By Jonathan Ferguson, Photography by N.R. Jenzen-Jones

The XL60 series of experimental firearms was the first generation of what was initially known as the “485 Weapon System,” designed and produced at the Royal Small Arms Factory (RSAF) Enfield, located in North London, United Kingdom, by a team led by Sydney Hance. The term “485 Weapon System,” so-named for the weapon’s 4.85mm calibre, was later dropped in favour of “Enfield Weapon System” or EWS, which persisted until at least 1982 but was ultimately also side-lined. Instead, the name “Small Arms of the 1980s” or “SA80” was adopted and remains in use to this day. This term is used alongside the land service or “L” designations (e.g., L85A2). Interestingly, this name was in use from the very beginning by the British Ministry of Defence (MoD), sometimes with the prefix “Section” as in “infantry section” or squad. As per the preliminary study and MoD specification, the EWS/SA80 system comprised rifle and light machine gun variants, known by their period NATO euphemisms of “Individual Weapon” (IW) (today simply “Rifle, 5.56mm”) and “Light Support Weapon” (LSW) (a term still in use today, sometimes considered interchangeable or overlapping with “squad automatic weapon,” or SAW; automatic rifle; and light machine gun, or LMG). Several variants emerged during development which all received their own designations. This can get confusing, so these official designations are detailed here:

• XL64E5—the Individual Weapon (IW) standard rifle in a right-handed configuration;
• XL68E2—the rifle in its left-handed configuration;
• XL65E4—a “Light Support Weapon” aka “Machine Gun” variant (LSW/MG), right-handed;
• XL69E1—“Machine Gun” variant, left-handed.

The “00 series”

However, this is jumping the proverbial gun somewhat, as there are two earlier iterations of these prototypes that should be first discussed. In 1972, British Ministry of Defence followed on from the preliminary study covered in the previous article. By this time, it had been decided that the new weapon family would be a modern bullpup in a small calibre high velocity (SCHV) calibre. As covered previously, the gas system and working parts of the new weapon were very closely based upon an existing and straightforward design—the Armalite AR-18. This should have shortened and eased the development process, but this was not to be. The author’s strong impression from having read a great deal of material in the Pattern Room archive and extensively handled and stripped the weapon is that every effort was made to design an original, British weapon that would take the best features of contemporary weapons, just as Kalashnikov’s team had done in the Soviet Union (albeit with a great deal more success). These features include:

1. Ammunition of 4.85mm calibre. This was based upon the U.S. 5.56x45mm cartridge, with an elongated case containing a longer, slimmer bullet (of identical 55 grain weight) thought to exhibit better performance (it certainly demonstrated better penetration than the M193 at range) and reduced recoil.
2. Lightweight, “unorthodox” or “buttless” (i.e., bullpup) configuration, capable of conversion at the unit armourer level for left-handed users.
3. An optical sight equivalent or better to the existing Sight Unit, Infantry, Trilux as fitted on a designated marksman basis to the L1A1 SLR (FN Herstal FAL).
4. Provision for a night sight.
5. Area target capability (achieved through rifle grenades or underbarrel launchers).

Despite the pre-existence of the Steyr AUG and FAMAS bullpup self-loading rifles with their convertible left-/right-handed design (and claims in the gun press to the contrary), the SA80 family was never made “ambidextrous” and relied upon different variants to meet this user requirement. None of these could be converted without replacing the entire barrelled upper, nor could they be fired from the opposite shoulder without risk of injury, specifically the cocking handle striking the user in the face (to say nothing of hot brass cases). In the event the requirement was dropped and all soldiers taught to fire from the right shoulder; nonetheless, from the outset both rifle and machine gun were intended to be made available in left- and right-handed versions.

This first batch of developmental weapons were not “type classified,” but in terms of design lineage we will treat them as part of the XL60 series, which in turn is a phase of the EWS/SA80 project. The first 12 prototypes made were known as the “00 series,” despite the fact that 12 were made (001–0012). Eight of these were IW (rifles) and four were LSW (light support weapons). The first prototype ever made is marked “R No. 001” on the upper receiver (“body”) and “No. 001” on the lower (“trigger mechanism housing” or TMH), one of three examples in the Royal Armouries ex-Pattern Room collection. The “R” stands for “Rifle,” while the LSW bears an “L” prefix for “Light Support Weapon,” despite being interchangeably referred to at the time as a “Machine Gun.” One of the IWs was produced in 5.56x45mm in an early acknowledgement that 5.56 already existed as a rival, and the new design might require conversion at a later date (as the EM-2 had to 7.62x51mm). Contrary to a claim in Raw’s book, this was built in 5.56mm and was not later converted as part of the XL70 family.

The Sterling Conspiracy Revisited

We have previously debunked the claim that Enfield built their AR-18 bullpup conversion from parts stolen from the rival Sterling factory. Indeed, while Enfield might be argued to have borrowed rather heavily from the AR-18, they did not do so from Sterling, who had yet to begin production of the AR-18 when Enfield first designed the weapon. However, there is another related myth pertaining not to the converted AR-18 but to the actual Enfield prototypes in the “00” series. This appeared in The Observer newspaper at the height of the controversy over the in-service SA80 in 1992: “In 1976 Edmiston and his designer, Frank Waters, saw the prototype SA80 at the British Army Equipment Exhibition in Aldershot. It was a bullpup design, a squat rifle with a minimal butt, and its operation looked curiously familiar.”

“Frank was allowed to take it apart,” Edmiston told The Observer. “He found our bolt carrier, our magazine and parts out of our gun. These weren’t even copies. They had bought some of our guns and were using the parts to make the SA80 prototype.”

A former weapons designer with Royal Ordnance confirmed that claim. He added that the original prototypes, basically an amalgam of the Armalite AR-18 and the bullpup design of the old RO EM2, were good, promising guns, “but the design was fiddled with by committees in the MoD and Royal Ordnance.” The gun, he says, “has never been the same since.”

This is impossible. The prototype shown at the exhibition was the “00 series” gun; mechanically based on the AR-18 to be sure but containing no interchangeable parts. In fact, this may be a misquote on the part of the Observer journalist. In his own autobiographical book The Sterling Years, also published in 1992, Edmiston states that the Enfield director toured the factory in 1979, but only “some three or four years later” did Frank Waters inspect prototype SA80s. In this account Waters does not suggest that the parts were actually Sterling-made, simply that they were close in design, which is quite true. The similarity of the AR-18 and EWS/SA80 working parts and gas parts is interesting to be sure, but hardly unique in the history of small arms design (as noted in a previous article). Indeed, neither these parts nor any other feature of the Enfield were in breach of Sterling’s, nor Armalite’s, nor IP.

Armalite was granted a detailed patent for the design of the AR-18 in a number of countries including the UK (GB1056056 (A)) and the U.S. (U.S.3318192 (A)), though only the 1967 UK patent is relevant here. In the UK, patent duration is 20 years; meaning that this one was still in force when the EWS/SA80s were being produced. Yet it is the specific nature of Armalite’s patent claims that make them irrelevant here. Because each claim describes their design in detail, a given weapon would have to be a near-identical copy to risk infringement. Enfield clearly knew this, since they made no attempt to hide their inspiration. Hance even patented the EWS design with direct reference to one of Sullivan’s patents; although for some reason he cited the 1964 patent for the AR-18’s folding stock design and not the actual 1967 patent covering the receiver architecture of the AR-18. This is very odd given that the Enfield (as a bullpup) had no buttstock. It is also noteworthy that Armalite did not attempt to patent the AR-18’s gas system, only a reciprocating bolt carrier with a rotating bolt, and only where this was installed in a receiver matching their precise architecture (to which, if anything, the Sterling LAR and SAR-80 are much closer).

Design Features

Controversies aside, the basic design of the 00 series guns goes a long way toward meeting the original requirements, being neat, compact and lightweight (especially without the hefty SU.S.AT). It balances well in the firing hand and is easily manipulated. Aside from the inevitable ergonomic issues presented by the bullpup configuration, it is an obviously early effort. The cross-bolt safety is located conveniently enough but is small and yet at the same time easily pressed inadvertently. The magazine catch is located on the wrong side of the weapon and rocks in the wrong direction for easy manipulation with the left (support) hand. The cross-bolt selector is easy to operate, but inconveniently located at the rear of the receiver.

Also, because “R” for “Repetition” (see Editor’s Note at end) is in the centre position, it is possible to accidentally place the selector on either the “A” (to the left, for Automatic) or “3” (to the right, for three-round burst) position. The small bolt handle lacks the AR-18’s upswept profile, making it harder to cock with the support hand than it might otherwise be (most likely to prevent the firer’s arm being struck during hip fire). The adjustable gas plug is marked “E,” “R” and “0.” E is for “Excessive” and “Zero” for launching rifle grenades. “R” is a mystery, as the provisional manual produced for this series does not clarify this detail. As this setting on later patterns is “N” for “Normal,” perhaps here “R” stands for “Regular.” The weapon is easily disassembled for cleaning with the removal of one captive pin and a sprung retaining band on the handguard. However, the hammer must be manually depressed with a tool in order to reinstall the bolt and carrier.

Overall, this early SA80 prototype typifies period small arms design and manufacturing principles, being of spot-welded, pressed (stamped) steel construction with synthetic furniture and featuring the optical sight and SCHV requirements already noted. The finish is black paint over phosphate, with bluing for the optical sight and mount. The magazine catch, handguard retainer and butt-plate are simply painted black. The grey polymer handguard and pistol grip are roughly machined from solid polymer (glass-reinforced Nylon 12 polyamide), the former having four widely spaced finger grooves and the latter being similar in shape and grip angle to the AR-18 original. The butt-plate is now a custom piece and is deeply grooved. There is no cheekpiece, and no dust cover is yet provided. As has been noted, the working parts are very close to those found in the AR-18 but despite claims to the contrary, have not been directly copied and differ in every detail. Unfortunately, this includes a very weak bolt head; a feature actually borrowed from the Stoner 63 bolt. The trigger mechanism too is substantially different to that found in the AR-18. As well as the long trigger bar required by the bullpup arrangement, every component of this assembly is of a different shape and arrangement. For example, in the AR-18 the disconnector is located at the rear of the mechanism and protrudes through the middle of a (slotted) pressed steel hammer in order to hold the latter back during cycling. In the EWS, the same component (the “sear interceptor” or interceptor sear) operates on a bent in the bottom of the cocked hammer, which is a differently shaped solid casting and is therefore positioned beneath it. Because it is adapted from the AR-15’s trigger mechanism but uses a different, shorter bolt carrier, the AR-18 uses a long, two-part auto sear assembly that is anchored to the selector axis pin. The EWS uses a simpler, more purpose-designed, single-piece lever (“safety sear”) pivoted on the trigger axis pin.

The barrel is of similar “pencil” profile to the AR-18 (and indeed contemporary AR-15/M16 rifles), but that weapon’s pronged flash suppressor was abandoned in favour of a pseudo-cone-shaped design reminiscent of the PKM device but featured three large ports in front of a second annular ring. The weapon is fitted with a prototype SU.S.AT sight (retrospectively designated XL9E1) serial number 001. Like the SUIT, the pointer inside drops down from above rather than sticking up from below. This is often thought to be a uniquely British design, but in fact it was somewhat common at the time. The standard Colt telescopic sight for the AR-15 has a similar inverted pointer, the theory being that a military user brings his weapon up from a low ready position and so would not wish to have his man-sized (300m distant) target obscured by his own sighting system. There is no provision for iron or backup iron sights.

Finally, a steel 20-round magazine is fitted, necessarily proprietary in design due to the greater overall length of the 4.85x49mm cartridge. The magazine is numbered (“5”) by hand and is painted with a white stripe down the right side, presumably both for recognition purposes during the design process. Again, it would have likely been easier to adopt the AR-18 or AR-15 magazine.

As one might expect, the Light Support Weapon is virtually identical but features a longer, heavier barrel with a bipod and a bulkier handguard design with ventral channels to accept the folded bipod legs. Interestingly, the only mechanical change was to add a reciprocating mass (a tungsten pellet) to the bolt carrier in order to reduce rate of fire and, especially, carrier bounce, which had caused significant problems. This feature later became standard on both the IW and LSW.

The “00 series” feasibility study resulted in a further set of rather vague parameters that might apply to any new small arm. The new weapon should be:

1. Lightweight;
2. Compact and easily handled; and
3. Simple to operate, aim, fire and teach.
4. It confirmed that the new weapon system should comprise:
5. An Individual Weapon (IW) (a small calibre rifle) to replace the rifle, L1A1 (SLR) and SMG, L2A3 (“Sterling”); and
6. A Light Support Weapon (LSW) (specifically a machine gun in the same calibre) to replace the L4A4 (Bren) and ground role L7A2 GPMG.
7. Both should be selective fire.

The “0 Series”

This gave the green light to another pre-production series known as the “0 series,” again based upon its serial numbering. These weapons were produced from 1975 to 1976 and represent the second evolutionary step toward the final SA80. The major improvements comprised:

1. Revised reinforced receiver architecture.
2. Rock in’ magazines with an L-shaped catch relocated to the left side, intended to be operated by the support hand thumb.
3. Three-round burst feature deleted.
4. Selector switch replaced with a rotary design marked “R” and “A,” similar to the SA80 design.
5. Trigger weight reduced from a ridiculous 24 pounds to 8-10 pounds.
6. Flash suppressor machined as an integral part of the barrel (to reduce costs) and fitted with an annular ring and spring for grenade launching.
7. Rear sling loop on top of the receiver.
8. Properly moulded and textured polymer furniture including a cheekpiece glued onto the upper receiver. A bipod mounting point is incorporated into the spring-clip handguard retainer.
9. A lengthened sight bracket was fitted to allow for proper eye relief.
10. Provision for emergency iron sights; a folding front and a removable rear (the former being kept folded when not in use and the latter stored in a new compartment in the grip).
11. A bolt hold-open device activated either automatically by the follower of the empty magazine or manually by a small catch (part of the hold-open bar itself) protruding from the bottom of the lower receiver. This is not a bolt release, however, so the cocking handle must be operated to close the bolt.

The bolt has been reinforced; it is now cut away to only 2/3 of its maximum diameter in order to accommodate the (still quite large) extractor.

The bolt carrier group was standardized for both IW and LSW with a new flat-sided design, including the anti-bounce feature. It also incorporates a guide lug on the rear lower left side. Along with the cam pin, this runs in a special channel welded onto the inside of the upper receiver. Amusingly, the rear of the carrier is now marked “R,” presumably for “rear” to avoid incorrect user insertion!

Some examples of the 0 series were further modified. Their bolt carriers were relieved on both sides with large lightening cuts, and these were marked “FOR TRIALS ONLY.” They also bear a revised design drawing number to reflect this change—all of the experimental weapons in these series have components marked with drawing numbers to keep track of the different build standards and modifications. The “trials” in question must have been those carried out on the 0 series to inform the next iteration of the design (rather than the NATO trials). Finally, it appears that a hinged dust cover was also designed at this time but was not widely fitted (by means of spot welding) until the final iteration of the XL60 pattern (see below).

In addition to all of these changes, the 0 series LSW/MG also received a new cylindrical pattern of pinned-on flash suppressor (which Raw calls a “muzzle brake”) and optional 30-round magazines. A single example of an LSW with detachable barrel was produced, as well as an experimental under-barrel grenade launcher.

The Enfield Weapon System Unveiled

It was at this point, on June 14, 1976, that the new family of weapons was officially revealed to the public and dubbed “Enfield Weapon System” along with a series of official “XL” (for “eXperimental, Land service”) designations. Despite the use of 0 series weapons in promotional photographs, technically speaking, the XL numbers listed at the beginning of this article should apply only to the third and final iteration of the original design that emerged after this date. This series incorporated feedback from the 0 series and efforts at “value engineering” to make the design viable for mass production. These weapons were serial numbered with “B” prefixes for the IW and “J” for the LSW (although with proper XL designations, there is no longer a need to refer to them by their serial ranges). They featured:

1. A FAL or AK-style paddle magazine catch replaced the AR-18 style rocker switch/button, with matching changes to the magazine design.
2. A new lever-type safety catch on the left side (regardless of left- or right-handed variants).
3. Redesigned bolt carrier patterns specific to IW and LSW variants (see below).
4. Further revised polymer furniture with more texturing. The new handguard dispensed with the bipod attachment point, replacing it with a simple D-ring sling swivel and, for the first time, featured a proper sheet metal heat-shield.
5. A revised butt-plate with optional extended butt-plates to vary length of pull (this made the longer sight bracket redundant). The sling loop reverted to the bottom only.
6. 30-round magazines were now standard (but notably, not yet STANAG standard).

As before, the LSW variant differed primarily in its heavy barrel and bipod and was claimed to possess 80% parts commonality with the IW. However, the handguard, gas plug, safety sear (auto sear), change lever and, importantly, the bolt carrier were all of different patterns. Both BCGs featured a flat outer side, but the rifle pattern had a deep lightening scallop in the outer face, and the LSW version instead had a groove machined into its inner side (above the cam pin and guide lug, aside from a single exception where a rifle pattern BCG was originally fitted to an LSW but later installed in a rifle and re-serialized). This groove appears to simply give greater clearance for the bolt carrier and prevent it from rubbing against the internal cam pin rail, presumably to improve open bolt functioning. A new bipod was designed, this time with sliding adjustable legs, and the pinned LSW-specific flash suppressor was reverted to the previous pattern (as on the IW barrel).

The new XL64E5 and XL65E4 offered improved ergonomics thanks to the new pattern safety and magazine catches. The non-ambidextrous safety lever is actually easier to operate for left-handed shooters, who are able to use the index finger of the firing hand to sweep it up and down. Right-handed shooters need long thumbs or are obliged to break their strong-hand grip. As ARES writer Ian McCollum notes, however, the safety is rather large and easy to operate inadvertently, especially with left-handed guns/users. The change lever (selector switch) carried over from the 0 series design is adequate but, like many XL64/5 components, is a complex shape that would later be simplified.

Reliability Issues

It was this build standard that was used in the problematic NATO ammunition trials. These both revealed reliability issues with the weapon design in its prototype form and buried the idea of a British 4.85mm cartridge. The biggest issues were with the trigger mechanism, namely:

• Weapon firing auto when set to single shot; and
• Trigger not returning to the fully forward position when released.

These issues were blamed on ingress of dirt and other foreign material (although two other “runaway gun” issues were identified with 0 series guns that were unrelated to this cause). Examining a trigger mechanism housing today, it is easy to see why the very tight fit of parts might result in problems of this nature. The weapons also suffered feed problems, notably a failure to eject. There were also problems with poor welding and weak and out-of-spec components. The biggest early issue was with barrel wear; the 4.85mm EWS barrel provided a service life of only 3,000 rounds, compared to 20,000 for the AR-15. This seems to have been solved by (or at least by the time of) the shift to 5.56x45mm. None of this—with the possible exception of the excessive barrel wear—is surprising for a new design and could no doubt have been solved given sufficient available expertise, resources and time.

The final iteration of the XL60 family was in many respects a promising, compact and lightweight design that reflected the cutting edge thinking of the day. Enfield made a good choice in borrowing from ArmaLite’s AR-18, and they broke no laws and infringed no patents by doing so, just as many other manufacturers continue to make liberal use of the successful features of earlier rifles in their modern designs. These features were a sound basis for a modern combat rifle, and Enfield’s design could have been a successful bullpup derivative of that weapon. However, as we shall see, the path to the truly capable SA80A2 series was to be a long and difficult one.

[Editor’s Note: In the Second World War period it appears that “R” officially stood for “Rounds.” This potentially confusing term was replaced by the more specific “Repetition” from the EWS pamphlet onwards.]

••••••••••••••••••••••••

Special thanks to the National Firearms Centre at the Royal Armouries, who graciously allowed us access to their world-class collection, and to the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom at Shrivenham, for allowing us to handle and fire an EWS rifle. Thanks are also due to Neil Grant.

See armamentresearch.com for further original content.

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

Right side view of the Japanese Type 11 light machine gun with canvas sling.

By Robert G. Segel

In preparing research for this article it was found that there was no consistent consensus on the actual proper name of this weapon among the many sources utilized – both in English and in Japanese. A good part of that may be as simple as how the Japanese word or words were translated into English, the time period or era in which it is discussed or the emblematic usage of a nick-name. This gun is known by many names: Type 11, T-11, Taish? 11, Nambu Type 11, Nambu Taish? 11 and Model 1922; with Type 11 and Taish? 11 being the most encountered. For consistency purposes the name used throughout this article will be Type 11 as that is what it is commonly known as and accepted in the broadest of terms.

History

At the turn of the twentieth century, the Japanese military, like most of the rest of the world, was unsure of the effectiveness of machine guns and what they meant and how they were to be used on the battlefield, whether offensively or defensively and how they would, or would not, affect the outcome of engagements. They had no modern firearms strategies and relied on foreign designed guns to test, evaluate and use. The leading candidates of the time were the water-cooled short recoil Maxim gun and the air-cooled gas operated French Hotchkiss gun. The Japanese ultimately chose the Hotchkiss Model 1901 gun as they felt that even though the Hotchkiss used 24-round feed strips, being air cooled and lighter in weight provided them with a mobility advantage without the reliance of always being near a water source. Thus it was the combat knowledge gained in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 where the Japanese used the Hotchkiss Model 1901 heavy machine guns versus the Russian Maxims that convinced the Japanese of the usefulness of machine guns; particularly in providing covering fire for advancing infantry.

Later, as World War I raged all across Europe in 1914, Japanese military attachés made direct observations of the battles and combat tactics, which ultimately reinforced their estimations of the use of automatic weapons in warfare. Wanting to expand its sphere of influence in the Far East, Japan sided with the Allies and declared war on Germany in August 1914, quickly occupying German-leased territories in China’s Shandong Province and the Mariana, Caroline and Marshall islands in the Pacific. While the rest of the world was focused on the European battleground, Japan continued to expand and consolidate its position in China and expand control over German holdings in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia. World War I permitted Japan to expand its influence in Asia and its territorial holding in the Pacific while the Imperial Japanese Navy, seized Germany’s Micronesian colonies.

It was in 1914 that Japan started production, under license, of the Taish? 3 heavy machine gun based upon the design of the French Hotchkiss Model 1914 as their heavy machine gun in 6.5x50mm Arisaka ammunition. Beyond that, they recognized the value of a lightweight, man-portable weapon such as they saw with the Lewis gun as a huge advantage for infantry on the offensive. After the hostilities ended in Europe, the Japanese Army Technical Bureau was charged with the development of a lightweight machine gun that could be easily transported and used by one man in the infantry squad resulting in the Type 11 in 1922. Gaining combat experience in Japan’s growing sphere of influence in Manchuria and northern China confirmed Japan’s effectiveness of providing automatic covering fire for advancing infantry troops.

The first light machine gun to be manufactured in large quantities in Japan was the Type 11 light machine gun and when accepted was “Typed” in commemoration after the 11th year of the reign of Emperor Taish?, or 1922. The gun was a highly modified design by the famous Japanese arms designer General (then Colonel) Kijir? Nambu, based on the French Hotchkiss Mle 1909 light machine gun. Retaining the cooling fins on the barrel and the collapsible attached bipod, instead of using the typical Hotchkiss feed strip design, he developed a hopper feed housing design holding 30 rounds to feed the weapon. He also completely redesigned the bolt and locking system. His design also meant that the bolt violently extracted the spent cartridge casing requiring an oiler system to oil the cartridges prior to chambering. This oil reservoir had to be located immediately over the center of the feedway causing the sights to be offset to the right. He then radically changed the shoulder stock configuration to be offset to the right to be ergonomically beneficial because the sights were offset. The Type 11 saw active service in the Imperial Japanese Army from 1922 through to the end of World War II in 1945. It was the oldest Japanese light machine gun design to see service in the Pacific War in World War II even though it was superseded by the Type 96 light machine gun (6.5x50mm Arisaka) in 1936 and then the Type 99 light machine gun (7.7x58mm) in 1939. Both those guns resembled the 1920’s design of the Czech ZB 26 being gas operated with a top feed magazine and bipod mount, but the Japanese guns were completely different internally.

Type 11 (1922) 6.5mm Light Machine Gun

The Type 11 was the standard equipment in the Imperial Japanese Army infantry squad. It is gas-operated, air-cooled, and hopper fed and full automatic only. Like many Japanese automatic weapons, its design stems from the French Hotchkiss system, but the method of feed, consisting of a removable feed housing hopper attached to the left side of the receiver in line with the feedway and charged with clips of cartridges, is unique. The hopper holds six five-round stripper clips; or thirty rounds in all. The five-round clips are stacked lying flat above the receiver, secured by a strong spring arm follower, and the rounds stripped from the lowest clip one at a time, with the empty clip thrown clear and the next clip automatically falling into place as the gun was fired.

The hopper can be refilled while attached and does not require removal during operation and can be replenished at any time. The inherent and obvious disadvantage of this hopper system was that the open feeder box was susceptible to dirt, dust, grime and mud entering the gun. That, along with poor dimensional tolerances, made the gun prone to operational jams. Additionally, it was practically impossible to reload the weapon during an assault charge due to the clip feeding system and the strong spring arm follower holding the cartridge strips in place. A soldier literally needed three hands to reload the weapon while advancing

The ammunition is loaded with 5-rounds in a stripper clip with 1,440 rounds to the wooden box. A small cardboard package contains 3 stripper clips (15 rounds). A small steel ammunition box to be carried with the gun has capacity for 24 clips (120 rounds).

Another unique and easily identifiable aspect of the Type 11 is the ‘bent’ buttstock to the right. The trigger housing extends behind the trigger with a very narrow metal wrist that then expands into a wide wooden buttstock. This entire assembly is offset to the right. Since the cartridge oiler is located along the top of the receiver along the centerline axis, the sights have to be offset to the right. The idea being that the stock was also offset to the right to align with the offset sights. (Though offset sights are not unusual in guns designed with a magazine feed on the top of the receiver like a ZB or Bren gun, whose stocks are not offset, apparently in 1922, Colonel Nambu thought it mattered.) Another (weak) theory that surfaces on occasion hypothesized that due to the weight of thirty cartridges loaded in the hopper that hangs from the left side of the gun, to counteract that weight imbalance, the stock was offset to the right.

Overall, identifying the Type 11 may be easily observed by the unique feed hopper, the cartridge oiler located on top of the receiver, the cutout thin wrist section of the wide wood shoulder stock that is offset to the right, the front and rear sights being offset to the right and the markings, which are on top of the receiver and reads Juichinen Shiki meaning “11th Year Type.”

The weapon has a bipod fixed permanently to the gun near the muzzle that can be folded rearward back along the gas tube and barrel when in transport. It can also be fired from the model M1922 folding tripod mount, which is carried by the gun squad for use as desired. When the mount is used the bipod is folded back along the barrel. This mount has both a traversing and elevating mechanism. When the gun is to be used against aircraft, the legs are extended and the tripod raised to its maximum height, which places the gun about four feet from the ground. The elevating device is then unfastened so that the gun will have free traverse and elevation.

Operation

A safety lever located on the left of the trigger guard is shifted downward until approximately vertical for “safe.” In this position its lower end engages a small notch in the side of the trigger guard and cannot easily be displaced. For “fire,” the safety lever is rotated backward and upward until it points horizontally to the rear.

The safety lever is attached to the end of a pin, part of which is cut away. When the safety lever is set at “safe,” the solid portion of the pin obstructs the trigger, whereas when it is set on “fire,” the cutaway allows the trigger to operate freely and to depress the sear.

Before firing, one must be sure that the oil in the oil reservoir is adequately filled. As the rounds are fed into the gun, they work against an oil pump. This allows a small amount of oil to come down on the cartridge, thus oiling the rounds as they are fed into the gun. The ammunition is oiled as this gun does not have a slow initial extraction to prevent ruptured cartridges.

The rate of fire is regulated by means of a gas regulator with several openings of different sizes for the passage of gas through the regulator until it strikes the gas piston. The gas cylinder has five holes of different sizes and is numbered 10 – 15 – 18 – 20 – 28, the small number being the small hole. These holes regulate the force with which the bolt recoils. Adjustments are made to ‘smooth out’ the action of the gun so that only enough gas is utilized to force the recoiling parts to the rear smoothly and without their striking the buffer with excessive force. After initial regulation, changes are necessary only when the gun becomes excessively fouled and dirty, so that more force is required to drive the parts rearward. If the bolt recoils too fast, a smaller hole should be used. If the bolt recoil is slow, sluggish or insufficient, a larger hole should be used.

The ammunition hopper must be filled and is accomplished by raising the follower and placing six five-round clips in the hopper. The follower is then lowered on the cartridges. As the follower is under spring tension it holds the cartridges down against the feed mechanism in the bottom of the hopper.

Cock the gun by pulling back the bolt slide (operating handle) on the left until the projection on the piston engages the sear notch. Push the operating handle forward until its catch clips into the receiver. The gun is now cocked and ready to be fired.

As the bolt is pulled to the rear the operating slide cams the feed slide to the right. As the feed rack plunger is against a shoulder of the feed housing, it causes the feed rack, due to a diagonal cut in the feed slide, to be cammed up until the feed rack plunger (which also raises), comes to a cut-away portion of the feed housing. During this movement the feed racks raise and engage the cartridge in the lower clip. As the feed rack plunger has raised to the cut-away portion of the feed housing it allows the feed and stripping racks to move in with the feed slide, stripping a round from the lower clip and placing it in front of the holding pawl. At the same time the feed rack plunger is cammed in and comes out in another slot.

As the bolt comes forward and pushes the round into the chamber, the feed slide is cammed out. As the feed rack plunger is in another slot the feed racks are held, due to the diagonal cut in the feed slide. The racks are cammed down until the feed rack plunger is cammed in. During this action the feeding and stripping racks have dropped down below the level of the cartridge. After the feed rack plunger has been cammed in, the feeding and stripping racks move out with the feed slide until they reach their outmost position; at that time the feed rack plunger comes out into the first slot and the cycle is repeated. After the cartridge has been stripped from the clip, the clip is ejected out the rear bottom of the hopper by the clip ejector.

The holding pawl is holding the first round of ammunition in line with the chamber. As the trigger is pulled it causes the sear to move down, disengaging the sear from the operating slide. The operating slide, bolt lock and bolt travel forward under the pressure of the compressed recoil spring, the bolt chambering a round. After the bolt has reached its forward position, the operating slide continues to move forward. As it travels forward it cams the bolt lock down behind the locking lugs on the side of the receiver, locking the breech. As the operating slide continues to move forward, a portion of the operating slide strikes the firing pin, driving it forward, striking the primer and firing the gun.

As the projectile passes the port in the barrel the gases pass down through the port and into the gas cylinder, giving the gas piston a push to the rear. As the gas piston is made on the forward end of the operating slide, the slide also moves to the rear. The first one-half inch of movement cams the bolt lock up, unlocking the bolt. During this movement the bolt lock cams the firing pin back from the face of the bolt. After the bolt is unlocked the operating slide, bolt lock, bolt and empty cartridge case, which is held to the face of the bolt by the extractor, recoil. When these parts have recoiled a sufficient distance, the rear of the bolt strikes the ejector, pushing out on the rear end of the ejector, causing the front end to pivot in knocking the empty cartridge out through the ejection port opening. The operating slide, bolt lock and bolt continue on to the rear, compressing the recoil spring until the bolt strikes the buffer fork, thus absorbing the remainder of the recoil force.

The front and rear sights are of necessity offset to the right to prevent obstruction of sighting by the oil reservoir. To set the rear sight, press the knurled catch on the left side of the rear-sight slide, move the slide to the desired range, and release the catch. The rear sight is in increments ranging from 300 to 1,500 meters. There is no means for windage adjustment.

To unload the weapon, pull back on the knurled feed-housing lock on the feed-house assembly, where it projects out of the lower center of the right side of the feedway, and remove the entire feed-housing hopper assembly to the left. Remove the live ammunition from the feed well of the feed-housing hopper assembly and replace the feed-housing assembly in place on the gun. Do not attempt to unload the gun by working live rounds through the gun, because it fires from an open bolt and will fire when the bolt closes and locks.

Disassembly

Always make sure the weapon is unloaded by visually checking the hopper magazine, feed-housing assembly and the chamber.

Taking care that the backplate does not fly out under spring tension, remove the backplate pin by releasing the catch, turning it down to a vertical position, and puling it out. Remove the backplate group and operating spring.

Pull the bolt slide (cocking handle) to the rear and remove the operating slide, the bolt, and the bolt lock. Line up the lugs on the bolt slide with the opening on the side of the receiver and remove the bolt slide to the left. Lift the bolt and bolt lock from the operating slide. Slide the firing pin from the rear of the bolt and remove the bolt lock from the bolt by sliding off the top of the bolt. Lift up on the front of the extractor spring and rotate it to the left ninety degrees, and remove from the bolt. The extractor will now lift off of the bolt.

To remove the feed housing from the receiver, pull the feed housing lock, on the front right side of the receiver, to the rear. Slide the feed housing to the left, removing it from the receiver. Note that the feed housing can be removed in the same manner when the gun is assembled and the bolt is in battery position. To further strip the feed mechanism, raise up on the feed slide lock on the rear left side of the feed housing. Slide the feed mechanism to the left, removing it from the feed housing. Slide the stripping and feeding rack to the left and lift up on the stripping rack, separating the two pieces. Press in on the feed rack plunger and lift up on the feed rack, removing it from the feed rack. Extreme care should be used in removing the follower spring. Remove the follower stop, which is located to the rear of the follower pivot. Then raise the follower up, holding the front of the feed housing against a table or some other object to catch the follower plunger and spring. The follower can then be removed by aligning the lugs on the follower pivot with the cut-away portion of the follower bearing on the feed housing. The holding pawl should not be removed except in case of breakage. It is then drifted out to the left.

The oiler assembly is removed by pressing down on the oiler lock, which is located directly in front of the rear sight, and sliding the oiler assembly to the left, removing it from the receiver.

The trigger housing and stock can be removed from the receiver by using a drift to drive out the trigger-housing split pin from right to left. This pin is located between the trigger housing and receiver, directly behind the trigger. By pulling the trigger, the trigger housing together with the shoulder stock can now be removed by sliding it off to the rear of the receiver. To further strip the trigger housing, rotate the safety down, raising up on the end of the safety at the same time, and continue rotation until it is in the forward position, then pull out, removing the safety from the trigger housing. Drift the trigger pin out, removing the trigger, sear and sear spring.

The barrel jacket can be detached by removing the barrel jacket lock retainer plate, which is located on the left rear part of the gas piston tube, by drifting to the front of the weapon. The barrel jacket lock retainer can be removed and the barrel jacket lock drifted to the front of the gun, removing it. The barrel jacket will now unscrew from the receiver, right hand threads.

Unscrew the gas cylinder from the front of the gas piston tube. Slide the gas piston tube to the rear about one inch and remove from the bottom of the barrel jacket. The barrel is pressed into the barrel jacket and cannot be replaced without having access to a press.

The ejector is located on the left top corner of the receiver and is removed by removing the ejector pin. The bolt locks are located under a plate and are pressed into the receiver, on the right and left side of the receiver, directly behind the feed opening.

Accessories

The Type 11 light machine gun was intended for both infantry and cavalry use. Among the accessories of this weapon are manuals, a small armor shield, foldable tripod, waist ammunition pouch, spare barrel, spare barrel cover, spare feed-housing (hopper) pouch, bulk ammunition sacks, muzzle cap, canvas and leather transport case, spare parts and tools maintenance kit and steel ammunition box containing 24 five-round strips for a total of 120 rounds. There were also special pack and saddle outfits for use by the cavalry.

Conclusion

The Japanese Type 11 (1922) light machine gun was an early attempt at a single man-portable automatic weapon following in the footsteps of the Lewis gun, Chauchat and Hotchkiss Portative. Using the French Hotchkiss as a starting point, tweaking the operating system and adding a unique feed mechanism and a bent buttstock, Colonel Kijir? Nambu made his mark on this early design. Though light and man-portable, its unique feed system was a central cause of its problems in various sandy or muddy environments that Japan fought in and having to oil the cartridges prior to chambering was a big drawback both operationally and logistically. Nevertheless, the gun, when properly maintained, was accurate and reliable and provided the cover for advancing infantry that it was designed for and saw extensive use in Manchuria and China prior to World War II. Although in the 1930s, in skirmishes with the Chinese, the Japanese army realized that their awkward, hopper-fed Type 11 was inferior to the Czech ZB machine guns used by the Chinese and set about to create a similar type of weapon that became the Type 96 and Type 99. With approximately 29,000 Type 11s manufactured from 1922 to 1941, and superseded by the likes of the Type 96 and Type 99 light machine guns, it was never declared obsolete and fought alongside the newer types throughout the entire Pacific Campaign right up to the end of the war. It is believed that four or five companies manufactured the Type 11. Initial production began at the Nagoya Army Arsenal and the Kokura Army Arsenal. TG&E (Tokyo Gas and Electric) produced the Type 11 until production was taken over by the Hitachi Manufacturing Company in 1939. It is possible that the Hoten Arsenal in Manchuria also produced the gun in quantity.

Like many Hotchkiss designs, the Type 11 feels clumsy except when actually fired as its forward center of gravity becomes an advantage. And, since so many of the Hotchkiss designs used feed strips, it was felt the hopper design eliminated snagging problems. Though not a bad idea, it did not meet practical expectations in the field.

The Reduced Load Controversy Set Straight

Almost every single reference publication refers to a reduced charge rifle cartridge for the Type 11 as it would not function properly with the standard-charge rifle ammunition and, because of reliability problems, muzzle velocity and thus cartridge impulse were reduced. This reduced-charge ammunition contains about 2 grams of propellant instead of the 2.15 grams that was the standard charge for rifle ammunition. This ammunition was denoted on cardboard packaging with a Roman letter “G” inside a circle. As translated from a Japanese ammunition manual during the war by MacArthur’s intelligence unit (MID) in 1943, they erroneously thought the “G” stood for the Japanese word “gensou” – or “reduced.” But why would the Japanese use an English letter and was cartridge performance actually reduced?

Thanks to the research efforts of leading Japanese arms authorities Edwin Libby, Robert Naess, and others, the real story can now be explained. In the intelligence report of ’43 they claim the Type 3 HMG, Type 38 HMG, Type 11 LMG and Type 96 LMG all used the “G” round from the introduction of each of these MGs. This was wrong in that the Type 3 and Type 38 could not have used the “G” rounds as it had not been developed yet.

The Japanese were concerned with the amount of smoke and flash of their early rounds and in the 1930s developed double nitro based propellants – nitrocellulose combined with nitroglycerine – to reduce smoke and flash. Analysis of rounds in the packets marked with the “G” revealed the use of a double nitro powder. The diamond shaped flake powder in the cases was made including the use of very refined chips of cedar wood that held a solvent of glycerin and then mixed with graphite. This double nitro charge was slightly heavier than the single base that was used previously and resulted in a slightly smaller charge in the cartridge case by approximately 1.5 grains. The reduction in the powder charge was not understood by the MID and theorized the reduction was to reduce muzzle velocity to ease firing impulse in the weapons. This was, in fact, wrong. Though the cartridge had a slightly reduced powder volume due to its reformulation, muzzle velocity and impulse did not change as has been widely speculated and reported. It reduced muzzle flash and visible powder signature.

So why the English letter “G”? The Japanese used four types of powders in their rifle cartridges and each type was designated with an English letter. Note that a Japanese Kanji symbol was not used. The “G” on the packets of the double nitro cartridges stood for the Japanese use of their anglicized word for “glycerin” which described the additive in the powder in those specific cartridges in the packets. That the MID in ’43 erroneously believed the “G” stood for the Japanese word “gensou” or “reduced” has dogged the actual truth ever since. However, if that were the case, an English letter would not have been used and a common Kanji symbol would have been printed on the packets to specify the composition of the powder in the rounds. The “G” stands for a technical word, not a common Kanji word.

(Thanks to Bob Naess for providing the excellent information and explanation concerning the Japanese “G” labeled cartridge used herein.)

Japanese System of Naming and Numbering of Weapons

The naming and numbering of modern Japanese weapons generally relates to the Emperor at the time of acceptance. There were basically two systems in use; both of which had reference to the year of the gun’s introduction. The first system referred to the year of the reign of the Emperor at the time of introduction. On July 30, 1912, the Meiji Emperor died and Crown Prince Yoshihito became the new emperor of Japan and succeeded to the throne becoming Emperor Taish?, beginning the Taish? period. Type 11 refers to the eleventh year of the Taish? era, or in the western calendar, 1922.

Emperor Taish? died in 1926 and Hirohito becomes the Showa Emperor. Thus, a Type 14 Nambu pistol showing a manufacturing date as Showa 15 was made in the Western year 1940 – the 15th year of the Showa reign.

However, just to confuse the issue, another third method was simultaneously used during World War II that did not refer to an emperor’s reign. Again using a Type number, it sometimes represented the last two digits of the Japanese Jimmu Year which, by Western terms, began in 660 BC. For example, the Type 92 heavy machine gun, that does not have a qualifying era name such as Taish? or Showa, represents the year 2592 (or 1932 on the Gregorian calendar).

By Robert G. Segel

The rare and seldom encountered tool and spare parts wallet is made of brown cowhide leather that folds in half and is secured by a single leather strap attached by a nickeled steel buckle. The wallet is carried in a canvas waist pouch that attaches to a waist belt.

The contents of the tool and spare parts wallet are as follows:

1) Brown cowhide leather wallet with stitched in loops and tool holders.

2) White metal cartridge case remover with claw end.

3) Punches (2), one 0.077 in. (2 mm) and one 0.188 in. (4.5 mm).

4) Ruptured case extractor tool.

5) Unidentified tool (not in manual).

6) Standard folding type screwdriver.

7) Gas regulator adjustment tool. One end is to remove, install and adjust the gas cylinder. The other end is to extract a broken firing pin.

8) Scraper attached to end of cleaning rod segment.

9) Cleaning bore rods (2).

10) Operating spring. 16 3/4 in. long x .38 in.

11) Brass drift or cheater bar.

12) Brass hammer with 2 oz. head with wood handle.

13) Spare parts can (tinned steel). The can is 6 in. long (15.24 cm) and 1 in. (25.4 mm) wide. Note that the can is made up of two sections indicated by a raised rib that can be seen on the outer tube with a steel disk in the interior at the point of the rib that provides a partition. The left hand side of the container as shown here is 4 3/4 in. long (12.065 cm) and the right hand side is 1 1/4 in. long (3.175 cm). The following list of items numbered 16-18 fit in the long left hand side of the tube and items numbered 19-28 fit in the smaller right hand side of the tube.

14) Screw cap for left side of spare parts can.

15) Screw cap for right side of spare parts can.

16) Firing pins (2).

17) Extractor springs (3).

18) Bolt spring.

19) Extractors (3).

20) Threaded brass tube for attaching to bore rods to attach cleaning jag. It is 1 in. (26 mm) long and 0.23 in. (6 mm) in diameter with different internal threads on each end: 0.12 in. (3.2 mm) one side, 0.144 in. (3.6 mm) on opposite end.

21) Feed rack plunger.

22) Feed housing follower stop.

23) Coil spring 29 x 9.5 mm (trigger sear spring)

24) Coil Spring 14 x 7.5 mm (back plate buffer spring)

25) Coil Spring 8 x 3 mm (gas regulator adjustment spring)

26) Coil Spring 15 x 4.4 mm (feed rack plunger spring)

27) Coil Spring 20 x 4.3 mm (undetermined)

28) Coil Spring 28 x 4.4mm (oil reservoir applicator spring)

Japanese Type 99 leather spare parts and tool wallet with all pieces in place.

By Robert G. Segel

Carried by Japanese machine gunners for basic field maintenance, the Type 99 light machine gun (1939) kit consists of a brown cowhide leather wallet with compartments to hold tools and spare parts. The wallet is constructed of two pieces stitched together and folds in on itself and is secured and held closed by a steel buckle that a three-hole strap affixes. Roughly 8 inches long and 3 inches wide, when all tools and parts are in place, the wallet is roughly 2.5 inches thick.

The leather maintenance kit is carried in a heavy tan canvass pouch that is worn on a belt. The rear has a brown cowhide leather rear panel and belt carry loop. The wallet is secured inside the wallet with a brown leather single hole strap and a galvanized steel buckle.

When opened, the kit on the right side top holder and loop contains four bore rods; one with a scraper end. Only one of the rods will accept a jag or brush. The center double loop holds a brass hammer with a 4-ounce head and a small wrench inscribed on one side “barrel securing nut spanner” in Japanese with an arrow pointing to the larger size wrench and “trigger guard nut spanner” in Japanese with an arrow pointing to the smaller wrench on the reverse side. The right lower holder and loop holds a tweezers and a paper wrapped tapered drift rod and a 2.2mm drill bit.

On the left side of the wallet on top is the holder with strap and brass stud that hold a spare bolt (with extractor, extractor spring and firing pin lock cam installed) wrapped in wax paper and the combination tool. The combination tool has a hook on one end to remove an un-ejected cartridge with the cartridge case base intact or missing and is also a hot gas valve wrench. The other end has a twisted wire extractor removal/install tool. The center loop holds the ruptured case removal tool. The bottom holder contains a tight weave cloth parts bag, roughly 2.25 inches by 3.5 inches with a pull string top closure. Contained in the bag are 5 extractors, 2 firing pins, two firing pin lock cams, a wire holder containing 4 extractor spring guides, and 2 ejector door springs and another wire holder containing 7 extractor springs and 2 operating rod stop springs.

(The Government of Burma changed its name to Myanmar following the 1988 demonstrations within the country. Most people still call the country “Burma,” as the new name of “Myanmar” is considered by many to be an attempt to erase the memory of the students of 8/8/88, who protested and died for ideals that they believed would make their country into a free and independent democratic nation. It has not worked out that way. SAR will use “Burma” for international recognition purposes. – V. Kenneth.)

The isolated State of Burma (Myanmar) plays a very small role in international affairs today. Burma is an unfrequented country with tight government controls, danger in the mountains, and a politically inflamed climate. It is wedged in between developing Thailand and expanding India. Mostly overlooked and virtually anonymous in the Western world, Burma has declined in its international presence due to the current military dictatorship that begin with the coup in 1961 lead by General Ne Win, who died in 2002. General Than Shwe is currently the head of state. Being a police state under military rule, Burma’s army has always played a decisive role in the history of the Southeast Asian nation. Called the “Tatmadow” in the local dialect, the Burmese Army was formed in January 1948 with the independence of the country from Great Britain. Groups of irregulars and an officer corps that came from the “Thirty Comrades,” a select group of Burmese officers trained by the Japanese during the country’s occupation during World War Two, were melded into the new Burmese military. Being a British colony prior to the war, the armed forces were based on the British operating structure and chain of command. Burma’s initial small arms inventory included SMLEs, No.4s, Bren Guns, Sten MkIIs and a variety of other British firearms.

As the 1950s rolled by, the inventory was greatly expanded from a variety of sources. American Military Assistance Programs (MAP), Foreign Military Sales (FMS), British assistance up until 1954, and several other countries helped to increase the quantity and variety of weapons in the inventory. TZ-45 submachine gun licenses were bought from Italy, and the TZ-45 was manufactured locally under the designation BA52 in 9x19mm. Israeli sales to Burma included fifty thousand rifles in 1954. China sold weapons to Burma, and Thailand contributed sales of Thai HK33s or captured rifles from the northern insurgents. Most importantly, Burma received much help from West German government owned Fritz Werner Industry Ausrustungen-Gmbh (FRG), an arms company that sold Burma rifles and machinery to locally manufacture a variety of the Heckler and Koch G3 series. The G3 was designated the BA72, and as such the 7.62x51mm G3 was Burma’s main battle rifle for the next forty years of service.

Much of the world had switched over to the 5.56x45mm platform by the 1970s and 1980s, but Burma’s transition did not occur until the late 1990s with the new Myanmar Army (MA) rifle. Up to this point much of Burma’s small arms had been bought, copied, or captured. The development of the MA series marked the first truly Burmese design that was almost independent of foreign parentage, but showed many influences. Soon after this development, the EMER K1 was discovered by the Western Press. Most recently, in September of 2007, during the “Saffron Revolution” two 40x46mm low velocity grenade launchers appeared that the Burmese had developed and produced on their own. This point in time (late 1990s to present) marks the beginning of a new era in Burmese small arms development; one of innovation and inventiveness. Though the basic designs are often replicated from elsewhere, they are Burma’s first developments undertaken by its own government in its short history of independence.

BA Series Rifles

A licensed version of the 7.62x51mm Heckler & Koch G3 had been in Burmese production since Fritz Werner exported and sold the rifles and machinery to Burma after several negotiations started in 1953. By the time of the military takeover in 1961, the military was armed with German made HK G3s. In the decades following, with the help of H&K, the German Technical Corporation Agency and Fritz Werner, weapons and ammunition factories were set up around Rangoon and elsewhere to produce G3s with the Burmese model designation of BA72 (Burma Army 72). Several variants were produced: a folding stock version designated as the BA63, a copy of the G3A3ZF marksman’s rifle designated as the BA100 and a magazine fed light machine gun version with a bipod, carrying handle and enhanced handguard with ventilation ports. Burma utilized the G3 from the 1960s up until the late 1990s, when the MA weapons platform took over and replaced it in active service. BAs may still occasionally be seen at police posts throughout Rangoon, as well as at remote military outposts and in the hands of insurgent groups.

MA Series Rifles

As the western world gradually switched over to the 5.56x45mm platform, Burma followed suit and created a number of variants, embarking on a journey that would lead to a new battle rifle of that caliber. The first step was to follow the example of the German HK33 and G41 rifles. Prototypes were made locally with attempts to copy both rifles as accurately as possible but with a number of changes by the Burmese. These alterations included experiments with a PPS 43 style top-folding stock, and a new style of wooden handguards to ease production. Burmese markings were used for the selector, make and model number. Burmese selector markings are either the German SEF markings or the equivalent in Burmese characters. Experimentation proceeded with the G41 and HK33 approaches at the same pace. Out of these prototypes came a limited production run of the precursor to the MA1, the MA11. The MA11 is a delayed blowback roller locked action 5.56x45mm select fire battle rifle that was fielded in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It had one other variant, the MA12, which was a magazine fed light machine gun (LMG) version and the only differences were the addition of a bipod, carrying handle, and heavier barrel. The MA11 could mount a bayonet (same as used on the MA1) and furniture was made with either brown pistol grip, stock and black handguard or simply all black. The handguard had a single row of ventilation ports that ran parallel to the barrel on both sides of the handguard. The magazine was of Burmese design, similar to the H&K magazine and release system. Magazines are interchangeable between both firearms. Sling attachments are a simple stud to the left of the front sight and a ring on the left side of the buttstock. After the development of the MA11, Burma realized that it could no longer rely on West German assistance for help with their service rifles and in turning to Israel the government found a viable partner. Israel and Burma have had a long history of collaboration although neither country publicly admits to that. In 1991, an Israeli team visited Burma and sold a number of Uzis, and assisted the government in producing them locally as the model BA94. Singapore helped with the machines and tooling required for weapon production, even producing and sending Burma a prefabricated factory (all of this occurring after the bloody 1988 demonstrations).

Burma completely abandoned any hopes of continuing with the G3 action as a platform due to West Germany’s new political stance on dealing with Burma, and they began experimentation on a Galil type platform. Taking Israeli Galils and reconfiguring them so as to manufacture them in Burma, Burma produced a number of prototypes with wooden handguards, 20-round magazines, and a magazine fed LMG version. At the end of this period, there emerged four distinct models: MA1, MA2, MA3, and MA4. All were initially produced with brown polymer furniture and the early production stages utilized rounded, smooth pistol grips while later ones had clear cut Galil grips. Later versions were produced with black furniture.

The MA1 is the basic, standard issue main battle rifle. Disassembly and operating functions are identical to the Galil though there are a number of differences with many Burmese innovations. The handguards have ventilation ports in a double staggered row along both sides. There is no pistol grip thumb selector. The rifle’s stock has a classic trapdoor for cleaning supplies, which the Galil lacks as issue Galils had the side folding stock. There is a bayonet mount and stud on the MA. The rear sight is a simple open “U” notch sight with protecting triangular ears. One undocumented report from an individual with live fire experience states that the rifle is consistently inaccurate and cannot hold a zero due to the vibration of the receiver cover during recoil.

The MA2 is the magazine fed LMG version, the only changes being the carrying handle, handguard, bipod, and a longer, heavier barrel. The handguard differs in having two rows of horizontal ventilation holes parallel to the barrel. The rear sight is the H&K drum type.

The MA3 is the carbine version of the rifle. The stock is similar to the Galil side folding stock and has a recoil pad. In this variant the thumb selector is located just like the Galil thumb selector on the left, above the pistol grip and MA3 also operates the AKM type selector on the right. The stock is usually never seen folded as it takes a good amount of pressure to depress the lock and the help of a solid object to balance the weapon on. Other than the folding stock and selector there is virtually no difference between the two rifles. All MA3s seen have been in black while MA1s are a mix of black and brown furniture depending on early and late production. Soldiers sometimes tie the sling to the metal tubes of the folding stock as the swivel is out of commission.

The MA4 is the under barrel grenade launcher (UBGL) variant of the MA series, it being equivalent to the M16 with M203. The 40x46mm low-velocity UBGL is copied from the M203 and has brown furniture for the polymer handgrip. It has two rows of ventilation ports above it for the rifle barrel and has no thumb selector. The rifle rear sight is still present as is a grenade launcher sight graduated for the standard 40x46mm low-velocity cartridge, and is located above the ventilation ports.

All four rifle types have three selector settings; safe, semiautomatic, and fully-automatic. There are no burst limiters. Markings are present above the magazine on the left side of the magazine well consisting of a circle with the Defense Industries triangle within it, and the firearm serial number which is stamped on the barrel and receiver cover as well. Of five serial numbers collected by the author, manufacture blocks C-K were represented. This means that the firearm has only been in production within the last 10 years or so. The Burmese continued where the Israelis left off. Israel never fielded a dedicated LMG or UBGL version of the Galil in large numbers whereas the Burmese did.

40mm Launchers

Other than the under-barrel grenade launcher used on the MA4 rifle, Burma has a stand-alone, single shot, break open 40x46mm launcher. The Burmese 40mm grenade launcher is simply called “40mm” by those in the service. It is an M79 design copy but employs many Burmese features. The pistol grip and stock are both brown polymer, not one being seen in black although there is mention of it. The barrel swings out to the right about 40 degrees, enough to slide in one 40mm grenade. The pistol grip is hollow with a screw up the middle to attach it to the receiver. It has no slant or curve whatsoever and is perpendicular to the barrel. The stock has a butt trap door for cleaning supplies. The open “U” sights are graduated to 300 meters with 50 meter increments. The sight must be raised up in order to fire. There are a number of metal rings surrounding the barrel in between the front and rear sights, that serve as a handguard or gripping surface. The barrel can be opened by a catch that is pulled to the rear. The selector is a switch on the left side that points forward for “safe” and up for “fire” and the operations are indicated by F or S. The front sight is protected by two very large ears that hold the front sight blade down the center and this can be flipped up. The rifling is very prominent, and there is some crowning at the muzzle. The only markings on it are on the right in bright white letters with three lines stamped “40MM”, “Grenade Launcher”, and a serial number. The author has collected four examples which are in blocks “B” and “D” showing that the launcher has just started serial production. Some examples observed have “Defense” stamped on them.

Two types of 40mm rounds have been seen in use: an all white round and an olive drab round with yellow lettering on it. Both are smoke rounds as the government will not issue its police forces the destructive HE fire power. Burma does have HE rounds in inventory because the army has been using M79s and M203s since some of the first MAPS and FMS programs from the United States. All the launchers are outfitted with slings. The other launcher appears to be more of a simplistic type for crowd control/tear gas. It has both a pistol and frontal grip; the frontal is reversed like the Hungarian AMD65. These are chambered in 40x46mm low-velocity, and have an odd, loop-shaped stock. The barrel is released and tilted down for break-open loading.

EMER K1 Prototypes

The EMER K1 is one of the most controversial of Burmese firearms as it represents an advanced design that received technical assistance from abroad and reports were leaked into the public news. It was designed in 1995 along with a batch of 16 firearms that were submitted for testing and evaluation by the Tatmadow’s Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Corps, rather than the Ordnance Department. It is reported but unconfirmed that the K1 was produced with significant Singaporean assistance. The K1 action is based upon the Chinese QBZ series and there are two variants. Both take 30-round STANAG magazines. In fact, the EMER K1 series takes features from the SA80, the M16 and the QBZ, cleverly combining them all into one package. The flash hider, magazine, carrying handle, flip aperture sights, bayonet stud, and sling swivels are all derivatives of the M16. The grip, arched trigger guard, trigger-fire control unit, stock and ventilation ports are all mirrored after the SA80 series. The action is modeled after the gas piston action of the QBZ and it is chambered in 5.56x45mm. The three setting selector is on the left side behind the magazine well and the charging handle is on the right side.

The magazine fed LMG version doesn’t differ too much from the rifle. The compensator was switched to an AKM type, heavier barrel and a new ventilated polymer handguard. There is no provision for a carrying handle or bipod. Both K1 examples fire at approximately 650 rpm. The rifle weighs 4.5 kilograms with the LMG .5 kg heavier. The EMER K1 has taken the Burmese pattern of producing a rifle and then its LMG variant. Both are accurate out to 400 meters. The rifle was reported in use on the Yadana pipeline project by reliable diplomatic sources in the late 90s but has not been seen in action or in use since then. It has taken the status of an out of line project that will not be brought back into service

Conclusion

The Tatmadow is in an experimentation stage in weapon procurement, and is coming up with inventive designs such as the EMER K1, the MA series, and 40x46mm low-velocity grenade launchers. The Tatmadow probably won’t be looking for a new service rifle for some time as the MA series and grenade launchers were just pressed into service. Probably the next firearm to come out of Burma will be a side arm or a medium or heavy machine gun in 7.62mm or .50 caliber. Their current heavy and medium machine guns, the imported MG3 and US M2HB .50 caliber (12.7x99mm) should be worn out within the next 10 years because the last M2HB procured was in the 1970s, and the last MG3 in the 1980s. If the Tatmadow doesn’t replace these machine guns with another firearm already in production, then they will probably produce their own.

(The author has fifteen years of experience in Southeast Asia and has lived in Thailand and Burma for that time. He has studied the small arms in the region, and will be submitting a number of reports to SAR on the small arms in the region, specifically the seldom seen Burmese military weapons.)

Frequently, 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition is encountered on odd, non-disintegrating belts. Here is the answer to why.

Continuous 50-Round Belts.

At the very beginning of the 1950s, the first belts used for developing the prototypes of the future AA-52’s were closely derived from the German belts for the MG34 & 42. They had a capacity of 50-rounds and could be connected to each other by means of male & female connecting links installed at both ends of the belt. The pitch between the cartridges is 17mm as for the German belts.

At least four main French variants of the 50-round continuous belts are observed from surviving specimens. The same belts were used for both 7.5×54 and 7.62×51.

The French belts show very close similarities to the German wartime Gurt 34/41 (see author’s article on German MG34 & 42 belts in SAR Vol. 8, No. 6, March 2005) with 3 lengthwise stiffening grooves, but unlike their German counterparts, the French belts are devoid of friction dimples.

The first and earliest French belts were manufactured by the Manufacture Nationale d’Armes de Saint-Etienne (MAS), probably using modified German wartime tooling.

In early 1953, the design was improved by the Manufacture Nationale d’Armes de Châtellerault (MAC) with an important modification of the female connecting link. The latter incorporates a re-curved lip which partly surrounds the connecting spring of the starter tab and also offers a rest to it. This was done in order to stiffen the junction between the belt and the starter tab. This one-of-a-kind shape of the female connecting link is the foremost evidence to readily identify a French 50-round belt.

The corresponding French starter tab is composed of an unmarked ribbed steel plate re-curved at one end and assembled with only the male connecting finger.

Early in 1954, the individual links were further modified by the addition of a 2mm hole in their center. This hole was added only in order to help exactly positioning the link in the tool during the stamping process and during the assembly with the coiled connecting springs. Unlike what could be sometimes read, this hole is absolutely not a means of any identification. The female connecting link remained unchanged.

Finally from the end of 1956 on when the AA-52 entered full production and were delivered in quantity to the Armed Forces, the final design of the 50-round belt was stabilized and officially approved. It is the same as the previous variant with the 2mm hole on the links but with the female connecting link cadmium-coated in order to give it a white outlook aimed at helping to readily locate the end of each 50-round section should a longer belt be assembled. The starter tab remained unchanged.

On all these 4 variants, the male connecting finger is unmarked and the links are phosphated. The continuous 50-round belts remained used with combat ammunition only for a short period of time until the end of 1959-60 when they were mostly replaced with belts assembled with disintegrating links.

The 50-round continuous belts remained however in service as an accessory for training at a ratio of 3 belts issued per blank-firing accessory pack. Belts were repeatedly reloaded manually with the plastic blank ammunition both in caliber 7.5×54 and 7.62×51. In February 1973, the continuous belts were officially removed from the blank-firing accessory pack since from that time on all plastic blanks were issued pre-belted in disposable disintegrating 50-round belts.

For AA-52s used in the Light Machine Gun configuration, several experiments were conducted in 1953-55 to design a container that could accommodate a 50-round continuous belt and which could be fastened to the left side of the feed-block. Unlike the German WW2 type of belt drum used with MG34 & 42 where the belt is rolled around itself, the French have chosen the principle of a cubic box with the belt folded on several layers. Both cardboard and metallic cubic boxes are known from test reports, but the author has been unable so far to examine any surviving specimens.

Disintegrating links

In 1954, a disintegrating link was also designed for the AA-52 in caliber 7.5×54. This disintegrating link is of the hook-and-eye pattern and shows very close similarities with the latest variant of wartime German Gurt 17/81 for the MG17 & 81 (see author’s article on German MG17 & 81 belts in SAR Vol. 8, No. 2, November 2004). The pitch between the cartridges is 17mm like that of the continuous 50-round used with the infantry weapons. The key design difference between the last variant of the German wartime Gurt 17/81 and the French link is the shape of the end of the tongue which fits into the cartridge case extracting groove. For the German link, positioning in the extracting groove is achieved by a small dimple stamped into the link whereas for the French link, the end of the tongue is simply re-curved in V-shape. Obviously the other difference readily visible is the markings on the links. The prototype disintegrating links for AA-52 were produced by the Manufacture Nationale d’Armes de Châtellerault (MAC) and are devoid of any marking.

In 1959, the disintegrating links were officially adopted for combat use with 7.5×54 ammunition. Mass production links are marked with the weapon designation, i.e., “AA52” as well as with the manufacturer’s code. At least six different disintegrating link manufacturers codes are observed from specimens: PV (Peugeot in Valentigney), RD (Raymond in Grenoble), GG (Georges Groslambert in Besançon), PRI and ROS (Philippe Rossi Industries in Marseilles) and SAV (Savigny). Different surface coatings for protection against corrosion were used: green or black phosphate, gloss dark green or gloss black lacquer and more rarely zinc-chromate. From the mid 1980s on, the marking pattern on the links was changed to display only the manufacturer code and lot number+year of production. It must be emphasized that the same link was used both with 7.5×54 and 7.62×51 ammunition.

Three different types of starter tabs were used. The earliest one is composed of an unmarked ribbed steel band fitted at one end with a small loop that fits into the hook of the first link of the belt and on the other side a bigger loop which can be grabbed by the fingers of the gunner. This 1st model of starter was used with pre-packed combat ammunition 50-round belts loaded with 7.5×54 rounds. This design basically required that a cartridge is extracted from the first link in order to install or remove the starter tab from the belt.

In order to avoid that, a 2nd starter variant appeared around 1963-64 that is composed of a flat steel band with a re-curved end to help grabbing by hand and on the other end is fitted with a piece with a slot which can be slipped in or out from the hook of the first link of the belt without removing the cartridge. This second type of starter remained unchanged until the latest productions and was used both with 7.5×54 and 7.62×51 pre-packed combat ammunition 50-round belts. These starters usually bear no marking. However, some pre-packed belts issued to the French Navy sometimes bear markings in white paint either with a wing-and-anchor logo to show issue to the Navy or with lot identification data for belts loaded with blank cartridges.

Finally a third type of starter saw only very limited use. It was officially adopted in August 1970 to enable the loading of the AA 7.62 N F1 fitted coaxial to the 75mm gun of the tank AMX 13/FL10E. The mounting of the machine gun was so cramped that the standard rigid starter could not be used. Accordingly, a dedicated starter was designed, composed of only a 2cm portion of a standard starter and then fitted to a 20-cm long fabric strip therefore enabling to fold it out of the feed block. According to the requirement of this starter in only a very limited number of tanks, instructions were provided to the unit armorers for the hand production of the starter by shortening standard issued starters and the riveting of a fabric strip. From 1959 on, most combat ammunition for the infantry was issued in prepacked disposable 50-round belts with disintegrating links. The typical packing encountered in the 1960s and 1970s corresponds to a single 50-round disintegrating linked belt, fitted with a starter tab, packed in three folds into a triangular shaped cardboard box contained in a transparent sealed plastic bag. Five of these sealed triangular boxes are stored in a cardboard box (total content 250 rounds) fitted with fabric carrying handles. Two of these 250-round cardboard boxes are installed in a steel can (total capacity of 500 rounds) and finally two of these steel cans are transported in a wire-bound wood frame (total capacity of 1,000 rounds).

From the early 1980s on, the length of the triangular cardboard box was slightly increased and the belt could accordingly be packed in 2 1/2 folds only in the box also contained inside a transparent sealed plastic bag. Six of these sealed triangular boxes are stored in a cardboard box (total content 300 rounds) fitted with fabric carrying handles. Finally two of these 300-round cardboard boxes are installed in a steel can with a removable lid (total capacity 600 rounds).

Both 7.5×54 and 7.62×51 ammunition were delivered in these pre-packed 50-round disposable belts. Standard belting sequence for both calibers was 1 tracer + 4 ordinary balls. More rarely pre-packed belts loaded with only ordinary balls are also observed.

The feeding of AA-52 in the Light Machine Gun configuration was achieved from one 50-round disposable belt carried in a rectangular green fabric pouch attached to the left side of the feed block. This configuration of feeding is the most commonly encountered on pictures taken during combat in Algeria around 1960.

The feeding of the AA-52 in vehicle mounts was usually achieved from 250-round capacity steel cans. These re-usable cans were filled prior to use with the pre-packed 50-round belts assembled together to the required length.

Although no official information could be found about that issue, the high-capacity belts with disintegrating links used by the Air Force onboard airborne platforms (aircraft or helicopter) were probably belted from loose ammunition within the flying unit armories.

Prior to the official adoption by France of the AA-52 chambered in 7.62×51 NATO, extensive experiments on interchangeable feed systems within the various NATO machine guns were undertaken between 1959-1962. Accordingly, different prototype links were specifically developed by the Manufacture Nationale d’Armes de Châtellerault for the 7.62×51 NATO cartridges and tested for interchangeability with the German MG3, U.S. M60 and Belgian MAG. Among the numerous prototypes, it is worth mentioning a close variant of the standard AA-52 links but bearing a reduced pitch of 14.7mm instead of the standard 17mm. This reduced pitch was meant to correspond to the pitch of the U.S. M13 links for the M60. Other variants have also been developed in cooperation with the Belgians with a pitch of 15.5 and 16mm; those links were commonly referred to as “Franco-Belgian links”.

.50 Caliber Belts and Links

The .50 caliber weapons designed by the Manufacture d’Armes de Châtellerault is a scaled-up version of the AA-52. Accordingly, it is not a big surprise that the feed systems used are also scaled-up versions of the 7.5/7.62 belts and links. The first type of belts are continuous 50-round belts that could be connected to each other by means of male finger and female link. The female link corresponds to a scaled-up version of that used for the Model of 1954 with the re-curved side. The starter tab is also of the same pattern with only the male connecting finger. Two types of stamping patterns are observed on the .50 links, both also bearing the small hole to help positioning during the manufacturing process. The male connecting finger is also unmarked. From 1957 on, disintegrating links were also investigated. The first model is exactly a scaled-up version of the 7.5/7.62 link, however also fitted with the small hole. In 1959, an enhanced prototype of disintegrating link was designed in order to increase the grip of the link on the .50 caliber cartridge. The hook-end-eye pattern was kept but the link encloses the cartridge case more tightly at two clamping positions. A .50 caliber starter tab for the disintegrating link has also been designed but no surviving specimen was observed so far by the author.

Belt Loading Machines

At the first stages of development of the AA-52 in the early 1950s, German wartime Gurtfüller 34 were used during the trial period. It is only around 1957-58 that a small batch of belt loading machines designed by the company Peugeot was put in production. The official designation of that machine was “Assembleuse de Bandes Peugeot Type 10” (Peugeot belt assembling machine type 10) and was dedicated to the 7.5×54 caliber. It remains still unclear for which precise application this machine was designed. It can be noted that, so far, reference to this belt loading machine has only been observed in French Air Force armament inventory files. It is possible that this machine was in use in Air Force base armories to assemble the long belts for use with aircraft guns. However, it must be emphasized that the cartridges are fed in bulk in a kind of hopper, which does not enable the organization of any belting sequence mixing different types of ammunition (tracer, incendiary, etc.). Both continuous belts and pre-assembled belts with disintegrating links could be loaded with that machine. A distinctive feature is that two links are filled simultaneously during one rotation of the handle. The latter could be assembled either on the side of the machine or on the front in order to cope with any configuration of the workbench on which the machine was affixed. This machine has an extremely smooth and reliable operation. The three different specimens of such loaders ever examined by the author are painted light grey and were manufactured at the end of 1957 through early 1958. This type of belt loading machine is now an extremely scarce collectors’ item in France.

Lead Photo: A squad of South Vietnamese troops patrol armed with a number of U.S. manufactured WWII weapons, including a BAR and M1 carbines. The soldier at the center of the photograph is carrying a 1919A4 machine gun on his shoulder.

While the U.S. 7.62 M60 General Purpose Machine Gun was the most prevalent weapon of its type used during the Vietnam War, it fought alongside a seasoned veteran. The old soldier sharing the machine gun role was the venerable Browning 1919A4 and 1919A6. Early in the war both the 30’06 caliber 1919A4 and 1919A6 machine guns were used by U.S. troops, but as more M60s became available the old workhorse 1919’s were turned over to the South Vietnamese Government. Vietnam was the fourth major U.S. conflict that the old Browning design served in. Ironically enough the M60 GPMG shared many traits of the Browning’s old adversary in WWII, the German MG42 machine gun.

The Browning 1919A4 and 1919A6 machine guns both had their origins in WWI. When the United States entered the First World War on April 6, 1917 the U.S. Army had approximately 1,100 various Maxims, Benet Mercies, and Model ’95 Colt machine guns in its inventory. For a country that was entering a major war being fought with machine guns, the United States’ situation was critical. The same shortage was also faced in virtually all other areas of equipment and weapons.

John Browning first demonstrated his latest water-cooled machine gun in February of 1917. The demonstration was witnessed by many senators, congressman and high-ranking military officers, as well as representatives from many friendly foreign armies. In the months following the demonstration, Mr. Browning continued working to improve his machine gun. In May of 1917 his weapon was again tested at the government proving ground located at the Springfield Armory. Its performance in the test was nothing short of amazing. At a cyclic rate of over six hundred rounds per minute, 40,000 rounds were fired without a malfunction. The results of this test attracted interest as well skepticism. To quell any doubts of the gun’s worth, another test was scheduled for the weapon. In the second test, the gun was fired by Mr. Browning for 48 minutes straight with no malfunctions or stoppages. Duly impressed, the board of five U.S. Army officers who witnessed the testing recommended the weapon for immediate adoption. Unfortunately few of the Browning machine guns made it to Europe before the war ended.

At the conclusion of World War One in 1918, the United States Army had approximately 140,000 machine guns in its inventory. The conservative U.S. Army of the day felt no need for additional weapons. In the years following the war, the various machine guns like the Lewis, Vickers, Marlin and others were one by one declared obsolete. The U.S. Army did however kept the weapons in storage in the event of emergency. By the 1930’s only the Browning model remained as the United States’ standard machine gun.

The Ordnance department was pleased with the model 1917 machine gun, but realized that they needed a more compact machine gun for its fledgling tank corps. The liquid cooled Browning 1917 was simply too large and cumbersome for the job. Browning went to work to design an air-cooled version, the result was the Caliber .30, Tank Machine Gun Model of 1919. The Army also desired an air-cooled variation as a “Light Machine Gun” for infantry and cavalry units. Several modifications to the 1919 “Tank” gun were made eventually resulting in the Model of 1919A4 “Light” Machine Gun. Prior to WWII, the air-cooled .30 caliber Browning machine gun had only existed in blueprints and in a few hand built models at the Rock Island Arsenal.

During WWII, the Browning 1919A4 was considered the “light” machine gun of the United States Army. Its official nomenclature was the Machine Gun, caliber .30, H.B. M1919A4 (H.B. for heavy barrel). The weapon was air cooled, recoil operated and belt-fed. The receiver of the 1919A4 for all practical purposes was the same as the earlier “Heavy” Browning Machine Gun, the water cooled 1917 series.

The 1919A4 machine gun was utilized as a direct fire weapon, designed to deliver automatic fire at close and mid-ranges. Because it was considered a support weapon it was to be kept well forward so that the crew could see both their targets and the location of their own front lines. The flat trajectory of the light machine gun was highly destructive against unsheltered enemy troops, and when well directed, could inflict heavy casualties. When used against a well dug-in enemy the weapon had little effect except to neutralize their fire and pin them down.

Principle of Operation

In a recoil operation weapon, the rearward force of the expanding powder gases is utilized to mechanically perform the operations of; unlocking the breech, extracting and ejecting empty cartridge cases and feeding a fresh round, as well as cocking, locking and firing. The air cooling system was less efficient making the 1919A4 less capable of rapid, sustained fire than the water-cooled 1917. The air-cooled heavy barrel could keep the A4 weapon at operating temperature for approximately 30 minutes at a rate of fire of about 60 rounds per minute. A rate of approximately 150 rounds per minute could be maintained for about 15 minutes, but faster rates of fire could only be maintained for short periods. The 1919A4 had a heavier barrel than the 1917 to aid in heat dissipation.

Mounting

The 1919A4 light machine gun was mounted on the M2 tripod. The tripod design provided a stable platform and gave maximum strength and rigidity for its light weight. The tripod consisted of three tubular steel legs, articulating in a tripod head, the two rear legs being joined and supported by a traversing bar forming an “A” truss and serving as a rear support for the mounted gun. The tripod head and short front leg provided frontal support. Although the M60 had its own tripod mount, the M122, it could also be used with the earlier M2 tripod by use of a special adapter. The M122 was essentially the older M2 with upgrades.

The 1919A4 light machine gun was considered a rifle company weapon. Its crew could maintain the march rate of a rifleman, but could not move as fast as the individual rifleman. It could deliver a large, rapid volume of fire with good accuracy. It was well suited for support of attacking infantry units by flanking action, and in defense it could supplement the heavy machine gun.

While the 1919A4 was successful in its intended role, a more portable weapon was desired to fill the gap between the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) and the tripod mounted 1919A4. The Ordnance department decided to modify the 1919A4 as an expedient solution to the problem. As is the case with most adaptations of existing weapons, the resulting 1919A6 model was less than ideal for the task it was intended to perform.

The 1919A6 Machine Gun

The new version of the 1919A4 was designated as the Browning Machine gun, Caliber .30, M1919A6. The weapon was equipped with a light bipod assembly attached to the front barrel bearing, and a shoulder stock that was attached to the buffer tube. The weapon was capable of delivering rapid automatic fire. The gun was designed primarily as an offensive weapon, and was most effective in employing direct fire against enemy personnel and unarmored vehicles. Its high mobility and low relief adapted it to front-line missions and enabled it to accompany the attacking echelon. At midranges, when mounted on the M2 tripod, its accuracy was approximately that of the heavy machine gun. Its most important characteristic as compared with the heavy machine gun, was its superior mobility, which made it a suitable weapon for use in the rifle company. This advantage, however, was obtained at the cost in the efficiency of the cooling system. The 1919A6 had a lighter barrel than the 1919A4, consequently its rate and length of fire was limited by its tendency to overheat. Although it could fire indefinitely at the slow rate of fire of approximately 40 rounds per minute, it could maintain a medium rate of about 75 rounds per minute from 25 to 30 minutes. At a rapid rate of 150 rounds per minute it begins to overheat after about five minutes firing.

Flash Hider

The function of the flash hider M7, was to conceal the weapon’s muzzle flash, as well as ensure ample recoiling when the weapon was fired at angles other than horizontal. Accomplishing this, the weapon cyclic rate was also increased. The detachable retaining clip assembly secures the flash hider to the front barrel bushing. Therefore when a portion of the expanding powder gases are trapped in the chamber of the flash hider, the rearward force was exerted on the front of floating barrel to aiding in its recoil.

Bipod mount

The A-6 weapon was equipped with a bipod assembly that was attached to the front barrel bearing and was held in place by a lock ring. The bipod legs could be folded back alongside the barrel, or placed in a position at right angles to it. Each leg had a sliding leg that could be pulled out to raise the position of the muzzle. A wing nut and clamp were mounted on the sliding leg assembly, to permit adjustment of bipod legs with one hand. The bipod head rotated around the bearing so that the gun would not be canted when on a slope. The bipod legs were constructed to remain in a position that was vertical or parallel to the barrel when clamped in place. The sliding legs were clamped in place by means of the lower thumbscrews. Fixed rest legs were attached to the bipod head for use when the legs were folded back parallel to the barrel.

The M60 General Purpose Machine Gun was adopted by the Ordnance Corps, along with the M14 service rifle in 1957. The 7.62 M60 and the M14 were intended to replace virtually all of the WWII era small arms in the U.S. inventory. Soon after the M60 was being produced in number, the Browning 1919’s began to be phased out of front line service. The M60 offered a lightweight (23.1 pounds versus the 32.5 pounds of the 1919A6 model) weapon that could be fired from its barrel mounted bipod or a tripod. It also had the desirable feature of a true quick-change barrel without the headspace adjustment procedure of the Browings. The M60 however had its share of critics and problems. The weapon was nicknamed “The Pig” by the troops.

The 1919 Browning is very popular with today’s collectors and shooters, and is available in a number of configurations. The most common 1919A4 and A6 Brownings are those that were assembled from surplus parts sets and a “new manufacture” receiver side plate. Completely original Browning machine guns can be obtained, but are difficult to locate and more expensive. Original Browning machine guns are on the BATF’s Curio and Relics list. There are also a number of semi-automatic-only models as well as non-firing display guns being produced by a number of companies.

1919A4 Light Machine Gun General Characteristics

Weight of weapon: 28 pounds
Weight of weapon with pintle and elevating mechanism: 31.25 pounds
Weight of tripod mount, M2: 14.11 pounds
Length of barrel: 24-inches
Rate of fire: 400-550 rounds per Minute
Maximum usable rate of fire: 150 rounds per minute
Sight graduated to (yards): 2400
Muzzle velocity (w / M2 ball cartridge): 2700 feet per second

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

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

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

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

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

As with his rifle, Melvin Johnson’s LMG was only used by the United States military in limited numbers. While the M1941 semi-automatic rifle had the M1 Garand as its main adversary, the LMG competed against the legendary BAR. Unfortunately, development of both Johnson’s weapons were untimely, becoming available only after the Garand and BAR had already been placed in mass production for WWII. The Marine Corps adopted Johnson’s weapons only when the BAR and Garand were not being produced in sufficient numbers to fulfill the wartime demand. The Johnson LMG, like the M1941 semi-automatic rifles, were manufactured for Johnson Automatics by a subcontractor, Cranston Arms of Rhode Island.

In reality the Johnson design had many modern and innovative features. The 1941 Model was much lighter than the BAR at 14.2 pounds with the bipod. Another very important feature, especially for a weapon of its type, was a removable barrel that could be easily replaced in the field. The weapon was select-fire, and fired from a closed bolt in the semi-automatic mode, and fired from an open bolt when in full-auto. The modes of operation: safe-fire and automatic were controlled by a single “change lever”. The overall length of the weapon was 42 inches, while the standard barrel was 22 inches in length. The barrel featured a 4-groove 1 in 10” twist, and according to the operator’s manual, could be replaced “in 5 to 6 seconds.” Mr. Johnson preferred that his weapon be referred to as an “automatic rifle” or “light machine rifle” rather than a “light machine gun.” He often compared his weapon to the 8mm German paratrooper automatic weapon, the FG-42 that could, and often was, fired from the shoulder like a rifle. Johnson wanted to convey that his weapons were not simply “light machine guns” but rather versatile “automatic rifles” that could easily be fired from the shoulder when necessary.

The rear sight on the LMG is a flip up aperture style, calibrated in yards, the sight featured two apertures, the upper one for up to 1,000 yard range and the other (placed 49 MOA lower) designed for barrage fire up to 1500 yards. The adjustable rear sights were supplied to Johnson Automatics by either the Lyman or Marbles Company. The blade style front sight is unusually high, (similar to that of the M16 rifle) because of the “straight line” configuration of the stock. The twenty round capacity, single feed box-style magazine is also unique, as there are no feed lips. The feed lips are machined into the receiver. Also located inside of the receiver is a rotary magazine mechanism similar to that of the Johnson semi-automatic rifle. The box magazine is inserted into the left side of the receiver. The magazine release lever also serves as a cartridge-retaining device to keep the loaded rounds from flying out of the magazine in the absence of conventional feed lips. When the magazine is inserted into the weapon, the magazine support guide hook cams upward on a ramp and releases the cartridges in the magazine. The magazine spring then locks onto a shoulder on the ramp and locks the magazine into place. The cartridges are then fed into the integral magazine inside of the receiver. An additional five rounds could be loaded into the receiver making the total capacity of the weapon 25 rounds. The magazine could be easily recharged while in the weapon via the M1903 rifle stripper clips. The magazine was overly long because of its single stack/single feed design. The magazine body was also easily damaged.

A detachable folding bipod was also featured on the Model 1941 LMG. The bipod is placed well back from the muzzle, allowing the weapon to be traversed over a wide area very quickly. The M1907 sling was often issued with the weapon, as well as a web style sling. A tan color bag type magazine pouch was designed for issue with the Johnson, for carrying the long, curved Johnson magazines. The pouches are extremely rare today.

It has often been reported that 10,000 of the Johnson M1941 Light Machine Guns were manufactured, but the actual number of weapons produced was much less. These were adopted and used during World War Two by U.S. Marine paratroopers and the Marine Raiders in the Pacific Theater, as well as the U.S./Canadian Army First Special Service Force in Italy and North Africa. The Netherlands also ordered a substantial number, but few were delivered before the Dutch East Indies fell into Japanese hands. A few of the light machine guns were believed to be procured and used by the French. Generally the weapon’s performance was acceptable, although there were a few reports that it was too fragile for extreme combat conditions. The long leaf spring extractor was especially prone to failure under extended combat use.

An improved model was introduced in 1944. This version was known as the Model 1944 Johnson Light Machine Gun. Problems and experience from the first design generated the improvements that were incorporated in the 1944 Model. The receiver was redesigned for more positive feed to prevent jamming. A redesigned tubular buttstock was manufactured from Micarta, and the pistol grips were made of plastic, no wood furniture was used on the M1944. A cleaning kit was stored in the lower portion of the stock. The bipod of the earlier model was replaced by an adjustable nine position, folding 1.7 pound integral monopod. When the weapon was fired from the shoulder the folded monopod served as a forearm for the support hand. The weapon weighed a total of 14.7 pounds. The M1944 operator’s manual states that the cyclic rate is variable from 350 to 750 rounds per minute by changing the buffer springs in the stock. The only tool required for field stripping the weapon is a standard 30’06 cartridge. A special 20-inch barrel was offered as an option for cavalry or paratrooper use. The Johnson Light Machine Guns shared many of the same parts used in the M1941 semi-automatic rifle.

Both the Johnson rifle and the light machine gun saw limited service during WWII with the Office of Strategic Services. The OSS found that the Johnson weapons when disassembled were easily concealed and offered a lot of large caliber firepower. Fidel Castro’s troops also used Johnson’s weapons in his revolution against Cuba’s Batista government in 1958-59. Ironically anti-Communist Cuban Guerrillas also used Johnson weapons against Castro in the ill-fated struggle to reclaim their homeland.

Development of the Johnson Light Machine Gun concept continued after WWII, resulting in a Model of 1945 LMG. There was little post war interest and the light machine gun development program was terminated in 1947. In the 1950s the Israelis manufactured a close copy of the Johnson design called the Dror. The Israeli version was chambered in 8mm Mauser and .303 British. Like the Johnson before it the Dror was only manufactured in limited quantities.

Melvin Johnson continued in the firearms business after the war ended. His company specialized in converting military rifles into sporters for hunting. He also offered his M1941 rifles in both sporter and military configurations. Melvin Johnson died in 1965 at the age of 55.

By Edwin F. Libby

In the jungle fighting of the Pacific War the deadliness of the “Nambu Light,” as it commonly was known, was legendary. Its accuracy, mobility, reliability, and skillful use by Japanese gunners who sought glory in death made a fearful combination. At a distance the hollow popping of the .25 caliber Nambu through heavy jungle foliage often was mistaken by the trooper uninitiated to this battle environment for the report of a Thompson submachine gun, and this misidentification occasionally led to unnecessary casualties from “friendly fire” among our forces. Even in the static defenses which characterized Japanese tactics of the later Pacific engagements the Type 96 Nambu gunners gave good accountings of themselves, often moving their positions and firing from clever concealment where they were least expected. A Nambu Type 96 light machine gun was the penultimate souvenir for anyone who came up against this weapon in combat, but sending home such a souvenir from the combat areas was an opportunity found by few. Owning and shooting a Japanese Nambu Type 96 today establishes a connection to the violent Pacific battles, now distant in time as well as in space, which were hard fought in exotic lands of rain forests and jungles, and on remote and obscure tropical islands, atolls, and archipelagoes in defense of our American culture, society, and freedoms. This article is written to enhance appreciation of the historical significance of the Nambu Type 96 light machine gun, one of the most important Japanese infantry weapons of the Pacific War, and to do so as a remembrance of those who fought that war.

Type 96 History

Combat experience in China during the 1930’s heightened the awareness of the soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army to the limitations of their 11th year Taisho (1922) Model Nambu light machine gun, a gas-operated Hotchkiss derivative fitted with a unique but somewhat complicated ammunition feed hopper which accepted 6.5mm Japanese service rifle cartridges in five-round stripper clips. This gun was accurate and reliable, but it was difficult to maintain on the battlefield, its action having been susceptible to dirt and debris, and its mechanism requiring oiled cartridges, which added another dimension to its maintenance problems. The Chinese enemy frequently were equipped with the excellent Czechoslovakian ZB 26 light machine guns in the powerful 7.92mm German service caliber, which either were imported from the Czech State Arms Factory at Brno or were made under license in some of the Chinese arsenals. The Japanese captured great numbers of the ZB 26 light machine guns and immediately put them into service, having recognized quickly the advantages of superior reliability. The ZB’s convenient and ample supply of loaded box magazine, and the ease of handling this well-balanced weapon had it all over their own light gun. Dissatisfaction with gun production costs and perhaps with the handling and general performance of the 11th Year Taisho Model Nambu precipitated a Japanese Army requirement for a new light machine gun, and a competition for a new design was held. Although there were several competing designs tested, the outcome of the competition resulted in the 1936 appearance and subsequent official adoption of an excellent new weapon – the Type 96 Nambu light machine gun. This weapon officially was designated Kyuroku Shiki Keikikanju, or “Type 96 light Machine Gun,” and it commonly was called Kyuroku Shiki Keiki, or “96 Type Light,” by the Japanese soldiers and marine troops who used it.

The Type 96 Nambu light machine gun was of indigenous design and was created by Japan’s most prominent arms designer, Lieutenant General Kijiro Nambu who, at the time in 1936, had retired from a long Army career and was owner of a factory in Tokyo which manufactured training rifles. In 1937, General Nambu’s Company merged with Chuo Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha, Ltd., also in Tokyo, and this large, state-supported corporation became the first manufacturer of the Type 96. Eclectic in his approach to firearms design, General Nambu sought to incorporate the best mechanical features of his approach to firearms design. He sought to incorporate the best mechanical features of his earlier 11th Year Taisho Model and of the Czech ZB light machine guns in developing this Type 96. Although he employed in the Type 96, the gas cylinder and piston-driven operating rod beneath the barrel of his 11th Year Taisho Model, features common to the best foreign designs, Nambu used a vertically sliding breech lock which held the action closed at the moment of firing. The lock was unique among light machine gun designs for it was made in the shape of a hollow square and was actuated by the operating rod which passed through it. This locking system was very reliable and it provided for adequate primary extraction which eliminated the need for the oiled cartridges of the 11th Year Model.

General Nambu was mindful, however, that the success of his design would be measured by soldiers in the field who judged these weapons by their reliability, accuracy, ease of handling, weight, and overall effectiveness in combat, rather than by the technical excellence of design pursued by designers and engineers. He knew from experience that the criteria of soldiers, designers, and engineers would have to be met if a weapon were to win a competition for adoption. The politics of the military establishment where decisions were made would have to matter, but General Nambu was an old campaigner in such matters. The sterling reputation in firearms design, which was embossed indelibly on his career, assured him of success. General Nambu’s light machine gun design won the Army’s competition and this weapon was adopted in 1936 to replace the 11th Year Model. The Type 96 light machine gun went into mass production in 1938 and was delivered shortly thereafter to troops in the field to support the invasions of Malaya and the Philippines. In December of 1941 the military forces of the Western World encountered the Type 96 light machine gun in combat – in defense of the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong by commonwealth troops, in the defense of Malaya by an Anglo-Indian army, and in the Philippines by a composite force of U.S. and Philippino troops. In August of 1942 U.S. Marines faced the Type 96 at Guadalcanal in the first U.S. invasion of Japanese territory of the Pacific War. The Marines commonly referred to this weapon as the “Nambu Light.”

Physical Characteristics and Accessories

Gas-operated and air-cooled, the Type 96 Nambu Light was a full automatic, magazine-fed shoulder weapon fired principally from the prone position on its bipod. Its pistol grip was conveniently mounted beneath the rear of the receiver to provide a sturdy hold on the weapon, and its long leather sling provided shoulder support for the gun’s weight. Its bipod folded to provide a comfortable fore grip protected from barrel heat, and this weapon was very effective when fired from the hip in an assault. The Type 96 fired with unusual accuracy the standard Japanese 6.5mm x 50mm Semi-rimmed Type 38 service cartridge used with both rifles and machine guns. The ammunition was supplied to the gun by a detachable 30-round box magazine mounted on top of the gun’s receiver. As long as the Type 38 improved, “reduced-charge” ammunition was used, the gun worked reliably and without lubrication of the ammunition. Despite occasional supply of poor ammunition insufficiently waterproofed and protected inadequately against the heat of the tropics, the Type 96 was exceptionally reliable in its functioning. A spare barrel assembly was carried with the gun, ostensibly to provide a quick change to extend sustained fire on the battlefield, but the spare was often lost or left behind in the confusion of jungle combat.

The sights on the Type 96 Nambu Light were of iron with an inverted V blade protected by side guards at the front, and the rear sight was a drum-controlled peep which was adjustable for windage as well as for elevation. The front sight blade encased a tiny glass cylinder that contained a phosphorescent substance to gather light under low-light conditions and improve the sight picture for the gunner. The sights were offset to the left because of the top-mounted magazine and hence a prismatic 2.5 power optical sight was issued to allow for this feature. The optical sight was carried by the machine gun team leader. The typical machine gun team consisted of a team leader, who was usually a sergeant, and three or four men trained as gunners and who kept the gun in action. The sight was effective only under condition of good light and clear visibility – conditions seldom found in the rain forest and jungles – and the sight infrequently was used in these environments.

A Complement of 12 or more magazines were issued with each type 96 Nambu light machine gun, and they were carried in canvas and leather constructed pouches with carrying straps. Each of these pouches held two magazines which were non-disposable and were charged with magazine loaders carried by the members of the machine gun team. Supplemental ammunition was carried in canvas shoulder bags which held 150 rounds – ten 15-round boxes of 6.5 mm Type 38 improved “reduced charge” ammunition. A spare parts wallet and a field maintenance kit – both carried in canvas belt pouches – were standard gun support accessories.

To facilitate the portability of the gun, a rigid carrying handle with a grooved wooden grip was fixed on the tip of the barrel just ahead of its joint with the receiver. A bayonet stud was machined into the forward portion of the gas cylinder beneath the gas block on the barrel, and the bayonet’s muzzle ring was supported by the front of the gas regulator plug. Early-manufactured Type 96 Nambu Lights had a barrel for a muzzle cover and cleaning rod guide secured by a stud and socket lock. Later-manufactured guns were threaded at the muzzle and fitted for a flash Hider. Weighing only 20 pounds with sling, the Type 96 was two and a half pounds lighter than its predecessor, the 11th Year Taisho Model, and its weight favorably was competitive with the best light machine guns of its kind used in the Pacific War.

Epilogue

Even as it went into production, the Type 96 Nambu Light was displaced by the Imperial Japanese Army’s adoption of another light machine gun – the Type 99 Nambu – which was made in a heavier 7.7mm (.303) caliber. The type 96 was phased out of production in 1943, its manufacturing machinery having been converted and reassigned to the production of the Type 99, which was really a slightly redesigned and strengthened Type 96. Probably because of its great accuracy, and because it was lighter and had less recoil than its Type 99 successor, the Type 96 Nambu Light that was in service remained the favorite of the Japanese gunners. U.S. Marines and soldiers prized their captured Type 96 Nambu and often carried them many miles to fire the few rounds of ammunition they had at their most resolute Japanese enemies.