday. Yes folks, the NRA pays you to do this. Talk about the perfect job. It works part-time or full time.

To get started call NRA recruiting at 703-267-3759. They will do the rest. We either united and fight or lose more and more of our gun rights. It’s that simple. If you and I don’t do the work, who will!

Richard H. Clise, NRA Recruiter

Here, here! While we sometimes get caught up in fighting amongst ourselves, those of us who are gun owners need to be members of the organizations that fight the good fight. While we may disagree on some issues, the fact is that the anti-gunners are anti- ALL guns- anti- Second Amendment. Now is the time, wherever you are is the place. If the NRA can do it, then go with them. I would also suggest Gun Owners of America, the 1934 Group, among others to support. If you disagree with someone’s policies, then lobby them hard to bring them into line. We need to be powerful, this year of all years. This is the year we could throw off the yoke of Clinton-Gore, and get the stench of the abuses they and their cronies committed washed away.

Dear SAR,

Kudos to SAR and Robert Bruce on the two-part Ma Deuce articles- I really enjoyed them and found a lot of useful information in both parts. I do have one problem, however, and that has to do with the section on headspace. Headspace is not the distance between the base of the cartridge and the bolt face, and I was surprised to see you let that go through in the description. It is very misleading to make that statement, and I expect better from SAR- love the magazine and thanks for polybagging it so my mailman doesn’t read it first!

BK

This is going to sound like I am splitting hairs, but I am not. Robert Bruce and I both know that headspace is not the distance between the cartridge base and the bolt face, which is why the sentence is written the way it is. If you go take another look at it, you will see it says “Headspace is observed as the distance between the face of the bolt and the base of a fully chambered cartridge”. That word “Observed” was selected very carefully, so as to not have to get into a dissertation on headspace, and to be able to easily and clearly explain what the individual is doing with the gauge. I immediately had the same thought you did when I proofed it, but on reflection, the sentence is absolutely correct and I let it go.

SAR has a series in the basket that gets more deeply into headspace and timing in various guns, but it is more related to interior ballistics in scope. That is just fine by us, and we will be bringing it out later this year. We also have some series coming on various systems of locking, as well as gas take off. It should all be quite helpful and interesting, but we can’t fit it all in one issue. For those who wish to delve deeper into the subject, Hatcher’s work is an excellent place to start, or Robert Rinker’s excellent book on Understanding Ballistics is outstanding as well.

Gagging the Bill of Rights
By Larry Pratt
Executive Director, Gun Owners of America

One of the most insidious and outrageous attacks on the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms is the attempt to exercise so-called “prior restraint” by denying a person a firearm when there is no reason whatsoever to do this.

One such case we at Gun Owners Foundation (the litigation arm of Gun Owners of America) are involved in, a very important case, involves a citizen in Texas. This case is before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (No. 99-10331). It’s known as United States v. Emerson. We’re on the side of Timothy Joe Emerson, the defendant.

Under federal law, Emerson was indicted for possessing a firearm while under a routine restraining order issued in the course of a Texas divorce proceeding between him and his former wife.

The district court dismissed the indictment on the grounds that the statute was unconstitutional under both the Second and Fifth Amendments. The U.S. Government appealed this dismissal.

Our argument is very clear: The Second Amendment codifies a fundamental—we would say a God-given—right, and individual right to keep and bear arms, independent of and unrelated to any power of the States to create and maintain a military force, and independent of and unrelated to any power of government to regulate commerce.

Thus, this right is severely infringed when the mere passive possession of a firearm is criminalized by the issuance of a boiler-plate domestic relations restraining order not based upon any evidence or finding of a threat directed toward the person protected by the order.

In our legal brief defending Emerson, we document in detail, with scores of references, the fact that the Second Amendment says that it ,means what is says. And we note that what is most impressive about this almost total academic consensus is that may of the scholars we quote are either self-identified “liberals” or unconnected with the pro-gun movement.

But, in a tribute to the intellectual honesty of these scholars, they tell the truth about the Second Amendment and what it means-even though some of them are for gun control.

And by agreeing with the true meaning of the Second Amendment, these scholars are in line with members of the US Supreme Court who from 1857 to 1990 have said, in what is known as dicta, that the right to keep and bear arms is a personal and individual right of free citizens.
And this brings us back to Timothy Joe Emerson who is, obviously, a person, and individual. As we argue, his personal, individual Constitutional right to possess firearms was not merely infringed. At the instant the state court judge entered a domestic relations restraining order against him, his Second Amendment right to posses firearms was destroyed, negated, nullified.

Emerson was instantly transformed into a Federal felon and — this must be repeated — this was done even though there was no evidence and no judicial finding that he was a threat to his wife.

The Second Amendment is unfairly and repeatedly singled out for “prior restraint” attacks that would be found totally unacceptable — and have been so found by the courts — if they were launched against any other amendment.

For example, nobody would even think of going to court to try and deny, in advance, someone’s First Amendment free speech right because of what that individual might say if allowed to speak — whether that person was a public speaker, a preacher in a pulpit, a talk show host, and editorial writer or even a judge.

The courts have stated that one cannot use his “freedom of speech” to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. Andy yet, no one argues that officials should gag everyone who goes into the theater, thus placing a prior restraint on movie-goers.

The proper response is to punish the person who does yell “Fire”. Likewise, citizens should not be “gagged” before exercising their Second Amendment rights, rather they should be punished if they abuse that right.
In defending our freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, we must tell the Congress “No prior restraints”!

We of course, have no idea how the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will rule. But, we hope and pray they will uphold the true meaning of the Second Amendment. This is a bell tolling for all of us.

The Gun Owners Foundation brief, along with the Emerson opinion by Judge Sam Cummings can be found on the web at http//www.gunowners.com/legal.htm.

Larry Pratt is Executive Director of Gun Owners of America in Springfield, VA

Dear SAR,

About a year and a half ago, a WWII veteran approached a local class 3/collector with what you see in the photos, Imagine the dealer’s surprise when he saw a near mint MKb(H) 42, along with 500 rounds of ammo! (Ed- we didn’t have room for the photos at this point)

A quick inquiry revealed the sad news that the gun was never registered and therefore contraband. The gun was duly reported to ATF and turned over to them the following day, which coincided with our monthly shoot. ATF allowed all present to handle and thoroughly examine this rare and historic firearm. The condition, as I stated, is excellent. The serial number is in the 800’s range, (if my memory serves). Significant differences between this gun and the final product, (the MP44) are the full length gas tube, bayonet lug and a two lever safety/selector system, (as opposed to the safety level and push-through button selector on the MP44).

Our local ATF office has agents who, besides being firearms enthusiasts, are well aware of the significance of this particular weapon and went the extra mile to protect and preserve this unique piece of firearms history. Through the auspices of local agents and John Magaw, Director at ATF, the agency arranged for the gun, along with the history of the veteran who captured it, to be donated to the Springfield Armory Museum. The gun resides there today.

My point is the examples of good relationships between ATF and NFA community abound, you just never hear about them. Our local agents are professional, pro-gun for the most part and we have always had excellent relationships with them here in South Florida.

Sincerely, Doug Andrews

SAR: What a wonderful story. Unfortunately, it can be balanced very easily with many stories of the guns taken from the rightful owners and destroyed by the US government. It is a sad thing that so many war trophies, historic or exotic pieces, have been destroyed. It is cheering to hear about a group of government employees doing their jobs properly. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is not supposed to be an advocacy agency- neither “Pro”, nor “Anti” firearms ownership- they are supposed to enforce the regulations and tax issues that are presented to them by the people of the United States, through the legislature. This is supposed to be done under the auspices of the Constitution of the United States.

I would suspect that the agents you dealt with were not “Pro-gun”, but that they were simply professionals doing a job, and may have taken pleasure in seeing such an historic piece placed in a museum. On a personal level, they may well have taken pleasure in this as well.

This writer’s opinions on the subject are pretty well known, but I will attest to them once again. While I do not expect to see one in the present political climate, a continuing Amnesty program is needed. Why should this heroic American citizen be stripped of his trophy from that battle for Freedom years ago? The answer is simple; he shouldn’t be. He should be allowed to register this firearm, and leave it to his lawful heirs. Do I object to the taxation of the National Firearms Act? Of course, but I acknowledge that it is one of the Constitutional tools that our legislature has chosen to use. We have to live with this situation every day, so we make the best of it. It is the 1986 act banning further manufacture, and the 1968 GCA that allowed the first Amnesty that need to be looked at. There have been around 32 years of injustice on this issue.

Why is it necessary for this wonderful piece of history to be ripped from the arms of its rightful owner, and placed into a government-affiliated museum, where Lord only knows if the general population or even the owner will ever see it again? Simply because there are some criminals exist who might misuse it if they found it? It is doubtful the basic crackhead could load and operate the gun, let alone use it to rob convenience stores. Certainly the law abiding citizen who owned the Mkb 42h was within his constitutional rights to own it. What possible reason could there be for him to not keep it? Why couldn’t the NFRTR be noted that this piece was in his possession? He certainly had it before the 1968 Amnesty.

I am preaching to the choir again. I don’t see there being a general amnesty right now, but considering the fact that the NFRTR has been demonstrated to be “Off” many times, perhaps a corrective measure would be to de-criminalize certain forms of paperwork non-compliance- in order to get things “Right”, and then allow for an on-going registration process at least for certain war trophies. I am going to keep working towards this. Almost all Class 3 dealers have had their transfer “Nightmares”- the notice from NFA Branch that “a firearm is not in your name- please prove that it is”. That’s why we all keep records as meticulously as possible. What could be wrong with treating the process like the tax collection registry that it is, and going for good data, and allowing legitimate war trophies to stay in the hands of the veterans and their families?

SAR has some VERY interesting articles coming up on the NFRTR and inaccuracies. Keep your eye on these pages.

And, thanks for the heartening story, to those of us who collect and study these firearms, seeing an Mkb go to a museum instead of the chopping block is kind of like a pet lover seeing a dog at the dog pound find a new home, and all of us are wishing we could have given that poor little Mkb a nice, safe, warm home ourselves.

– 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

Dear Dan,

I have been watching the news, and watching the election preparations. I keep wondering if you or anyone is going to activate the Committee of 1776 this year, and to try and repeat the successes of the elections of 1994. We could get the rallies going again, and maybe do the march on Washington again. Do you think it is possible?

Bill H.

Bill,

As I write this, the New Millennium is a few weeks away. Odds are that you are reading this after the Y2K computer glitch has either fizzled out, caused some problems, or entered us into a new age. Without a crystal ball, I have no way of knowing what is coming, but I suspect that when it is all said and done, it will be business as usual. Babies being born, wars being fought, billions of people with hopes and dreams that they work hard for every day, and others drifting in directionless limbo. Above all else, the fight to stay free will be an ongoing thing.

I sometimes take a private space to put a couple of thoughts down, and I am presently across the puddle and far from home, thinking about the future. The land I am in today has fought bitter battles for survival, and yet, they have meekly laid down their arms to “Fight crime” and “Save the children”. Only crime has not gone down, and the children are still at risk. The only thing the people here have lost is their ability to defend themselves against predators. Their television shows are filled with helpless people who must turn to the authorities for self-defense, and unrealistically, the police can always help.

It is sadly not like that in the real world. The lessons of history show that the predators always show up eventually, and if you can not defend yourself and your loved ones, then you and your way of life die off.

As a student of history and the martial world, I have a somewhat unique perspective among the people in my community. Most of the readers of SAR share that perspective. We know that the America of today’s world exists in a small bubble in time, that the average American feels pretty “Good” about the future prospects of peace, safety, etc. Yet, it has not been that long since our streets ran in blood- about thirty years. The streets of fire have made brief appearances in the past three decades, from the Boston riots to the LA riots, from Waco to Oklahoma City. Overall, it has been a fairly peaceful time compared to what other countries have gone through. We haven’t had a declared war here since the 1860’s, and the memory of what it is like to really have to defend your home in a military style fight is buried almost that long ago, with some few exceptions.

The elections of the year 2000 are almost upon us. The real players have been positioning themselves for several years. It is incumbent upon those of us who are defenders of the Constitution to be prepared. We must stick together, and not be divided. We must fight this good fight, and we must win the battle at the polls. The whole of our future is riding on this coming election. To view it any other way, is to continue on the long slide of the last 30+ years. Giving away yards to save inches must stop.

We must work together. We must be effective. We can not get stopped and trapped in the details that our enemies throw at us, to get us turned on each other. We must demand to know where our elected officials stand on positions that matter to us, and then get the word out.

Above all else, we must be active in getting our side to the polls on voting day. This should be a year of rallies, a year of voting drives. Every time you see your political enemies riding through areas to “Get the vote out” or “Rock the vote”, remember that they are only looking for those so inclined to vote the Liberal line. Those with a vested interest in continuing a welfare state, a limited police state, a nanny state, are those who would foolishly disarm the population in the name of “Safety”. They do not understand what they give up, for they have not had to earn their freedom. It’s much like “Easy money” that comes and goes so quickly- freedom that is taken for granted is freedom that is quickly lost.

To your question on the Committee of 1776; I don’t think that would be a useful vehicle anymore. What started at a kitchen table in Maine, and caught fire at kitchen table discussions across the country, served its stated purpose and is gone. The steam was effectively let out of C1776 in 1995. In 1994, the Committee had between 80,000 and 100,000 people in 26 states out for the Rally for Firearms Rights, and a solid 15,000 at the memorial in Washington DC for our National Rally. Considering that Handgun Control, Inc had a Rally in DC around the same time, with 80 people there after weeks of national exposure in the media, tells the lie about who has the most support.

We need new vehicles to carry the message this year. We should stick together, and support the existing organizations that fight for the Second Amendment, but somewhere, somehow, we have to get out in front again. We have to do so now, as we move into the year 2000. We need to have momentum before the polls, and we need to get our people out to vote.

If you have ideas, SAR will be glad to publish some, to help engage a forum for the discussion. However, time is short, and we need to get active now- make that Pro-active. Above all else, remember that if we don’t get the voters out next November, we and our descendants are the ones who lose. See you at the ballot box!

– Dan Shea

Dear SAR,

I just had to pass this information on to you. I am stationed with the U. S. Army in Germany, and have been for many years. I just got a letter from the Provost Marshal, indicating that the German government is withdrawing the permits that U.S. service men and women had for their firearms. This places U. S. military personnel in the position of breaking German law if they continue to own any of the firearms that have been rescinded. My firearms are kept on post, but they will still be illegal, and the units are requiring us to turn them in for safekeeping. I am disgusted by this. (This letter was sent with attached letter from the Provost Marshal requiring the turn in of the firearms, and some news reports on the issue.)

Name with held on request

I am flabbergasted as usual by the U. S. Military stance on personal firearms. The freedom of our military personnel on their posts should echo the freedom that they have within our borders here. I fear that political correctness is eroding away at our military’s backbone, and this is just one more case. Lest anyone think I don’t understand the freedom that is surrendered when you enter the military, I was Regular Army way back when, and I know that Uncle Sam owns you. HOWEVER, firearms ownership is as American as Apple Pie, and traditionally the military has encouraged marksmanship and firearms ownership in its regular forces. In the last ten years or so, firearms have been becoming a bugaboo, and disturbing situations like (Name withheld’s) are getting more common.

Why would a young man who has the warrior’s spirit go into today’s military? I am not getting caught up in the gender battle here- simply pointing out one of the major impediments to modern recruiting. If you want to be part of a fighting force, to enjoy the esprit de corps, be part of something bigger than yourself, then you by nature are involved in firearms use. Because some country that we have posts in has strict regulations regarding firearms ownership, does not mean that our military personnel on our base should be restricted.

Dear SAR,

I enjoyed your article concerning your visit to the NDIA conference and the live fire demonstration that obviously was impressive to those attending.

Please note that under the photograph of the “STRIKER” 40mm Grenade weapon on page 64, reference is made to SDI developing and manufacturing this gun, the M60, M2 and Mk 19 weapons. As a matter of clarification, SDI did not develop the M60, M2 or Mk 19. This credit should be reserved for Springfield Armory, John M. Browning and the United States Navy. As for the “STRIKER”, credit should be reserved for the late Eugene Stoner and his staff at ARES, Port Clinton.

J. Stephen Sarles

Duly noted and appropriately corrected, we hope. All those whose minds were misled by our caption, please signal acknowledgement with a long burst on a US beltfed. Most John Browning designs would seem appropriate

– Dan

Dear SAR,

First let me congratulate all those at SAR for being responsible for a continuing quality product. The cynicism & petty fear of losing a few bucks that I saw at the publications inception seems largely to have died a natural death. Those who complain about the odd article on beer steins, toys or tank museums are forgetting that ‘Man does not live on bread alone’ and the wide world of small arms is very wide indeed. So long as there is at least one informative and well-written piece in SAR I shall count my South Pacific Peso’s well spent. To date they have been well spent many times over with each issue.

What prompts me to put finger to keyboard this time is “No Place To Hide- The OICW Goes To War” by Charles Sweda (SAR Vol.2 No.9). I write because the article is totally uncritical and appears to have come direct from HK’s PR department or from JSSAP.

Whether the OICW is the greatest boon to the infantry since heeled boots or whether it is just another technology demonstrating toy is irrelevant. By ‘critical’ I don’t mean a hatchet job but simply a knowledgeable and hard look at the system- pointing out it’s faults as well as it’s good points in an unbiased fashion. Charles Sweda did none of this.

Some examples are now in order:

-On page 46 is a bar graph comparing OICW recoil to that of a M-14 & M-16. The text states that the recoil of the OICW is 1/3 that of the M-14. The representative bar on the graph is almost 25% that of the M-14- an old advertising trick.

-Also on page 46 is a comparison with the M-4A1 & M-16A4 titled ‘OICW Bottom Line’. The cost of the AR-15 derivative is listed as being about USD$35,000 and mass’s about 24.37 pounds. It seems that figure is calculated by factoring in every possible accessory for the M-4A1/M-16A4- including the expensive & heavy Texas Instruments TI. This is not a valid comparison and again is an old technique from the advertising game.

-’OICW Bottom Line’ also states that the OICW expends 34 rounds for the loss of one friendly to kill a 9 man squad, while the AR-15 derivative expends 1683 rounds with the loss of 71 freindlies to do the same job. It beats me how those nine hostiles managed to kill/incapacitate 71 friendlies before being polished off by the survivors- or even how this was calculated. However, if you want to play that game, consider this: how many rounds would a 2 man sniper team require to kill that same 9 man enemy squad? Should we then make M-24 or AW the standard issue weapon?

-The possible spin-offs from the OICW program needed to be examined rather than an ‘all or nothing’ approach. This is important for it is spin-offs that the OICW programs predecessors (for example the SPIW & ACR programs) are notable for. If the OICW 20mm munitions are so effective (measured against 40x46mm), then why not a reworked M-230 chambered for it? If the optical sight is lighter, cheaper, etc than those it is being compared to, then mount them on the issue weapons and achieve a drastic reduction in system cost & mass.

There are other examples in the article but these will serve to illustrate my point.

So to sum: “No Place To Hide- The OICW Goes To War” seems to be based entirely on non-critical material provided by the manufacturer or JSSAP program managers. The author seems to have made no attempt to provide any balance to this or to present additional research on the topic. I have found it hard to see any difference between this article and one crafted by HK as part of a PR campaign for their product.

Articles by the manufacturer, distributor or program manager on the topic of their products are always welcome- so long as that is what they are presented has. However, it is the type of material represented by “No Place To Hide” that SAR has to be very cautious of- not colour photo essays on badges or characters blindly over-enthusing about their pet toys. Why? Because it is the difference between just another hack gun glossy and a World-class small arms journal.

Peter Lindsay

No apologies coming from me for this one, Peter. The readers of SAR should be aware that Peter is highly respected in the small arms community, and I don’t take this criticism lightly. However, I am not about to run around the office, shouting “Lop off the head of the dolt who allowed this in SAR”, because I carefully reviewed this article, approved it, and edited it. The buck stops here.

If you look at articles in the general gun press from the 1950’s and 1960’s, beside the fun stuff and the proverbial puff pieces, you will note what I call “Vision” pieces. Stories on the AR-10 and AR-15 that read like science fiction. These were attempts to get the idea of what a new system was supposed to do out to the general public, that is the general public that has an interest in shooting or military affairs. These vision pieces served a purpose, and I believe they do today as well.

We are not talking about the newest Colt pistol here, that our readers are attempting to purchase. We are talking about the newest concept our military is fielding in small arms. I am on record as a critic of the system, and have been publicly lambasted by some of the boosters of the OICW when I confronted them with my “Naysaying”. Those who know me can imagine the form THAT was done in, with some biting sarcasm and comments to the effect of “Oh my, you really CAN manage to get the majority of that small amount of shrapnel to come downward instead of going in the full 360 degree spread, even though this projectile is spinning at … hmmm … 100,000 rpm… Oh, well, it will eventually ALL come down due to Mr. Newton and his friend Mr. Gravity…”. Well, there are a lot of people who are critical of the system, but most don’t have any idea of exactly WHAT the JSSAP objective is. This article does a really good job of explaining that.

I have stood by this through the small storm of controversy that has been out there, and listened to the negatives and the positives. I stand by it, and also pledge to continue with other articles that are looking at the negative sides of the project. More importantly, it is the desire of all of us at SAR to continue to bring information to the readers. Sometimes it is going to take this form, and what I have now learned is to put a prelude paragraph on it, warning people that it is a Vision Thing. And, regarding those 71 friendlies, I had just assumed they meant “Collaborators”

– Dan

In Memoriam: Gunnery Sgt Carlos Hathcock

05:45 23 February 1999: Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock, renowned as a hero by many due to his prowess as a sniper in the Vietnam War, passed away. He had long been battling Multiple Sclerosis, and it finally took its toll.

Gunney Hathcock was a friend to many of us, and SAR will be bringing the readers some of our remembrance of him in future issues.

The family requests his memory can be served by donations in his name to:

The Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, Inc.
6350 N. Andrews Ave., Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309.
Website: http://www.msfacts.org/

Cards of condolence may be sent to:

Mrs. Carlos Hathcock
600 Raff Road
Virginia Beach, VA 23462

Semper Fidelis, Long Tr’ang, you will be missed.

SAR Special Issue coming up!

SAR is planning a “Special” issue in the coming months. We have not decided on a date yet, but it is going to be about what the readers and advertisers are making. If you have a new product that you want to get some exposure for, we are planning a full issue of one or two page “Shorts” describing these items. We want to help everyone to get the news of their products out to the public… so contact us at SAR and let us know what you’re producing.