After designing the M1941 semi-automatic rifle, Melvin Johnson set his sights on a light machine gun version of his design. While making it accept the already issued M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle magazines seemed a logical choice, that was not an option due to Johnson’s prior experience submitting his M1941 rifle to the Army. When the U.S. Army Ordnance Department first tested the Johnson rifle, it had a detachable box magazine. According to Bruce Canfield in his authoritative work on Johnson’s firearms, “Johnson Rifles and Machine Guns: The Story of Melvin Maynard Johnson, Jr. and His Guns”, soldiers testing the rifle loaded the cartridges in the detachable BAR magazine used in the M1941 backwards. This had the effect of bending the feed lips, rendering the magazine’s operation unreliable. Johnson saw this and demanded new magazines before the test started. Ordnance refused and, adding insult to injury, counted each of the resulting magazine-induced stoppages as “malfunctions”, tanking the gun’s performance in testing on paper. Years later, Johnson’s son, Edward Johnson, suggested to me in a conversation that this was a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of the test in favor of the competing incumbent M1 Garand rifle.

Faced with such brazen dishonesty, Johnson responded by developing a rotary magazine that could not be sabotaged in this way and that offered the benefit of being able to be topped off in use with stripper clips so that soldiers would never be caught changing magazines when an enemy suddenly appeared wanting to shoot you. For his light machine gun, Johnson added a detachable magazine to one side. He could not use a double column magazine for fear Ordnance would sabotage them and count the resulting failure of the magazines to work as the gun malfunctioning, so he developed a 20-round single-column feed magazine that was immune to such tampering. That, plus the five rounds held in the rotary magazine, gave the soldier 25 rounds at their disposal.

Johnson was well aware of the Browning Automatic Rifle’s faults. The M1918A2 was a heavy, 21 pounds and very clumsy to handle. It was gas operated with all the attendant powder fouling and jamming that goes with that kind of system. It lacked a quick-change barrel, so sustained full-auto fire was out of the question. The exposed barrel would burn you sooner or later, disassembly and reassembly was a nightmare, and most damning of all, the gun wore heavily under heavy usage, necessitating constant Ordnance rebuilds. These rebuilds, while straightforward, were often poorly done by Ordnance resulting in the troops getting weapons that did not work reliably.

Johnson set out to make a light machine gun that had none of these faults… and he succeeded. At 12.5 pounds, the weapon was still within the upper limits of what a rifle could weigh. It handled fast and sure with no hint of clumsiness. There was a ventilated barrel shroud and a quick-change barrel just like the Johnson M1941 rifle had. This was a light machine gun that could maintain sustained fire like any other air-cooled machine gun with a quick-change barrel The short recoil system of the Johnson rifle eliminated all the problems inherent in a gas-operated machine gun. It was extremely rugged and didn’t fall apart under heavy use like the BAR did. Like the Johnson rifle, it was totally reliable. Accuracy in full-auto was superior to the BAR, but unlike other weapons, the M1941 LMG fired open-bolt when in full-auto (benefitting from the 50% recoil reduction that offers) but it fired from a closed bolt when the selector was set on semi-auto for sniper rifle accuracy.

The M1941 LMG shared many components of the M1941 Johnson rifle and was actually a rifle designed to fill the LMG role. As such, it and its successor, the M1944 Johnson, remain the only rifles in history to succeed in this role. The increased speed of mobility that a lighter LMG delivers was amply demonstrated by one of Johnson’s favorite tricks, firing the M1941 LMG one-handed with his arm fully extended, as shown in the photograph. I’ve never seen or heard of anyone firing an M1918A2 BAR with one hand like that. The speed of deployment of a weapon in combat is the difference between hitting the enemy and being hit by the enemy. As a LMG is supposed to be part of a mobile squad, its mobility is a decisive factor in its effectiveness in many situations.

Since the M1941 didn’t come from Army Ordnance’s tight little clique, they immediately hated the Johnson guns — even going so far as to deny export licenses for the M1941 LMG to America’s WWII ally, Holland, in the early days of the war. However, the Marine paratroopers liked the way the quick-change barrel of the Johnson rifle and the Johnson LMG could be removed and stowed alongside the rest of the weapon making for a more compact package during parachute jumps, and they were able to get a quantity. Both the rifle and the LMG were already in production for a Dutch order. When Holland fell, these guns became available to both the Army and the Marines where they were widely loved by their users.

U.S. troops weren’t the only ones impressed with the Johnson. In Germany, Louis Stanga took it as his inspiration for the famous FG42 which was intended to replace the 98 Mauser when production permitted. Not having a hostile Ordnance Board to deal with Louis used a conventional 20-round, double column box magazine. The action was based on an improved version of the WWI Lewis Light Machine Gun and a muzzle brake was fitted. It lacked a quick-change barrel and for all its virtues, it was still inferior to the M1941 Johnson.

There were also six light carbine versions made as semi-auto rifles with a standard 10-shot rotary magazine and no bipod. Dubbed “Daisy Mae”, one of these was carried into WWII by U.S. Marine officer Harry Torgerson.

Always trying to improve his guns, Melvin Johnson determined to make the most controllable light machine gun of all time and he succeeded with his M1944 Johnson LMG. The weight went up to 14.7 pounds and the bipod and wood forend were replaced with a 1.7-pound folding monopod that served as either a vertical or a horizontal fore grip, depending on its position. This monopod proved much faster to engage and more effective than the traditional bipod. The wooden buttstock was replaced with two tubes. The top tube enabled the mainspring to have more room while the bottom tube could store a cleaning kit. There was a substantial metal buttplate that was hinged and could be flipped up to access the two tubes for maintenance. Depending on the ammunition type, the cyclic rate was anywhere from 450 -750 rounds per minute. This could also be adjusted by changing the recoil spring.

As previously stated, the M1944 Johnson LMG is totally controllable in full auto fire. By the time the 22-inch barrel has moved back a half-inch and the bolt has been cammed back 20 degrees to allow unlocking, the bullet is four or five feet from the muzzle. This also reduces the amount of powder and gas left in the barrel that typically fouls the action once the breech is unlocked. The bolt has a long throw and a long recoil spring to spread out and absorb the recoil, this is in addition to the weight of the gun doing its part to absorb recoil. The weight of the bolt and the barrel for the half-inch of unlocking travel also counts as bolt weight during that time. The result is a steady straight rearward push instead of the normal jack hammer effect of recoil in a full-auto gun that jerks the muzzle up with each shot. Fired from the prone in full-auto with the monopod deployed, the recoil from each shot is just 1.33 pounds. By way of comparison, the M16 has seven pounds of recoil per shot. Fired from the shoulder, the M1944 is still controllable. Plus, it achieves this controllability without the use of a muzzle brake that would likely cause permanent damage to the shooter’s hearing. Combining its controllable nature, its ability to fire semi-auto from a closed bolt for precise shots, and its unsurpassed reliability, Johnson may have produced the most effective one-person operated firearm of all time in his M1944 LMG.

With the selector set at semi-auto, the cycling of the action begins when the cartridge is fired. The bolt and barrel remain locked together as the barrel recoils a half-inch back into the receiver. During this travel time, the multi-lugged bolt is rotated 20 degrees to unlock by the camming arm of the bolt sliding against the camming face of the receiver. Once the bolt is unlocked, the rearward travel of the barrel is halted while the bolt continues to the rear, compressing the long recoil spring, cocking the hammer, extracting, and then ejecting the spent cartridge case. The recoil spring now drives the bolt forward, where it locks into the barrel, and the gun is ready to fire semi-auto again. This action is just like the M1941 rifle.

When the selector is set for full-auto, the cycle begins with the bolt catch holding the bolt in the open position until it’s released by pulling the trigger. It then chambers a cartridge, closes, and locks into the barrel. At this point the automatic sear is tripped, firing the round. The gun continues to fire full-auto until it is out of ammo or the trigger is released (catching the bolt in the open position.) When the last round is fired, the bolt remains closed in either the semi-auto or full-auto setting.

While the Marine Corps wanted to replace the BAR with the M1944 Johnson, this was not approved as the Marine Corps was considered a client of the Army in weapons procurement.

After the war, Johnson continued trying to get his guns adopted, even going so far as to add gas assisted operation to the guns to please Ordnance, even though this negated one of the principal advantages of his design. These efforts were unsuccessful, and it appears Ordnance was just stringing him along to offset the criticism of their scandalous behavior on this matter. The M1944 remains the high-water mark of the Johnson LMG. There has never been another non-crew-operated firearm approaching its effectiveness.

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)

(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.)

Excluding the many Browning designed weapons, the Madsen machine gun holds the distinction of being one of the oldest and longest produced machine guns in history. Though used by thirty four different countries, it was never adopted officially by any major nation. It has been chambered in every military caliber used in the world, rimmed or rimless, from 6.5mm to 25mm. Little has been written about this remarkable weapon that introduced the concept of the light machine gun. From its conception in 1902, it remained in continuous production until 1970 when Madsen went out of business.

Both John Browning and Sir Hiram Maxim did what would be considered by today’s standards, virtually impossible: they converted a lever action Winchester 1873 rifle to full automatic. Browning utilized the gas from the muzzle blast to operate a flapper that worked the lever action of the Winchester Rifle and Maxim took the Winchester and made the recoil forces at the butt plate operate the same lever action. Somewhere along the line (approx. 1898) the concept of converting a single shot repeating rifle into a full auto landed in Denmark. Julius Rasmussen used as his inspiration the Peabody-Martini (British) falling block single shot rifle. On June 15th, 1899, he applied for the first patent employing this design. However, in 1902, Lt. Theodor Schouboe was granted a patent on the same principle. No one is clear how this occurred. The gun went on to be produced by Dansk Rekylriffel Syndikat under the patents supplied by Schouboe and, for some reason, the gun was named after W.O.H. Madsen, the Danish Minister of War. It was also manufactured in England and known as the Rexer or DRRS.

During its sixty eight years of production there were many minor variations of the Madsen – over one hundred are known. However, there were basically three primary models: the first, a magazine fed LMG, the second a belt feed tank or aircraft model, and the third proved the most fantastic adaptability of the design. In 1926, The Dansk Industries announced the development of a 20mm automatic aircraft cannon utilizing the same Madsen mechanism. Though not widely used, a hydraulic buffer allowed for a 23mm version used in German Fokker aircraft.

The first US testing was done at the Springfield Armory on September 9, 1903. A total of 7,163 rounds were fired, during which enough malfunctions occurred to justify the official conclusion that the Madsen weapon had not reached a state of reliability to warrant adoption. Though Lt. Schouboe himself had conducted the firing, he had to rise to a kneeling position to clear stoppages – a condition with which one can certainly sympathize but can be fatal in combat. US special order No. 86 dated August 5, 1921 provided for a further test of the Madsen in .30-06 at Fort Riley, Kansas. Supposedly redesigned, the Model 1919 included provision for both a bayonet and elaborate, detachable flash hider. It was still deemed unsatisfactory.

The Germans experimented with a variety of newly developed weaponry and, as a stopgap, the Germans used approximately 500 Madsens in World War I (referred to as a Muskette and given the designation Leichte Automatische Muskette M15) until they developed the Maxim 08/15 that then became their light weight machine gun of choice.

In 1923, the Dansk Syndicate assigned its chief engineer, Mr. Hambroe, to redesign the Madsen mechanism for more efficiency. All he did was to add a muzzle booster that greatly increased the cyclic rate to 1,000 rounds per minuet making it ideal for aircraft use. He also added a strong spring buffer to absorb the shock of the booster. The real beauty of the aircraft gun was its ability to use disintegrating links and could be synchronized to the propeller.

During WWII, America was equipping the Dutch East Indies with Johnson automatic rifles. Johnson Automatics, better known as Cranston Arms, supplied barrels for the Madsen LMG.

In 1950 the last evolution of the design featured a quick change barrel and a tripod soft mount with a remote firing devise.

By all concepts of logic, this gun should not work as it is a mechanical nightmare – but it does indeed work. The key to its operation is a cammed “switch plate” that allows recoil to perform the actions of loading, firing, extracting, and ejecting the spent rounds. The term “switch plate” is a 19th century expression of a device that caused a sequence of functions to be completed in rapid succession for a railroad train. In this case, a switch plate multi-tasks the functions for the machine gun and is the mechanical heart of the weapon. The Madsen is known as a long recoil system, i.e., the barrel and breach mechanism reciprocate together inside of a barrel shroud and receiver box. This action works the lever that, like the Martini Rifle, accomplishes the task of ramming the round into the chamber with such force that it often deforms the cartridge case. If the round does not fire it is difficult to clear the stoppage.

Test firing was conducted with Madsen Mle. 1950, serial number 1475. The gun did not function flawlessly. It soon became evident that great care had to be taken in placing the magazine into the top or it would spill rounds into the magazine well. When a shell got down into the mechanism it did not chamber or fire and it was a chore to remove the offending round.

As mentioned above, the power of the ramming arm often distorted the case making it a ramrod job to remove from the chamber. Then, one had to carefully work the case to the ejection port that is part of the reciprocating mechanism attached to the barrel. Nevertheless, when it did work, it was a joy to fire. Amazingly, it was found that the magazine was unnecessary to fire the weapon. Four rounds could be dropped into the magazine well and the gun would fire all four. Single shots were readily obtained as the cyclic rate was approx. 550 rpm. The bipod was not sturdy enough to prevent dumping the machine gun over into the dirt. The offset sights were sufficient and accurate. The magazine is a top feed double stacked 30 rounder until it enters the gun. It then becomes a single feed with the round being retained by a large spring that also acts as a magazine catch. There are several positive points about the Madsen design. First, its top magazine feed allowed gravity to enhance its entry into the mechanism; second, a bottom feed that was positive and powerful; and finally, the Madsen fires from an open chamber reducing the chance of a cook off.

When one carefully examines this design, there is a tendency to write off the Madsen as a “mechanical monstrosity” that like the Bumblebee should not fly. But, upon more careful examination, the designer, whoever he may be, took a tried and true Martini rifle and applied 19th century railroad technology, added robust parts, and designed a machine gun that is found in museums around the world. At the old MOD Pattern Room there was an entire long table devoted to Madsen LMGs, with more national crests than the fabled Roundtable. Many armies tried the weapon and modified strategies around it to apply the weapon. This is an unsung pivotal weapon in the small arms field. In the end, it was a versatile design that deserves a better niche in history.

By Jean Huon

The first French light machine gun was created in 1900 and was invented by a military engineer named Rossignol, who also developed several models of semiautomatic rifles. They had the characteristic to function by direct action of the gases to the bolt but this weapon remained experimental only.

About 1910, several light machine guns were tested: Hotchkiss light machine-gun (same as Bénet-Mercier), a CS (Chauchat-Sutter) for aircraft and others such as Berthier and Madsen.

In 1915, the Chauchat light machine gun was adopted, resulting from the model CS tested before the war. It was a crude weapon, easy to manufacture, but badly protected from mud. It was also prone to repeated operational incidents because of the profile of the case of the 8mm Lebel cartridge that was incompatible with a correct feed by the magazine.

Before the end of the conflict, the French Army looked to adopt the American Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) and to manufacture in France the .30-06 cartridge. But the idea was abandoned.

The 1914-1918 war ended on November 11, 1918, but peace is fragile and the French headquarters were afraid of a possible resumption of the hostilities. In 1919, a military group was charged to study what the needs for the French Army would be for the years to come. Its conclusions revealed that the light armament was out of date and inadequate to the new requirements of modern warfare.

In 1921, a new program of armament for the infantry was drawn up, aiming to the creation of new models of a:

• light machine gun,
• submachine gun,
• automatic pistol;
• rifles (both semiautomatic and repeater),
• machine gun,
• light mortar,
• light anti-tank gun for infantry.

Of all the weapons studied, only the light machine gun was carried out quickly. The other weapons were adopted fifteen or twenty years later. Thus, modern armament was lacking, so much so, that in 1939 when war broke out again, the material employed were the guns of the preceding conflict.

However, the light machine gun was regarded as a top priority. The first prototypes manufactured in France appeared in 1922 with tests taking place the following year.

At the same time, new cartridges were developed that were more cylindrical to allow easy operation in automatic weapons: particularly the 7.5×58, also known under the name Model 1924 C, appearing in its primitive form since 1921.

Between 1920 and 1923, the Section Technique de l’Artillerie, who works in the Camp de Satory close to Versailles, carried out many tests of light machine guns, including:

• Berthier 1922. Development of the weapon was tested before the war and one hundred specimens were manufactured at the Châtellerault Arsenal, chambered for the American cartridge.30-06.
• Madsen. A Danish made gun, it had a large career and was used by more than25 countries including France during World War I. Two weapons chambered in 8mm Lebel were presented to the tests for the infantry and cavalry.
• Lewis 1920 (.30-06) and 1922 (7.92mm Mauser). These British weapons were not the same as the former model. The circular magazine was replaced by a straight box located under the gun.
• Hotchkiss 1922. Two of these light machine guns firing the 7mm Mauser cartridge were presented. One was fed by rigid link, the other by box magazine. These weapons were used by various countries in the world (China, Chile, Spain, Greece, Lebanon, Peru, Romania, etc).
• Browning 1922. A variation of the BAR M1918, firing the .30-06 cartridge.
• MAS 1922 and 1923. Manufactured by Saint-Etienne Arsenal, they are copies of the Browning light machine gun, manufactured for the new 7.5mm cartridge. Two variations were made: one for infantry (long barrel) and another for cavalry (short barrel).
• Darne 1923. A French light machine gun derived from the aircraft model, it fired the 7.92mm Mauser cartridge.

The tests had shown that the Browning Automatic Rifle was the best of all the guns presented. However, there remained a delicate problem: the payment of the royalties for the license to manufacture the gun in France. The requirements of the Colt Company for the transfer of license were considered to great and the weapon was withdrawn from consideration.

Looking for the experience gained at the time of the development of the Berthier light machine gun, lieutenantcolonel Reibel, chief of the research department of the Châtellerault Arsenal, proposed on February 8, 1923 to the Ministry of War, the development of a new weapon; less expensive to manufacture and designed by military engineers, which would exonerate the State of any royalty due to an inventor.

The ministry agreed and Reibel put himself to work and was able to submit to the Versailles proving ground the prototype of the light machine gun produced in MAC. Jean Reibel (1868-1954) was certainly a technician of high value but some of the characteristics of the Châtellerault light machine gun were borrowed from other weapons; particularly from the Berthier.

In June 1923, the first prototype was ready firing the 7.5mm Model 1924 (7.5×58) cartridge and was subjected to a series of tests. After some modifications, it was followed by an order of twenty-five prototypes to be tested by troops. On January 21, 1924, the weapon was adopted and designated in France as the Fusil-mitrailleur Model 1924 or F.-M. 24. In English speaking countries, it is known as the Châtellerault light machine gun.

Production began in July 1925, and at the end of October of the same year, 600 weapons were made. The new light machine gun was tested in combat on May 11, 1926 in the Djebel Inskritene (Morocco), where it was used by the 2nd battalion of the 66th Moroccan Riflemen Regiment. But at that time the French Army also used captured German weapons (rifles and machine guns), firing the 7.92mm Mauser cartridge. The similarity between the German cartridge and the French 7.5×58 cartridge sometimes caused confusion with the wrong cartridge being used in the Châtellerault. If a 7.92mm Mauser cartridge is drawn in the Châtellerault M1924 light machine gun, the weapon is put out of service.

After more tests to cure certain defects and improve various details, it was decided to modify the cartridge whereby it was shortened by 4mm, becoming the 7.5mm Model 1929 (7.5×54).

It then became necessary to modify all the Châtellerault light machine guns in service by exchange of the barrel, which required the return of the weapon to the factory, as well as building new weapons chambered for the 7.5×54 cartridge.

The new weapon is designated Fusilmitrailleur Model 1924 – M29 or F.-M. 24-29. It was manufactured at the Châtellerault Arsenal, with barrels provided by the Tulle Arsenal (MAT) or private factories (Hotchkiss, Gladiator).

The Châtellerault was manufactured from 1925 to 1939 with 45,530 Model 1924 guns being produced, and 53,769 Model 1924 – M29 guns being produced. From September 1939 to June 19, 1940, MAC produced 34,500 Model 1924 – M29 light machine guns. After an interruption during the war, production began again in January 1945, and 53,613 new guns were made until 1957 when the AA52 was adopted. The production of all versions of the Châtellerault is 187,412 guns.

Manufactured in great quantity since its adoption, the Châtellerault LMG was in quasi-general allocation in all the units in 1939 (except some reserve and specialized troops as engineers, which still used the Chauchat). During the war, it continued to be used by the Vichy French forces and the Militia, while the Germans brought it into service under the name of L.MG.116 (F). The Free French Forces from the Berthier. also largely used this weapon.

The Châtellerault LMG was used in Indo-China and Algeria, and was kept by reserve infantry regiments until the beginning of the 1980s. It was withdrawn from service in the gendarmerie in 2004.

There were efforts to export the Châtellerault to Yugoslavia and Romania in 1930s, but these attempts failed. The Châtellerault was used for a long time by the former French colonies in Africa, North Africa, South East Asia and also in Lebanon and Israel.

Description

This gun is a select fire, gas operated, air cooled light machine gun. It was used by infantry combat groups and intended to provide a sustained fire both in the attack and defense. The doctrine for the main use was a legacy of the fight in WWI. Designed during peace time, it is made of forged and milled steel parts. The result is a well designed and strong gun, which costs nowadays would be prohibitive.

The stock is fitted with an articulated shoulder rest and it contains a speed reducer and a recoil buffer. It is assembled within the frame by means of a fitting maintained by three pins.

The stock also has a removable monopod support Model 1930. It has a shoe made of sheet metal and an adjustable cylinder that regulates height by means of a double screw.

The receiver frame carries the cocking lever on the right, ejection port on top and contains a gas piston slide and the bolt. Below the receiver frame is the trigger mechanism, with a pistol grip. A short forearm is just forward of the trigger guard and is fitted with a vertical tube to allow the gun to be fitted on an anti-aircraft support.

The magazine housing and the ejection port can be closed by a single articulated flap. Below the barrel is the gas cylinder and at its front end has two blowholes. The gas cylinder and slide is the same part and has inside the recoil spring made of round or twisted wire.

The barrel, cylindrical with thick walls, is finished by a truncated flash hider with holes. The barrel has four lands and grooves; one turn at left in 270mm (10.63 in.).

A folding bipod is fixed permanently at the end of the gun and is fitted with cast iron or bronze shoes. Its tubular legs are not adjustable for height; they are joined together by an articulated compass. In position for transport, the bipod is folded back on the right side of the barrel.

The rear sight is graduated in hectometers from 100 to 2,000 meters and carries a folding eyepiece. The front sight is a blade fitted on the left side of a collar which is between the barrel and the flash hider.

Characteristics of the Châtellerault.
Model 1924 – M 29 LMG
Caliber: 7.5mm
Ammunition: 7.5 mm Model 1929 C
Overall length: 1,070mm (42.12 in.)
Barrel length: 500mm (19.69 in.)
Weight,emptys: 8.9 kg (19.62 lbs)
Mag Capacity: 25 rounds
Rate of fire: 450 rpm

Before Shooting

Place the weapon in a shooting position with the barrel pointed down range. Turn the eyepiece on the left and adjust the sight. Open the flap cover of magazine housing and ejection port. Unlock the magazine lock. Install a loaded magazine, pull off the safety and pull the cocking lever to the rear and replace it at the front position.

Operation
Full Automatic Fire

As the gunner pulls the rear trigger, the sear goes down. Pushed by the return spring, the bolt and piston move forward. A cartridge is stripped from the magazine and chambered. The bolt goes to the closed position and is locked by the action of the links, tilting the rear of the bolt on a hard steel locking pin. The slide which carries the firing pin goes forward and the cartridge is fired. When the bullet pass over the gas port, part of the gas is bled into the cylinder and pushes the piston backwards. The bolt is unlocked, opened, and the empty case is extracted from the barrel and ejected. As the bolt and gas piston travels rearward, the recoil spring is compressed. The piston goes to the rear and contacts the buffer; the bolt pushes the speed reducer pin and is retained by the speed reducer lever. The speed reducer pin comes back and unlocks the speed reducer lever. Pushed by the recoil spring, both the bolt and piston move forward. The cycle of operation is repeated until the gunner releases the trigger or until the ammunition is exhausted. The purpose of the speed reducer is to slow down the return of the bolt and piston to the front position for fraction of a second in order to lower the rate of fire.

Single Shot Firing

The gunner pulls the front trigger. The sear goes down a short time, permitting the bolt and piston to go forward, but the sear then returns to its place. The moving parts will thus be stopped in its movement at each shot. The other phases of operation are identical to those of full auto fire.

Disassembly and Reassembly

Remove the magazine and clear the weapon. Place the bolt in the front position. Unscrew the stock pin and remove the butt stock. Take off the pistol grip. Remove the recoil spring and guide. Withdraw the bolt and piston slide out of the receiver. Turn the gas cylinder lock and remove the gas cylinder. Separate the bolt, the links, their axis and the piston. Take off the ejector rod. Reassemble in reverse order.

Accessories

There are many accessories for the weapon and include:

• Spare parts. Placed in the stock, they include an ejector and a frame screw,
• cleaning kit. Two models exist; one for service in the barracks and the other for in the field,
• magazine loader,
• magazine unloader,
• blank firing devices. Two models were used: M1930, blued, for the wooden bullet blank cartridge and Inox steel M1958 for a plastic training cartridge. It is placed behind the flash hider.
• M1935 recovering box for empty cases. It is made of a fabric bag with metal reinforcement and sheet hooks,
• key to dismount the barrel and flash hider (reserved to gunsmith).
• Model 1938 leather strap, used for transport or shooting in the prone position,
• fabric sheath for transport with leather reinforcements (infantry),
• rigid leather saddle holster for cavalry,
• metallic closure for the rear of the frame that makes it possible to transport the weapon on the back with the stock removed (used by mountain troop),
• canvas holster for paratroops,
• magazine pouch containing two magazines,
• haversacks for magazines, several models were used : improved M 1915, M 1924, M 1935 and M 1950 (two for infantry and one for paratroops),
• camouflage unit (consisting of thread and pegs),
• anti-aircraft sight and support.

Variations

Châtellerault LMG in 7.92mm Mauser

To answer the request of foreign governments, the Châtellerault Arsenal, realized in 1927-28 that the light machine guns were able to shoot the 7.92mm Mauser cartridge, and some were delivered to Serbia, Poland and Romania. But these weapons were not retained and ZB 26 or Browning were chosen instead.

Fortress Châtellerault LMG

In order to equip the casemates or turrets in the Maginot line, the Model 1924- M 29 LMG was modified to allow it to use the 7.5mm Model 1933 D heavy bullet cartridge. The barrel with one turn in 270mm (10.6 in.) is replaced by a barrel with one turn in 235mm (9.25 in.) and the tangent rear sight is replaced and the bipod is removed.

This weapon was installed into single or double mounts in turrets or firing ports. They were equipped with a device for the recovery of empty cartridge cases so that they did not block the systems of rotation of the turrets. 2,512 light machine guns were transformed to this configuration.

7.62 mm NATO Châtellerault LMG

Following the adoption of the T65 (7.62mm NATO) cartridge by NATO, France entered into a program of assault rifle for the 7.62×51 cartridge and considered the modification of older weapons such as MAS 36-51 rifles, Châtellerault LMG and MAC 31 tank machine guns.

On October 17, 1951, the decision was made to study the feasibility of making such a conversion of the Châtellerault LMG and in June 1952, two converted weapons were tested. The modification relates to the replacement ofthe barrel and the extractor; as well as the use of a new magazine as the old one was not able to be modified.

Fifty Model 1924 – M 29 were then modified and tested in October 1956 with troop evaluation taking place in 1957. The project was not adopted.

Competition Châtellerault LMG

In the 1960s, the Army organized shooting competitions combining speed and precision. The most current guns in usewere the pistol and rifle, but also the light machine gun. To improve the performance of the Châtellerault, some modifications were made and were approved on July 13, 1966.

This modification relates to the following points:

• a curved pistol grip like the Bren LMG,
• adoption of a new rear sight which cannot be folded, but adjustable in height and windage,
• a more prominent safety lever,
• a handle for transport,
• a gas port with a four position regulator,
• a bipod adjustable in height, with lighter shoes without holes,
• a shroud to protect the front sight,
• a new bigger flash hider.

Conclusion

Developed during peaceful interwar years by highly competent technicians and having profited from recent engagements, the Châtellerault Model 1924 – M 29 light machine gun was undoubtedly one of the most successful weapons of its category.

Accurate, reliable and easy handling, it always gave satisfaction to its users and was shown under certain conditions (e.g., in the desert) higher reliability than other models.

The negative points that could possibly be noted are the position of the magazine that may cause the avoidance of use by a left handed user, it is difficult to camouflage, it had no device for a quick change barrel and the use of box magazines is less practical than cartridges on a belt.

In spite of that, the Châtellerault is a beautiful weapon whose success has proven itself.

The OICW Increment 1 program commenced in 2005 to replace the current fleet of M16/M4 carbines in the U.S. government inventory: something that has been attempted many times without materializing over the last 40 years. This program had a requirement for a family of weapons and was broken down into three increments. Increment 1 was comprised of the family of weapons. This required a special compact model, a carbine, a designated marksman rifle and a light machine gun. Increment 2 was to be the development of the 25mm grenade launcher. Increment 3 was to be the combining of the two for the creation of the OICW (Offensive Individual Combat Weapon).

Several requirements were made in the solicitation. Most importantly, there needed to be 75% parts interchangeability in the special compact, carbine and designated marksman rifle and 50% parts interchangeability with the LMG (light machine gun).

Colt design engineers had a well-established starting point for their family of weapons. Just being post-SCAR development (Special forces Combat Assault Rifle); Colt already had a proven gas piston operated firearm and, additionally, already had a proprietary 1-piece upper receiver that would work well in all four weapons. The only major undertaking would be adapting the 1-piece upper receiver to the LMG variation.

The upper receiver for all four weapons would be based on the current LE1020 upper receiver, which is the product-improved version of Colt SCAR entry. The major change to the upper receiver would be the way the piston assembly is removed. On the SCAR rifle, there was a pin that held the piston assembly into the receiver that required a drift punch and a hammer to remove. Based on the criticism of difficulty in disassembly from SOCOM, Colt redesigned this with a sliding detent pin similar to the rear takedown and front pivot pin of the lower receiver. There was also a major redesign of the gas piston sleeve. The SCAR gas piston sleeve had no provision for easy alignment for assembly or griping method for removing an extremely fouled or corroded gas piston sleeve. The improved gas piston sleeve provided a guide for assembly to align the gas piston sleeve with the detent pin as well as a gripping surface for removal of a fouled or corroded gas piston sleeve.

The lower receiver of the OICW would be entirely interchangeable for all four models and is identical to that of the M4 carbine. The thought on this was twofold. First, the Colt OICW could be implemented as a ret-rofit of existing weapons by only replacing the upper receiver and, second, was the compliance with the parts commonality.

The LMG Variation

The LMG variation had some additional requirements to set it apart from the other three weapons that included the ability to have a heavy quick detachable barrel that did not need to have an ability to mount a grenade launcher. However, the LMG did need to have an ability to mount a bayonet. Also, the LMG was required to have a folding bipod.

The lower receiver of the LMG was the standard M4A1 lower receiver. Due to it being a light machine gun, Colt engineers took several trigger designs into consideration. They looked at an open bolt trigger mechanism; a closed bolt semi-auto/open bolt auto trigger mechanism, as well as the standard closed bolt trigger mechanism. The final decision was made to go with the standard closed bolt trigger mechanism; made primarily to keep with parts commonality. The only other departure from the norm was the replacement of the H buffer with the H2 buffer. The H buffer contains two steel and one tungsten weight and the H2 buffer contains one steel and two tungsten weights. The tungsten weight has the mass of two steel weights. This was changed to prevent bolt carrier bounce/light strikes when firing fully automatic.

As stated above, the upper receiver would be based on the 1-piece upper receiver. This receiver allowed the barrel to free-float, which in turn allowed more rapid cooling. Additionally, the upper receiver does not have a forward assist assembly. This has always been a controversial issue. Many believe, including Gene Stoner, that the forward assist was not necessary on the firearm and in fact detrimental. If your bolt is not fully closed, the rifle is trying to tell the user there is a problem! That means to get that round out of the chamber and load another. Forcing the bolt closed massively increases the potential of causing further problems. Others believe this is necessary to have the ability to force the bolt closed if need be. The forward assist has been retained due to it being required by the U.S. military Technical Data Package (TDP). However, Colt decided to remove it on this LMG.

The upper receiver is very similar to the standard 1-piece upper but with two major changes. Due to the requirement for the removable barrel, a locking mechanism had to be designed. The main changes would be made to the bottom of the handguard. The upper receiver and barrel extension are cut with the M4 extended feed ramps.

The 18.5 inch long heavy barrel has a diameter in-between that of the M4A1 heavy SOCOM barrel and the standard Colt open bolt LMG. The chamber area of the barrel has significantly more material making it much thicker and therefore increasing the LMG’s cook-off thermal threshold. The prototype LMG is set up for the 700 to 950 round per minute cyclic rate that is the same as the standard M4 carbine. The rear of the barrel would have two sets of index grooves. The first is at the rear of the barrel, which aligns into the upper receiver and acts as the barrel extension. The second is forward where the barrel is locked in place by the lever on the bottom of the receiver. To release the barrel, a lever on the bottom of the handguard is pulled out of engagement and the barrel is pulled out. This led to another problem: how the hot barrel would be removed, as asbestos gloves are no longer used or allowed. Colt was in the process of making a carrying handle to push the barrel out of the receiver right when the program was cancelled.

The gas system would also have to be modified from its original configuration. The piston/operating rod would be split into two separate pieces. The operating rod, spring and stop would be held captive in the upper receiver along with a new heat shield. This would be removed by an additional lever on the bottom of the lower handguard. The piston would be pinned into the gas piston sleeve and remain part of the barrel assembly. The gas piston sleeve is held into the front sight base in the same manner as the rest of the Colt OICW family of weapons by the detent pin on the front sight base. The piston pin is held in pace by an extended front sight base guide. To disassemble the piston assembly, the detent pin is pulled from the right, and the piston sleeve is removed from the front of the front sight base. The piston retaining pin is pushed out one of the two sides and the piston is removed from the sleeve.

The assembly of the LMG is as follows. Insert the heat shield, operating rod, spring and stop assembly into the upper receiver from the front of the receiver. Push it inward until it snaps into place and is held by the lever. Insert the piston into the piston sleeve and align the hole in the side of the piston with the channel groove in the gas piston sleeve and insert the retaining pin. Now slide the gas piston sleeve assembly into the front sight base and align the locating pin with the groove on the right side of the front sight base and push the detent pin in until it locks in place. Slide the barrel into the upper receiver (with the bolt carrier group locked to the rear) until it stops. Flip the locking lever back so it is flush with the receiver. Give the barrel a tug to be sure it is locked in place. The LMG is now assembled and ready to fire.

The bolt carrier group is identical to that of the LE1020 and the other three OICW weapons. It is a modified fully automatic bolt carrier with two major changes. The first is the addition of the “skis” on the bottom rear of the bolt carrier sear trip area. This is to keep the bolt carrier in alignment with the buffer extension when it moves rearward. This is necessary due to when the piston rod strikes the bolt carrier key as the rear of the bolt carrier has a tendency to tip down at a slight angle. The other change is the modified carrier key. The carrier key is solid steel and pinned in place to take the force of being struck by the operating rod. No gas rings are necessary. The bolt is the standard M4 bolt with the heavy extractor spring and stronger (black) extractor spring buffer.

The LMG was equipped with the standard Colt folding front sight base used on the SCAR Type C and the LE1020, and the Matech back-up iron sight; though any backup sight could be used. With the Mil-Std- 1913 rail any of the wide array of combat optics could be mounted. Due to having quad Mil-Std-1913 rails, the LMG could be equipped with a variety of accessories to include a flashlight, laser, vertical pistol grip or anything else that was wanted or needed. The LMG standard feeding device was to be the standard M16/M4 magazine, but it could also accept the Beta C-mag or any other high capacity magazine.

The program was cancelled in November of 2005. The prototype shown in this article is the only one in existence and was never finished. The bayonet lug and the barrel removal handle were never implemented.

Introduced in 1935, the German MG 34 was the first lightweight multi-purpose machine gun to be produced in appreciable quantities. Patents from several German firms contributed to the design of the weapon, which was based on the Solothurn S 2-200 Swiss machine gun originally designed by Louis Stange of Rheinmetall.

One of the best features of the 7.92mm MG 34 was its quick-change barrel. There were a number of improvements implemented into the basic design since it was initially fielded, resulting in a number of variations of the weapon. One modification of the MG 34 served as a tank machine gun. Captured examples of the MG 34 had an active postwar service life, pressed into service by a number of nations. Even during the Vietnam War a new generation of American troops occasionally faced the menacing MG 34 machine gun.

The MG 42, being made principally of sheet metal stampings and could be made cheaper and in larger numbers, supplanted the MG 34 during World War II although the MG 34 still remained in service throughout the conflict. Modern variations of the MG 42 still serve as the general-purpose machine gun of a number of countries.

During World War II, the United States Ordnance Department routinely studied, tested and evaluated many captured enemy small arms. Reports were written that included all of the weapon’s characteristics, specifications and overall performance. Each individual component, to the smallest spring and pin was carefully measured, weighed and photographed.

Captured arms were usually subjected to the Ordnance Department’s standard test for the particular type of weapon being evaluated, to see how they compared to similar U.S. designs. In the case of the German MG 34, the light machine gun test was administered. The U.S. Ordnance reports seldom gave praise to foreign designs.

The U.S. Ordnance Department Tests the German MG 34 Light Machine Gun, 1942

The first test of the German MG 34 was initiated at the Aberdeen Proving Center on 8 March 1942, lasting until 5 May 1942. Due to the lack of sufficient 7.92mm ammunition (only 1,383 rounds of tracer, ball and AP were captured with the weapon), the endurance test was not performed.

The initial impression of the MG 34 as reported from the field was that it was a very effective machine gun, and accomplished its mission in an efficient manner. The weapon and ammunition being submitted for the test had been captured in the Middle East. Three additional breech bolts were received with the weapon, all bearing different numbers, which did not correspond with the arm’s primary serial number. This led Ordnance personnel to initially believe that the bolts were hand fitted to each particular weapon. However, all of the bolts fit and functioned in the subject piece.

Ordnance Department Description, 1942

The MG 34 is the standard machine gun of the German Army. It can be employed as a light machine gun on a bipod or light tripod, or as a heavy machine gun on a tripod or the Lafette 34 mount. The machine gun can be used for anti-aircraft purposes on either tripod. Other mounts have been reported including a twin A.A. mount, which mounts a pair of MG 34 LMG’s in a side-by-side configuration. In addition to mounts, there are a number of different sights to include; the standard sights, the rear sight is a U-shaped affair graduated from 200 to 2,000 meters with a blade type front sight; an anti-aircraft sight with an aperture rear sight and a “cartwheel” A.A. front sight, mounted approximately 8-inches to the rear of the standard front sight position. A dial-type sight is used for the heavy machine gun role; this sight has a 3x magnification with a field of view of about 240 yards wide with a range of 1,000 yards.

The MG 34 is a short recoil-operated, belt fed air-cooled design. It operates on the typical Solothurn action. It is similar to the MG 15 weapon, differing mainly in that the bolt incorporates a firing pin spring and a tripped firing pin. This principal allows the bolt head to be completely locked before the force of the driving spring pushes the bolt body forward another 1/2-inch, releasing the firing pin by means of a trip.

The MG 34 is normally fed by a metallic ammunition belt, although the German hand book for the MG 34 also refers to a 50 and a 75-round cartridge drum. Each belt contains 50 rounds, although troops often join together as many as 5 belts for a 250-round capacity.

This weapon was originally reported to be easily manufactured; at first glance this appears to be true because of its circular configuration. However a closer study reveals that there are many intricate milling cuts on the breech-bolt alone. The bolt of this weapon has been shown to numerous American manufacturers, all of who estimated a high cost of manufacture for the part. Other parts of the MG 34 that require difficult machining procedures are the receiver, rear of the barrel jacket, the trigger mechanism and the feed cam. The reminder of the parts appear to be simple to produce, but not enough to off-set the cost of the complex pieces.

Field Stripping

The time required to field strip the MG 34 was 15-seconds, reassembly time 25-seconds. A complete strip requires approximately 2 minutes, reassembly time requires about 3 minutes. Time required for a barrel change was 6 seconds.

Firing Test

Accuracy of the MG 34 was found to be rather poor. Fired from the prone position, at a range of 300 yards an experienced gunner engaged five paper targets that measured 6 feet by 9 feet. Twenty rounds were fired using the semiautomatic mode. Only two of the targets had twenty hits with an extreme spread from 53 to 65.5 inches. The remaining targets showed 13, 15 and 19 hits on target.

Using full-automatic fire at 300 yards the weapon could not be held on the 6 foot by 9 foot targets, firing twenty-round bursts. Results on three separate targets were; two of the targets had 13 hits one had only 9 hits.

The average muzzle velocity was 2,380 feet per second. The cyclic rate of fire was measured at 750 rounds per minute with the booster plug closed and 830 rounds per minute with the booster plug set at 15-notches out from the closed position.

The MG 34 was capable of lifting 75 rounds of belted ammunition during firing.

Noted during the test was that most of the motion of the weapon during firing was in a horizontal plane. The jarring of the gunner’s head during firing made aiming difficult. Motion in the vertical plane was small, due to the point of support being in a direct line with the bore. The moment of forces acting on the muzzle are close to zero with little tendency to rise. This characteristic has been recently investigated at the Proving Ground with a Thompson submachine gun, using an improvised straight-line buttstock. The results of this testing bear out that the most efficient position of the stock is directly in line with the bore.

Problems encountered during the test.

During the early phases of the test a lack of sufficient power was noted due to 41 short recoils in the first 60 rounds fired. The short cycling resulted in failures to feed and eject. After several attempts at replacing various parts, it was necessary to disassemble the ammunition from the belts and remove all of the fine sand and debris from the ammunition and belts. After cleaning the weapon functioned in a satisfactory manner. An interesting note was during testing at Aberdeen, the MG 34 was subjected to Ordnance’s standard artificial sand test with no major problems encountered. Further investigation revealed that the sand present on the weapon and ammunition was from the Middle East and had a very fine consistency and was nearly invisible to the naked eye.

The general functioning is excellent, but the weapon is critical to proper adjustment, lubrication and foreign matter. The weapon was originally fitted with a booster having a .420-inch diameter. A new muzzle booster was made with a .350 and .380-inch diameters. With the clean ammunition and the .350-inch booster the weapon functioned well. The semiautomatic trigger would not function correctly, double and triple shots were common when attempting to fire the machine gun semi-automatically.

The accuracy of the German MG 34 during automatic fire is poor, this is due in part to the recoil and shock to the gunner’s shoulder. Its rate of automatic fire is far to high for a weapon of this type. The stability is good due to the point of support being a direct prolongation of the bore.

The weapon’s resistance to heat is very good.

The ability to rapidly change the barrel was excellent. German manuals state that a maximum of 250 rounds of continuous fire requires a barrel change. However, German prisoners of war have stated that up to 400 rounds could be fired during an emergency situation before changing out the barrel.

Conclusions of the U.S. Ordnance Department Testing

Results of the testing concluded that the MG 34 is simple, easy to disassemble in the field, however it would be difficult to manufacture on a mass production basis.

The general functioning is quite good, but is extremely critical to adjustment, lubrication and foreign matter.

The performance of the MG 34 during the dust test was considered poor; functioning in extreme cold was poor. Full-automatic performance is poor due to the recoil and shock to the gunner’s shoulder. Its rate of fire is too high for a light machine gun. The ease of changing out a hot barrel is excellent. The belt lift is good.

In general the German MG 34 is neither adaptable to American manufacturing methods due to the critical tolerance of its parts, or to the American soldier due to its inaccuracy.

MG 34 Dual Purpose Machine Gun

Caliber………………………..7.92 mm (.312 in.)
Overall length……………..48 1/4 – inches
Barrel length………………..24 9/16 – inch, 4- groove R.H. twist
Weight with bipod………..26 3/4 pounds
Weight without bipod……24 1/4 pounds
Command height
Low bipod position…..11 1/4 – inches
High bipod position…..13 1/2 – inches
Cyclic rate…………………..800 to 900 rounds per minute
Cartridge feed………………flexible metallic belt containing 50-rounds
Cooling………………………air
Operation……………………short recoil assisted by muzzle blast

As early as 1889, Imperial Russia ordered for trial purpose 12 Maxim machine guns chambered for the black-powder “4.2-line” 10.6x58R Russian Service Berdan cartridge. These early weapons were imported from the British company Maxim Nordenfelt Gun & Ammunition Company Ltd (MNG&ACL). Following these trials, the first Maxim machine guns adopted for operational service were for the Imperial Russian Navy, and were still chambered for the 10.6x58R cartridges.

According to the other contemporary Maxim belts, the fabric belts for the Russian Navy should have had a total capacity of 334 rounds, although the author has so far not examined any complete specimens. The belt is composed of two strips of webbing fixed together by means of riveted brass spacers, thereafter generating the pockets to accommodate the cartridges. A long spacer is installed after every three pockets to insure maintaining a correct seat of the ammunition when the belt is stacked in its transport crate. Both ends of the belt are fitted with starters composed of two flat brass tabs riveted together and are intended to facilitate the introduction of the belt into the feed mechanism.

The very rare specimen observed is a 13-round sample belt kept for reference purposes by the Vickers Company and, hopefully, still survives today. Markings are “RUS V” suspected to mean “Russian Vickers” as well as an inspection mark of the Crayford facility (C/8).

The early Model 1895 machine guns in caliber 7.62x54R.

Immediately following the adoption in 1891 of the “3-line” 7.62x54R Russian cartridge loaded with smokeless powder, the first five Maxim machine guns chambered for that new caliber were tested as early as 1892. In May 1895, the Maxim machine gun chambered for the 7.62x54R cartridge was officially adopted for service as fortress armament bearing the designation of Model 1895. These early machine guns were fitted on a heavy wheeled carriage with large armor shield. In 1896, the Vickers Sons & Maxim Company (VSM) received an order for 174 Model 1895 machine guns chambered for 7.62x54R. This order probably corresponds to the entries in the Vickers Register of Guns for 1897 where 179 guns are referenced with the caliber denoted as “RSB”. Although it has been previously suspected among knowledgeable researchers that this should stand for “Russian Service Berdan” and therefore be in caliber 10.6x58R, Russian sources indicate these were in caliber 7.62x54R. In that case, it is supposed that the “RSB” reference could rather stand for “Russian Service Board.”

According to the size of the early standard wooden ammunition box that can accommodate a 334-round belt with 10.6mm cartridges, the new capacity of the belts for the smaller 7.62x54R rounds was extended to 450 rounds. Unfortunately, the author has never managed, so far, to come across any of these early British-imported 450-round belts of the Russian contract, and accordingly their particularities and markings remain unknown.

In 1897 a first batch of 224 additional machine guns were ordered from the German company Ludwig Loewe, which later became the Deutsches Waffen und Munition Fabrik (DWM). In total, approximately 1,500 weapons were imported from Germany between 1897 and at least 1903. It is supposed that the accompanying ammunition feed belts were probably the standard German capacity of 250 rounds only.

The Russian Model 1905 and 1910 machine guns in caliber 7.62x54R

The first Maxim weapons locally produced in Russia under Vickers (VSM) license are referenced as Model 1905. It is during that year that the first batch of 28 machine guns locally made in Russia came off of the production lines, followed in 1906 by another batch of 73 weapons. In March 1906, a comparative trial was conducted between 3 ammunition belts imported from England and the very first 4 prototype fabric belts assembled in Russia. These first tests showed that the Russian belts were woven too close, which led to misfires. Further investigations finally concluded that the best material suited for the manufacture of the belts was a braid from a Riga textile factory. It is suspected that the early Russian belts had a capacity of 250 rounds only according to that of the belts already imported with the weapons from Germany and also according to the length which became standard among other contemporary Maxim users. In the period 1905-1908, a total of 1,376 machines guns of Model 1905 were produced. While the improved and lightened version of the weapon was adopted under the designation of Model 1910, the accompanying ammunition belts are suspected to have remained unchanged. So far, the earliest belt of local Russian production examined is dated 1910 and the author would be grateful to any reader who might report any earlier date.

The belts of early Russian production are fitted with both starter tags and spacers made of brass. According to the size of the Russian 7.62x54R cartridge, the total length of the long spacers installed every three pockets is 58.5mm. The starter tags are marked with the year of production (expressed with 4 digits) and the Imperial Russian Coat of Arms. The numbering of the cartridge pockets every 10 rounds is printed in tens with usually purple ink (markings ranging from 1 to 25). This cartridge numbering feature is less systematically observed for belts manufactured after the revolution of 1917. The assembly of the two brass plates of the starter tags is made only with a single rivet situated at the end of the tag.

A scarce German DWM belt has been examined bearing most of these Russian unique features and is suspected of having been imported to Russia around 1906-1910 while complying with the official Russian patterns. Both spacers and starter tags are made of brass. The long spacers have a total length of 58.5mm and are assembled by a hollow rivet, which complies with the Russian patterns. This has never been observed on any other DWM production which always relied on solid steel rivets. The assembly of the starter tags fitted at both ends of the belt relies on the German pattern with three hollow rivets; whereas the Russian pattern only involves one rivet. The starter tags are marked with the manufacturer’s initials D.W.M. and are not dated. The cartridge pockets are numbered every 10 rounds, with only the value of the tens (numbers ranging from 1 to 25) being printed with black ink on the fabric. The style of the figures inked does exactly correspond to that found on contemporary DWM belts issued to the German Army. As a matter of summary, for belts with DWM marked starter tags, the total length of the long spacers, the hollow rivet assembling the end of the long spacers and the numbering of the cartridge pockets every 10 rounds are all key features that enable to tell apart these German belts intended for export to Russia. It is suspected that these DWM belts might have been part of an export contract to Russia which also involved the delivery of 7.62x54R Model 1891 round-nosed ammunition from Germany around 1906.

The geometric constitution of these 250-round fabric belts remained unchanged until the latest productions observed up to 1947. Only variants in markings or in the materials used have been examined.

After the revolution of 1917, the first productions of the Soviet era remain fitted with brass spacers and brass starters. The markings are obviously devoid of the Imperial Coat of Arms and only show the year of manufacture expressed with the last 3 digits only. The earliest post Imperial-era belt observed so far is dated 1920 (marking 920).

From the middle of the 1930’s on, the brass starters were replaced by zinc-coated steel ones, which proved mechanically more resilient. The spacers remained, however, usually made of brass. This standard pattern has been observed at least up to 1947 production.

Wartime production belts (1939-1945) are sometimes found with both starters and spacers made of gray phosphated steel. Starters are often undated and bear various small inspection stamps and sometimes a manufacturer’s logo. For example, a belt marked with a “3” in a triangle has been observed, which denotes production at the Tula arsenal. An unusual specimen which seems dated 1944 has been observed with brass spacers and copper plated steel starters, but its origin remains uncertain.

The career of the Model 1910 Maxims continued well after the end of the Second World War. From the end of the 1940’s on, continuous metal belts have been standardized for use with Maxims, SG-43 and RP-46 machine guns. These belts with a capacity of 250 rounds are composed of metallic pockets joined together with coiled steel springs. Each end of the belt is fitted with a long starter tag with curved end to facilitate the gripping. Although similar metallic belts were tested as early as 1940 for use with the DS-39 machine guns, and were also used in some combat with SG-43s since 1944, it seems that large scale production did not begin before the end of WW2. Russian sources indicate that although a modified feed-block for the Maxim Model 1910 was designed during WW2 to cope with both fabric and metal belts, the quantity of fabric belts available in stock was so huge that this modification was finally not made on wartime weapons. World War II dated photographs showing Model 1910 Maxims fed with metallic belts have not been observed so far by the author.

The air cooled Maxim-Tokarev Model 1925 light machine gun.

In the middle of the 1920’s an air cooled light machine gun in caliber 7.62x54R was designed at the Tula arsenal and was adopted as the Maxim-Tokarev machine gun Model 1925. Standard production of the weapon started at Tula in November 1925 and, by 1927, a total of 2,500 weapons had been manufactured. These light machine guns were designed to use the same 250-round fabric belt as those for the heavy water cooled Model 1910 Maxims. However, following the principle used by the German MG 08/15 during the First World War, the Russians also designed a belt drum which accommodates a 100-round belt for these Maxim-Tokarev guns. Only very few photographs depict these belt drums and it remains unclear as to how the drum is fastened to the gun itself. It also seems that these drums are fitted with an internal spool around which the belt is wound up and therefore took example on the design of the German Gurttrommel of MG 08/15. Photographs however state that both drums are externally different. Russian sources indicate that the 100-round belts used with those drums were simply shortened 250-round standard belts. Although very large quantities, if not all, of those Maxim-Tokarev light machine guns were exported to Spain during the Civil War in 1937-1938, it seems that the belt drums were not included in the shipments since no such item has ever been commonly reported from Spain so far.

The air cooled aircraft Maxim PV-1.

An air cooled fast-firing aircraft machine gun was investigated at Tula arsenal since 1923. This weapon was formally adopted by the air force in 1928 as PV-1 and a total of more than 17,800 weapons were produced between 1926 and 1940. This aircraft weapon was primarily designed to be fed with disintegrating metallic links. Although the design of the very first prototype links developed before 1930 is not known, in the later years the disintegrating metallic links used with the Maxim PV-1 were the same as those used with the ShKAS aircraft machine guns. Two major variants are identified: one seldom encountered which is completely smooth, and the most common bearing a set of ribs. Some of these aircraft Maxim PV-1s also found their way into the Spanish Civil War and some photographs show them heavily reworked and reissued for ground use fed either with metal disintegrating links or fabric belts.

Acknowledgements :

Special acknowledgments are due to the late Herb Woodend who spent hours searching through piles of Russian fabric belts to retrieve some of the variants presented in this article. The author is also very grateful to Mr. Kooger and Wanting (the Netherlands) and Bob Faris (USA) for their useful comments.

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.