“The one down there with the pistol grip, that was the one I carried in Vietnam; the early version. Andy Grandy of Frankford Arsenal designed that. He called me and I went up there and shot it. He put the loader extension on it so it held eight rounds. With that duckbill at roughly thirty meters you hadda two foot high, twelve foot wide pattern using Number Four buckshot.” Retired US Navy Chief Petty Officer James “Patches” Watson, Curator Emeritus, UDT-SEAL Museum

(Editor’s note: It’s one thing to visit a military museum, but another thing entirely to get one-on-one guided tours by the museum’s Curator Emeritus, as well as its Executive Director. In this report by Military Affairs Editor Robert Bruce, SAR is pleased to provide our readers with what might be considered the next best thing. Small Arms Review is known and apparently respected by influential members of the UDT-SEAL Museum’s board and staff. As a result, our customary request for special access – including a close look at important artifacts currently on display and others in the holding safes – was enthusiastically supported. Special thanks to Association President Willard Snyder, Executive Director Mike Howard, Curator Emeritus James Watson, and Curator Ruth McSween, for taking the extra time and trouble. – Robert G. Segel)

The Chief was standing in front of the museum’s Vietnam War diorama, reminiscing in his distinctively husky and New Jersey-accented voice about three combat tours there, pointing out and describing to this correspondent a particularly important one of the many interesting weapons on display.

While a casual observer might consider the crudely chopped scattergun with only passing curiosity, the bearlike, 69 year old retired SEAL calls it his “Sweetheart.” Watson spoke with great affection about how this beautiful example of deceptively simple form and decidedly lethal function came to be and how it performed in the ultimate arena of combat.

Such a moment is of inestimable value to those who appreciate the presentation of military history through actual artifacts with a direct link to men who carried them in war. This is “provenance” at its finest, a ten dollar word in the museum culture that simply translates to “origin.”

The story of this stubby shotgun first caught our imagination in reading the books Point Man and Walking Point, Watson’s gripping narratives recounting his experiences as a “plank owner” (original member) and combat veteran of SEAL Team Two, written in collaboration with frequent SAR contributor Kevin Dockery.

My duckbill-modified, pistol-grip Ithaca became my “Sweetheart” during my second and third tours in Vietnam. The lack of a stock never bothered me because I would normally carry a shotgun only when I expected to be in close quarters. Close up, I could point my shotgun from the waist and blow away any target I had in front of me out to twenty or thirty yards without any trouble. (Excerpted from the book Walking Point, Copyright 1997, Bill Fawcett & Assoc. Used by permission.)

Now, SAR was privileged to see, and later to handle and photograph, this very weapon in the presence of its near-legendary SEAL owner. Also, to make an audio tape recording that captured for future generations “Sweetheart’s” story and much more in Watson’s own words. This interview, we’re told, will join many other recordings in the museum’s archives, preserving oral history of US Navy special warriors from WWII to the present.

But that’s getting ahead of the main story, a tour of a uniquely fascinating modern military museum.

Birthplace of the Navy Frogmen

Anchored on the very beach where the largely unknown NCDUs – Naval Combat Demolition Units – of WWII began a heroic saga that continues even today, the small but superb UDT-SEAL Museum in Fort Pierce, Florida, opened in November 1985 with Watson at the helm. Now, after twenty plus years of improvements and additions – as well as repairs and restorations following numerous savage storms – visitors enjoy an extraordinary feast of hardware and history.

The museum itself, its original structure a visually striking, brilliant white cylinder with a spiral ramp to a rooftop observation deck, is surrounded by a large fenced compound protecting an exciting assortment of historic vehicles used in naval operations on land, sea, air, and beyond. A pedestal mounted Huey helicopter, icon of the Vietnam War, seems to have just taken off, straining for altitude above mini subs, riverine and oceangoing craft, dune buggies, and – seemingly out of place to those who don’t know why – a pair of space capsules.

The eye sweeps along its virtual flight path toward the nearby Atlantic Ocean, close enough to hear waves breaking and to catch the strong and evocative scent of seawater, carried inland on the steady Tradewinds.

It is from this dazzling white sand beach and clear blue waters that silent sentinels in concrete and rusting steel were recovered from the surf zone. More than a dozen original beach obstacles from WWII, used in demolition training to prepare for the epic invasion of France known as D-Day, now line up alongside the museum.

Wide pathways lead the visitor from one display to another, bordered with hundreds of emotionally powerful memorial bricks. Look closely and find the names of heroes of Naval Special Warfare like Roy Boehm, “The First SEAL.” Additional bricks display other names, and are available to all who support the museum’s mission.

We walked the verdant and well-kept grounds with current Executive Director Michael Howard, a friendly, energetic and wiry 50 year old retired Navy Captain with over 26 years of service including SEAL Team One and command of several Naval Special Warfare units. Howard appreciates this historic location but also notes the daunting environmental challenges that come with it including high temperatures, salt air with humidity, extreme winds, and frequent torrential rains.

Most recently, he said, “Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne hammered us and the whole place was almost destroyed. Boats actually got up and floated. All these are in different positions now than before the hurricanes.”

The Huey was particularly hard hit, he said, with the tail boom breaking off and other extensive structural damage. “New Piper Aircraft, up in Vero Beach, took on the repair project at no cost. They restored it and, with the help of Kauff’s Transportation and Recovery, we got it remounted on the pedestal.”

Pointing to the museum’s two Vietnam War era PBRs (Patrol Boat, Riverine) and a pair of current issue DPVs (Desert Patrol Vehicles), the Captain spoke of plans to improve on these already impressive displays. “One of the projects we’re working on is getting weapons on these boats and vehicles,” he said, hastily adding, “fake weapons.”

“We think that’s important to make the displays a little more dynamic, realistic looking, with more punch,” he said. “That’s what SEALs and boat guys and helicopters supporting them are all about – firepower.”

Since then, we’re told that highly realistic replica .50 caliber M2s have been bought and installed. Wisely, these are made with durable polymer resin that won’t corrode in the harsh salt air and, in this day and times, have the essential advantage of being completely inert.

A Proud Beginning

The Executive Director’s tour moved inside where walls of the main hallway are covered with impressive plaques listing units and personnel from the first NCDU in 1943 to the Plank Owners of SEAL Teams One and Two. These frame the entranceway to the World War Two gallery, heralded by an imposing wall-sized photo enlargement showing men of NCDU 200 during training at Fort Pierce in 1944.

Stepping a few feet inside, Howard paused in an area flanked by illuminated display cases containing individual mannequins representing the rapid evolution in WWII from NCDUs and Scouts and Raiders to UDTs (Underwater Demolition Teams). Each is authentically uniformed, equipped and armed, he said, often with items donated to the museum by actual veterans of the period or their families.

The Hagensen (sic) Demolition Pack is common to all, a generic name given to variations based on a clever field expedient explosive charge with two pounds of pre-rigged C2 packed in a canvas haversack for land or underwater use. The original is credited in official Navy D-Day documentation to Lieutenant (j.g.) C. P. Hagenson (note “son” with an “o”).

Also notable in this section is a tribute to Lieutenant Commander Draper Kauffman, “The Father of Naval Combat Demolition,” who set up NCDU training at Fort Pierce in June of 1943.

Moving around the gallery, Howard acknowledged SAR’s obvious bias by pointing out numerous examples of American and enemy weaponry. All of the standard Navy and Marine Corps small arms have honored places, from the M1911 .45 auto pistol through ’03 and M1 rifles, the M1 carbine, Thompson submachine gun, as well as John Browning’s famous BAR and his unstoppable M1917A1 machine gun.

As counterpoint to standard US firearms, we were pleased to find nice examples of German P38 and Luger pistols, as well as an MG34 machine gun, prominent in the D-Day case.

Japanese weaponry is similarly in evidence, including a representative Nambu pistol and Arisaka rifle. Most impressive to many visitors is the large, radiator-finned Type 92 heavy machine gun, dramatically posed beneath a Japanese battle flag. UDT 24 autographed this flag while occupying Japan, post surrender.

Also prominently displayed is a Samurai sword, formally surrendered by General Tomoyuki Yamashita after losing the battle for the Philippine Islands in 1945. While it was believed for many years that this was the general’s own priceless family heirloom sword, recent expert examination showed otherwise. Howard speculates that, anticipating the inevitable, the canny general sent his home, appropriating one from a junior officer to hand over to the Americans. Both the original surrender document and Samurai sword were presented to the Museum by Draper Kauffman’s family.

North Gallery

Moving ahead in time from victory in WWII and the Occupation of Japan, SAR’s VIP tour continued in the North Gallery with Chief Watson taking over duties at the Korean Conflict wall, fronted by a tripod-mounted .50 caliber Browning M2HB machine gun. This awesome example of John M. Browning’s genius was fielded in the 1930’s, then served with distinction in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Remarkably, it is still going strong today on Naval Special Warfare Combatant Craft.

The large and menacing machine gun is intentionally set on a boxlike riser at knee height. This, the Chief says, encourages visitors to reach out and touch the gun, a significant departure from the rules at most museums and a particularly memorable experience for many in the school groups and others that regularly visit.

Watson told us that Korea was where UDTs started doing many of the things that would later become SEAL missions, “Going behind enemy lines and attacking fuel depots, bridges and railroad yards.”

The North Gallery’s tightly packed displays of photos, equipment and weapons from Korea to the present Global War on Terror are strongly enhanced by a video presentation on Basic Underwater Demolition School. BUDS is the hellish entry ordeal that all aspiring SEALs must successfully complete. Repeating automatically at regular intervals on a wall-mounted monitor, its sounds of pounding surf, straining men, screaming instructors, throaty cadence chants, gunfire, and explosions fill the gallery, bringing to life the harsh world in which these silent artifacts have served.

The evolution of diving gear for waterborne combat operations is well represented and the museum is particularly proud to have a fine example of the Lambertson Amphibious Rebreather. A “closed-circuit rig” that doesn’t release telltale bubbles, it was introduced in the latter part of WWII for OSS Maritime Units and UDTs.

Walls of Weapons

Noting our quick glances over his shoulder during the introduction to Aqua Lungs and such, the Chief – who definitely shares SAR’s intense appreciation for weapons of all kinds – quickly moved on to the primary focus of our visit. Guns are what we want, and the museum has got plenty of ‘em.

Several large Plexiglas-faced displays are filled with 20th Century military firearms, enticing the visitor to move up close for an intimate encounter. The tall, shallow cases allow examination literally inches from exotic and unusual pistols, submachine guns, rifles, grenade launchers, and more. Read serial numbers, see selector markings, note mechanical details, almost smell the gun oil….

Standing in front of the first case, containing a variety of allied and enemy weapons from the Vietnam War era, Watson recalled his time in preparation for SEAL Team Two’s deployments when, at the prophetic insistence of Team Chief Bob “The Eagle” Gallagher, “We trained with these because you never know if you’re gonna hafta pick one up and use it because you ran outta ammo or something happened to yours.”

The two weapons at the top were ChiCom copies of the RPG-2 (NVA B-40) launcher and generic AK-47 with underfolding spike bayonet. Four submachine guns lined up underneath; an M45b “Swedish K”, French MAT-49, and a Russian PPSh-41, nicely paired with the North Vietnamese K-50M that’s made from it by chopping the barrel and cooling shroud then replacing the fixed wooden stock with a telescoping wire version.

The Chief doesn’t hold the K-50 in high regard, citing at least one he fired with an apparent sear problem. “Hang on ‘cause it wasn’t gonna stop ‘till it was empty,” he said. “Definitely a piece of junk.”

But a big smile appeared when we stepped in front of the next case and he pointed out several of the US weapons his team and others used in ‘Nam. In addition to an early version M72 LAW (Light Antitank Weapon), there were three grenade launchers on display that he heartily approved of. A 40mm M79 “Thumper” often accompanied the Chief as a STAB (SEAL Team Assault Boat) coxswain on riverine missions, and his team got some of the first underbarrel-mounted CGL-4/XM148 launchers off Colt’s assembly lines.

The last of the trio is the exceedingly rare “China Lake Pump,” serial number 4 of a total run said to be only sixteen guns. This is an imposing cross between an M79 and a pump shotgun that allowed the grenadier four quick rounds when things got really hairy.

Of course the Chief has a story to go with the weapon. “When I went back to Vietnam in 1996, serial number 13 was hangin’ on the wall in their war museum,” then added with a knowing look, “I tried to find out who lost that but was unsuccessful.”

The enthusiasm level kept rising as we moved to behold yet another weapons case, this one filled with belt-fed machine guns. The topmost weapon is an HK 23, a sturdy but heavy West German-made 5.56mm that the Chief notes was combat tested by a Team Two buddy, the late John “Fly” Fallon.

But, he says, it didn’t stack up to Gene Stoner’s lighter, compact and modular guns. “Stoner designed a system – a rifle and machine gun combination,” he said, putting emphasis on the word system.

“When I went into Cambodia … I’d take the stock off it and use the short barrel. You wanted to make everything as light and small as you could.” The system aspect of Stoner’s guns is well presented in the three variants on display, showing how a basic receiver group can be reconfigured with various barrels and feed mechanisms. A 63A assault carbine version with folding wire stock and 30-round magazine is sandwiched between two belt-feds. Above is a Mark 23 Mod 0 with a generous 150-round drum and below is a 63A1 with a 100-round box.

(SAR notes that at least one of the Stoners and a good number of the other weapons on display are on long-term loan from the Naval Historical Society’s fabulous holdings. See Robert Bruce’s NHS feature in Volume 7 Number 1.)

Silencers vs. Suppressors

A bit incongruously sharing this machine gun case is an M16A1 with one mounted suppressor and another below, teamed with its cutaway version to reveal the engineering secrets inside. These prompted a quick lesson from the Chief, enlightening those handicapped by Hollywood-generated ignorance. “There’s no such thing as a silencer,” he declared, “every weapon makes some noise in functioning – even a bow and arrow.”

Pointing to the Mark II suppressor and its cutaway on display, he added, “When you use this one without subsonic ammo you’d hear the crack of the bullet when it broke the sound barrier. But it creates deception in locating the direction somebody’s shooting from. If we’re standing here and (points left) a guy’s out there shooting with a suppressed M16, you’d think he was over there (points right) ‘cause what you’d mostly hear is the bullet breaking the sound barrier.”

Shotguns, Shorties and Starlight

Then, turning to his left, Watson paused in front of the Vietnam diorama, figuratively traveling back in time nearly forty years to a nighttime raid on a bamboo hut on the other side of the world. Dramatic life sized figures of three men with green camo face paint and exotic armament are checking out a Viet Cong guerrilla weapons cache, a variety of weapons of communist bloc and other origin.

“The SEALs here just discovered it,” the Chief says, “the guy on the left is carrying a standard Model 37 (Ithaca shotgun) with a ‘duckbill’ – the later version with the ring around it.”

And there, sitting on a wooden ammo crate in front of the SEAL, was Watson’s own “Sweetheart,” described at the beginning of this feature. But he isn’t pleased that this makes it look like his gun had been captured. “That didn’t happen,” he declared, “we’re gonna get some stuff moved around.”

The SEAL on the right carries another interesting combo, a chopped M16 dwarfed by a big, strange apparatus attached to its topside carrying handle. The Chief shakes his head as he recalls his own brief experience with this ungainly rig.

“Here’s one of the first ‘Starlight Scopes,’ but it was too heavy and cumbersome,” he said. “I used it once mounted on a CAR Fifteen (submachine gun version of the Colt AR-15 rifle)…. Too heavy and when you put it up to your eye to use it there’s a green glow. Take it away and you’re blind; night vision’s gone in that eye for thirty minutes.”

Post-Vietnam to GWOT

The North Gallery continues with exhibits showing activities and operations since Vietnam, overseen by an eerie life-sized hologram with the spectral three dimensional presence of a SEAL armed with an MP5 submachine gun. He tirelessly guards displays showing Naval Special Warfare units in action in Grenada, Panama, Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Noteworthy among the photos and artifacts is another tall case packed with examples of Navy edged weapons from the Mark I KA-Bar of WWII thru the new Gerber Silver Trident, the Chief’s own design in collaboration with Bill Harsey, Jr.

Across the way, visitors can walk right up and touch a battle-damaged 12.7mm ChiCom Type 54 heavy machine gun, a clone of the Soviet DShKM, captured by SEAL Team Two’s Fourth Platoon during a still-politically sensitive operation in the Persian Gulf in the late 1980s. Roughly equivalent to Browning’s M2HB, the exotically configured and impressively large weapon should spark recognition of how lethal is the arsenal of our current enemies.

Operation Desert Storm, the 1st Gulf War, is the final major exhibit, shown in display cases full of captured Iraqi gear dominated by a mannequin in “chocolate chip camo” uniform, representing a SEAL operating far behind enemy lines. Then, the last bit of wall space available in the museum holds a meaningful tribute to the eleven SEALs killed on a combat rescue mission in Afghanistan on 28 June 2005.

Safekeeping

Few museums have everything in the collection on display and this one has packed a small storage room literally from floor to ceiling with rare, unusual and truly exotic artifacts. Stepping up close we encountered vintage tactical radios, diving gear, uniforms, and other interesting items from decades of NSW operations. How about an example of the distinctive XM257 shotgun ammo that goes with the “Duckbills” on display? Got it. “Bazooka” rockets used against beach bunkers? Yep.

Also, three large safes line one wall of the room, jammed with weapons and other high-value artifacts. Their massive doors swing open to reveal an eclectic mix ranging from Great War vintage machine guns to GWOT RPGs. Chief Watson pulled a few out for us to handle (wearing the necessary white cotton gloves, of course) and graciously gave us the opportunity to shoot detailed photos. In addition to a 1917-made Lewis Gun that served in WWII protecting UDT craft, there’s Robert Marshall’s M1 Carbine (UDT 3 and 5) and a ‘Nam era S&W Model 39 auto pistol with suppressor.

But our props really started turning when the Chief set a trio of crude handguns down on the white background paper of our makeshift studio. “These are homemade VC pistols,” he said, “captured by Team Two’s ‘Fly’ Fallon and his PRU (Provisional Reconnaissance Unit) on a Phoenix operation.”

There, right in front of us, were jungle workshop weapons; surprisingly well made by resourceful guerrillas, captured by a real SEAL on a CIA-directed mission, brought back home by him, then personally donated to the museum. This is powerful provenance and future visitors can look forward to the time when space is available to put them and their story on display.

Artifacts Sought

Curator Ruth McSween has recently come on board. With a Masters Degree in Museum Studies, she brings a high degree of professionalism to the demanding tasks of cataloging, preservation, presentation, and much more.

McSween encourages the continued contribution of letters, photographs, uniforms, oral and written histories, weapons, and other memorabilia, relating to the history of Naval Special Warfare of all eras. Like most museums, they have a need for certain historical items to fill important gaps in the collection: OSS Maritime Units, the history and evolution of Special Warfare Combatant Craft, and photographs of UDT platoons executing hydrographic reconnaissance survey work.

Additionally, she says, “We would like to increase the number of artifacts that date to more recent operations including both wars in Iraq as well as the war in Afghanistan.”

Bigger and Better

Available space for major exhibits ends after the first Gulf War. So museum leaders are aggressively pursuing funding for expansion to showcase recent and ongoing NSW operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other battlegrounds of the Global War on Terror.

Howard explained that there are existing architectural plans for a dramatic new addition but day to day operational costs have to take priority. “Right now we’re only making ends meet,” he said.

Association President Willard Snyder, interestingly a retired Army Colonel (Infantry) with service in 12th Special Forces Group (USAR), told us the Board of Directors is working to “get one focus and move ahead financially.” Both Snyder and Howard see corporate donors – such as major defense contractors – as natural sources of funding and other support.

Howard, Snyder and the Chief all emphasize the essential contributions of rank and file members whose dues, volunteer work, donations of artifacts, personal and professional networking connections, are the museum’s firmest foundation. Increasing membership – open to all who wish to support preservation and presentation of the history of Naval Special Warfare – is a top priority.

Find Out More

Membership details and a printable application form may be found on the Museum’s excellent website at www.navysealmuseum.com. Additionally, the site offers a stunning “virtual museum” tour as well as a wealth of information on history, heritage, and links for those interested in SEALs and other current Naval Special Warfare units. Go on-line shopping at The Ship’s Store for an interesting assortment of UDT and SEAL memorabilia including shirts, caps, pens, mugs, patches, stickers, videos, and plenty of books such as Chief Watson’s Point Man.

See For Yourself

No trip to Florida by a modern military history buff or small arms enthusiast would be complete without a side visit to tropical Fort Pierce and its UDT-SEAL Museum on beautiful North Hutchinson Island. Most anytime is fine, but particularly during Muster, the yearly gathering of past and present SEALs and other NSW members. The 21st Annual Muster, featuring spectacular combat demonstrations and other exciting activities, is scheduled for November 10 through 12, 2006. There’s detailed info on the museum website.

UDT-SEAL Museum
3300 North Highway A1A
Fort Pierce, FL 34949-8520
Telephone (772) 595-5845
www.navysealmuseum.com
Other Useful Websites
www.nswfoundation.org
www.navysealteams.com
www.navyseals.com
www.seal.navy.mil
www.realseal.org

“It really goes back about twelve or thirteen years when Gene Stoner – rest his soul – and Reed Knight, my boss, got together and Reed gave Mr. Stoner an engineering and production facility for him to fulfill some of his dreams. And one of his dreams was a rifle like the SR-25. Soon after building the first SR-25 some of our special forces took them to Somalia and that’s where the SR-25 started to make its combat reputation. Soon after that the barrel was shortened from 24 inches to 20 inches and other things were changed and improved and that’s where the MK 11 comes from. That became the MK 11 Mod 0 in the year 2000. Now, five or six years later you’ve got the XM110 so there’s a clear sequence.” David A. Lutz, VP for Military Operations, Knight’s Armament Company

The fast-paced urban combat environment that quickly evolved in the Global War on Terror created shooting challenges that weren’t being satisfactorily met by the Army’s standard issue bolt action M24 Sniper Weapon System or by the limited-issue accurized M16 variants and reworked M14s. So many snipers were reporting dissatisfaction and their need was so urgent that the Army’s Program Executive Office Soldier fast-tracked a solution as authorized under the Soldier Enhancement Program. A formal Presolicitation Notice for what was soon designated as the XM110 SASS was posted on 17 Nov 2004:

“The US Army ARDEC…has a requirement for a 7.62mm semi-automatic sniper system (SASS) capable of delivering precision fire primarily on anti-personnel targets out to 1000 meters…. The offeror shall submit five (5) bid samples at no cost or obligation to the government…. The first fifteen (15) of the thirty (30) SASSs will be delivered with spare parts 30 days after contract award.” Solicitation Number W15QKN-05-R-0433

The actual solicitation followed barely two weeks later, nearly a hundred pages of highly detailed requirements in which the Army invited all comers to submit a definition-stretching COTS/NDI (Commercial-off-the-Shelf/Non-Developmental Item) for a comprehensive evaluation. Five manufacturers bravely entered the arena but when the slugfest ended Knight’s was the winner announced on 28 September 2005. Their modified MK 11 Mod 0 has earned a five year contract and recent statements by program officials indicate the Army intends to buy and deploy thousands of complete systems as fast as Knight’s formidable manufacturing facility can turn them out.

A few months after the award announcement, when the runner-up’s formal protest had been dismissed after lengthy review by the General Accounting Office, the government bureaucracy’s innumerable administrative details had been worked out, and the production process was smoothly underway, Knight’s invited SAR in for an exclusive tour of its impressive new headquarters and enormous manufacturing complex on Florida’s “Space Coast” in Titusville.

While there we got the opportunity to conduct an in-depth interview with a key player in the fast and furious process that resulted in this tremendous victory for snipers in the Army, as well as significant product improvements that are already beginning to benefit those in other branches of the US Armed Forces.

David A. Lutz, a retired Marine Lieutenant Colonel with a well-deserved reputation for straight shooting in every sense of the word, is Knight’s Vice President for Military Operations. He was instrumental in development of the Stoner-Knight SR-25 into a military sniper system that has achieved tremendous success with Navy SEALs, Army Rangers and other elements of US Special Operations Command. Lutz worked closely with retired Navy Lieutenant Commander Michael Warner, who skippered Knight’s winning team in the SASS competition as Program Manager.

What follows are key excerpts from more than two hours of in-depth discussion, giving a fascinating look from the contractor’s perspective at the complex process that has led to selection of the Army’s newest sniper rifle.

SAR:The Army’s solicitation ran to nearly a hundred pages for an end-item system that was supposed to be pulled almost literally off the ready rack. Comments?

Lutz: ‘Non-Developmental Item’ is supposed to be the short cut to fielding the 90 percent solution to the guy in the field immediately. It seems to me that the generals know what NDI is, they know that’s what’s needed because it supports the troops they command. But once the program gets launched the bureaucracy below the general officer level is the same as it was twenty or thirty years ago.

There were things on nearly every page that you had to do; whether it was produce a gun or produce a piece of paper or produce a plan. If I can make a comment here, unless you’re a pretty good size company and have some pretty extensive depth of skill sets, you’re not going to be able to address these ‘NDI’ solicitations that require such boilerplate.

SAR: How did the Army’s experience with the M24 system influence the initial solicitation and subsequent modifications?

Lutz: As originally conceived – I think by the Army Sniper community – it was supposed to be a total package to include a night scope, a new spotting scope. So they put everything they wanted into it. They even made reference to a ‘sniper support kit’ that would have all these bells and whistles that you’d see – let’s say – at the S.H.O.T. show. A spirit level on the scope so you could make sure you’re not canted. A little wind direction velocity meter that you might see at Camp Perry.

Well, when the solicitation came out for this XM110 some of those extra things, so to speak, were not included in the solicitation. I think the Army wisely pared down that list.

What they were really interested in was a rifle. Part of the requirement was for that rifle to have what’s now the standard Picatinny Rail. We put such a rail system in the year 2000 on the MK11 Mod 0 so the real estate of the rail could be out front of the daytime zeroed sniper optic and could accept an attachable night sight that would not require the sniper to remove his day scope and possibly lose his zero.

SAR: You’ve shown us in side-by-side comparison that Knight’s winning XM110 is essentially the same as the SR-25 and the MK 11 Mod 0. Same upper and lower receiver, bolt mechanism, direct gas tube system, match grade Obermeyer barrel, and so forth. But significant modifications had to be made in secondary areas. Take us through those changes in the rifle from muzzle to buttstock, starting with the Army’s requirement for a separate flash suppressor and a sound suppressor.

Lutz: The MK 11 Mod 0 does not have, never did have, a flash suppressor. When the Navy SEALs need flash suppression they install the sound suppressor that comes with the system. Our sound suppressor I guess in a way is the world’s best flash suppressor as well because it masks all the flash.

A flash suppressor was not a COTS item (for the SR-25) so we had a very short period of time to adapt the MK 11 barrel which we use in the SASS but we thread it and we install a flash suppressor we designed – a very basic flash suppressor – to meet that Army requirement.

That in turn had an effect on the sound suppressor we manufacture for the MK 11. The flash suppressor makes the MK 11 barrel an inch and a half longer and it also increases the diameter at the muzzle so a new sound suppressor had to be designed and manufactured for the Army SASS. Now the working part of the suppressor – the baffle stack that’s in front of the muzzle – is identical so you get the same noise attenuation but it’s an inch and a half longer at the rear because of the impact the flash suppressor had on it.

The way the suppressor attaches to the rifle is identical. There’s two points of contact, one at the muzzle and the primary one back on the gas block where there’s a drop latch which secures it. And right behind the gas block we’ve got the rail system.

SAR: Any changes there?

Lutz: The URX – Upper Receiver Extending – rail system for the SASS is new and in fact better in some ways than the MK 11. Instead of there being some sort of slip nut between the receiver and the rail system as a means to attach and secure it, in URX form the rail system screws directly onto the upper receiver and then as the barrel nut is torqued the upper receiver and the rail become one piece. It’s much more rigid, you have the timing across the top of the rail precise with the MIL-SPEC as opposed to the MK 11. So it’s better in several respects.

Also unique to the URX is that the bottom rail is detachable by the operator. This allows the operator to take that lower rail off and clean debris, dirt, mud from around the outside of the barrel.

We developed the URX, ironically, for a completely different SR-25 requested by a certain part of the military that already had MK 11s. If possible it should be just as accurate but something that was lighter weight, easier to carry that they could use for patrolling, reconnaissance missions and perhaps even close quarters battle. So we developed the SR-25 Battle Rifle with a fourteen and a half inch barrel and a telescopic buttstock. In an effort to take as much weight out of it as we could, we developed this URX forend.

All we had to do for the SASS is make that Battle Rifle’s URX forend long enough for the twenty inch barrel SASS rifle. That was pretty easy for us to do.

We put our standard MK 11 folding rear sight on the gun. It had to have backup iron sights adjustable from two hundred to six hundred meters. But they wanted the front sight to be integral to the rail, so the SASS – as opposed to the MK 11 which has an accessory, a true clamp mounted flip front sight – so we very quickly came up with a design to make the front sight integral to the URX rail.

SAR: The Army wanted an ambidextrous selector but didn’t specify an adjustable trigger mechanism.

Lutz: The requirement asked for an ambidextrous selector and we make one of those – we’ve made it for the SR-25 for awhile so that was pretty easy to do.

Though the Army didn’t ask for an infinitely adjustable trigger, it’s common for snipers who are used to bolt action rifles to have a trigger that is adjustable in eighteen different directions. We use a very simple, reliable two-stage trigger. They’re all set here in the factory at four and a half pounds and that’s as much as they need. I know that some precision shooters like a lighter trigger pull but I think most of that experience is based on single stage trigger use.

With a two stage trigger you have an initial take up of about an eighth of an inch, in actuality uses up about a pound and a half of that four and a half pounds. So for your final squeeze your brain’s forgotten about the one and a half pounds you took up the first stage with so as you squeeze the trigger it really just feels like three pounds. It’s something you have to try and I’ve found when most marksmen actually try the trigger they think it’s fine. And when you think about the fact it’s not going to fall out of adjustment or an operator will find out subsequently it is very difficult to change those adjustments. Making it more ‘fail safe’ is the way to go.

SAR: Stock length and cheek weld are also important to precision shooting.

Lutz: The MK 11 did not have an adjustable buttstock and it was required by the Army that the buttstock be adjustable for length. In order to start off at the shortest distance possible, instead of using a standard M16A2 rifle stock that the MK 11 uses, we went back to the Vietnam-era M16A1 stock which gave us a five eighths inch shorter overall package. Our adjustable buttstock extends from that for about two and a half inches so you’ve got quite a bit of length adjustment.

Now it was desired by the Army that the stock also have an adjustable cheekpiece and it have adjustments for cant and what’s called castoff. Because those things were ‘desired’ – not required – and because we didn’t really have time to adequately address them in a sound engineering design we didn’t do any of that, we just did the required length adjustment.

Our XM110 is an M16 based design that Mr. Stoner made in what he called a ‘straight line design’ with the stock already at the proper height for a scope if you have the right height scope mount, about an inch and a half. So the contrivance of an adjustable cheek piece is really not necessary with this style rifle as long as you have the correct height ring.

And also because of the feature of the M16’s charging handle that’s right on top of the stock when retracted. There can’t be any raised portion in that four or five inches right behind it.

Our charging handle, by the way, is based on Dave Dunlap’s “Gas Buster” design that we pay a royalty to PRI (Precision Reflex Inc.) for permission to use. It has a number of important benefits, particularly operator comfort when the sound suppressor is attached.

SAR: Is the system’s day scope an “off-the-shelf” Leupold?

Lutz: One of the hardest nuts to crack was trying to meet all of their required capabilities for the scope and then to address some of their desirable features. One of the things they obviously wanted was a variable power scope that had one half of a minute of angle (MOA) adjustments in elevation, but also had the characteristics of what most people call a ballistic cam, or an elevation knob graduated in meters. In this case it had to be graduated from 100 meters to 1,000 meters.

Now there are lots of scopes graduated in meters; particularly the Leopold Tactical Series with what they call the M3 turret. But those clicks – increments on the knob – are all one MOA. To get half MOA clicks you have to accept a knob that rotates 360 degrees twice so it becomes a two turn system. Now the way Leupold engineered this, once the rifle and scope are zeroed, you can rotate the elevation knob about two and a half total turns.

The Army also required the whole rifle to be a desert tan dark earth color. Leupold didn’t make a scope that color at the time. They went right to work and now the current scopes are all hard anodized dark earth. This is defined in the Mil-Spec narrative as ‘darker than a cardboard box but not as dark as chocolate.’

The scope also had to have an illuminated reticle. Fortunately, one of the newer lines of the Leupold Tactical Series scopes are their three and a half to ten power variable with the TMR, Tactical Milling Reticle. It’s illuminated for low-light shooting, powered by the same battery that’s in the Army’s M68 Close Combat Optic – what you and I call an Aimpoint.

We had a lot of options for the scope mount when the solicitation came out but we wanted to improve our return to zero capability and make it simpler. So instead of using a pair of parallel split rings and all those parts and pieces, we came up with a new one piece scope mount that as a product improvement has potential to become a quick detachable design.

The two half inch nuts and two clamps are standard format types of scope attachment means that (snipers) use their half inch T handle 65 inch pound torque wrench that’s included in our tool kit. But the way the mount’s designed, you can take the two nuts and the two clamps off, put a single clamp on that side with two wing nuts. By virtue of the torque you can get from the wing nut and the longer one piece clamp you can get the same return to zero without resorting to the wrench technique. So we’ve got plans for that mount beyond the SASS.

SAR: The rifle we just photographed on your range is remarkably uniform in ‘Flat Dark Earth’ color from end to end despite the differences in what’s underneath – steel suppressor, aluminum receiver, synthetic stock, etc. How is this done?

Lutz: One of the challenges to make the rifle this brown color is that we’ve been working for several years trying to get the right dye mix to anodize different aluminum parts this ‘dark earth’ color. Sometimes you’d come up with a perfect color, other times you come up with a color that was too much of a gold tone. And if it wasn’t a gold tone when it was freshly done, as soon as you’d put the gun together and had some oil on it this oil made the light tan anodization look gold.

So once the rifle is all put together we mask off some areas and paint – bake on paint – a dark earth MIL-SPEC color to the whole gun. That’s how to deliver the gun in a nice uniform appearance. You also get quite a bit more corrosion resistance because you’re painting right on top of pristine anodization, or in the case of the barrel, pristine mag phosphate.

SAR: The system comes complete with two hard cases full of accessories, tools and equipment. Any particular challenges to pulling all these together?

Lutz: The Army SASS required a system case that had enough room in it for everything that was listed in the solicitation to include a drag bag. Of course it had to have the rifle and there was an assortment of ten and twenty round magazines, cleaning kit, sling, scope covers, laser anti-reflection filter, plus spare parts. Basically the whole nine yards.

We knew what that sniper community already had, particularly as far as a kit goes that supports the M24. We emulated with our XM110 candidate as much as we could what they were used to seeing, even to include the M1907 leather sling which has been in the Army for a long time.

Hardigg, in Massachusetts, put a lot of effort into both of the system’s hard side cases. Although the Army solicitation referred to the SASS as ‘Non Developmental,’ there was not a rifle on the planet that met all the criteria they required, much less desired. Likewise with the system case and the second case that fits inside that is used to protect the day scope if and when the sniper needs to take it off.

The scope case had to pass a cold weather drop test at 65 degrees below zero, a drop test from five feet onto a steel plate that was on top of a concrete slab. There was not an ‘NDI’ case that would pass that drop test and also be small enough to also fit in the system case without taking up way too much space. Hardigg really worked hard to make one at minimum size that would pass all these tests.

We submitted our five SASS samples on time in March last year and at that time Reed Knight, the owner of the company, directed that we build another forty more. That was because the solicitation required that if you won and received the award, then you had to quickly deliver fifteen rifles – I believe it was 30 days after award. To get ahead of that curve we went ahead and built forty.

SAR: Give us a quick version of where this program is right now (Feb 2006) as far as Knight’s is concerned.

Lutz: What I’ll call real First Article Testing is being done now up at ATC (Army Test Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland) on the fifteen rifles we were required to deliver right after the announcement that we had won. I think really what they’re doing is they’re verifying the barrel life and accuracy and reliability they obviously captured from testing the first five that they used as a selection criteria. About two weeks ago they were at the 3,500 round barrel life point.

Personally, I’m gearing up to deliver training at the end of the month, both operator and maintainer. It’s a contract deliverable that we train their new equipment trainers. So we’ll train them for a week here at Knight’s and I guess they go back to Fort Benning (GA) and practice on each other for a couple of weeks. They also take the handout material and electronic material I give them here and they translate it into the Army boilerplate. Then, they go up to Fort Drum (NY) – probably in May.

SAR: 10th Mountain Division?

Lutz: Yes, they’ll do the Operational Test. Soldiers – snipers – have already tested some of the first five. And also George Niewenhous (ATC) doesn’t have all fifteen of the rifles. Two of the fifteen went to Fort Benning, so the Sniper School has two as we speak.

We know the rifle works and I’ve seen pictures of it being drug thru the mud and through obstacles in part of the testing they did for the first five. It’s been through some hurdles already. But the Operational Test is much more than just testing the rifle. It’s going to test the training program, what they call the ‘POI’ (Program of Instruction) that Fort Benning is going to develop, obviously with some help from us.

They’re going to come up with a way to train the trainers, then take ‘em up to Fort Drum and work with soldiers and armorers who aren’t trained on this particular rifle. The Army will evaluate how effective the training is, the handout material, the amount of hours they need to train on whatever. Does the technical manual adequately show them how to change a gas tube, how to change an extractor? The amount of ammunition; how many rounds are needed for someone to qualify. Those are all parts of an operational test that go beyond whether or not your rifle shoots.

SAR: After that?

Lutz: When that’s finished we expect to get what we call ‘L-Rip’ – Limited Rate Production authorization. By sort of reading between the lines we think that’s going to be somewhere between two hundred and three hundred systems. The first ones are going to end up being delivered in December (2006) because by their schedule December is when the First Unit Equipped is going to be designated. I’ve already heard that the 10th Mountain is real excited about these rifles and they’ve asked permission to take the rifles with them when they deploy.

(Note: Subsequent Army announcements indicate the intent to buy 4,492 systems. SAR has learned that Knight’s is refurbishing the Army’s Operational Test rifles and elements of the 10th Mountain recently deployed to Afghanistan will be the first to receive them as an “urgent need requirement.”)

SAR: Any feedback from the folks who have been testing the XM110 that you can talk about?

Lutz: They apparently have a really good accuracy test stand up at Aberdeen. ATC shoots in a tunnel with no wind, no mirage, no humidity, no mosquitoes biting you like here. The five guns that we sent up for the initial tests all shot under .8 MOA (minute of angle) from the stand.

SAR: Have improvements to the MK 11 in Knight’s XM110 caught the eye of the Navy and Marine Corps?

Lutz: Very soon after the Army selected the SR-25 based XM110, the Marine Corps ordered 180 MK 11s on the current contract we have with the Navy and SOCOM. It’s a MK 11 but they want it with the SASS threaded barrel, the SASS flash suppressor, which also means they get the SASS sound suppressor, and URX type forend, as opposed to the MK 11 forend. And they want it black because they feel it will blend in with the rest of the troops that all have black guns so the snipers won’t stand out so much.

We’ve had joint service meetings where it appears as if the Navy is planning for subsequent MK 11 buys with several of the same things the Marine Corps adopted or wanted, but painted like the Army’s.

SAR: The M110 SASS is semiauto only and has a ‘legal length’ barrel. What plans does Knight’s have to offer the M110 SASS to law enforcement as well as competition shooters in the civilian world?

Lutz: We’ve got our hands full right now with deliveries to the military.

SAR: Any final thoughts on the process?

Lutz: The government would help themselves if they could release some of the specifics as early as possible so we could either develop the things we need to develop, link together those different things that are commercially available, all under one house.

I think the user would have been better served if somehow we would have been allowed to submit the MK 11 Mod 0 – we’ve produced over a thousand of them – as it is. That would have been a true NDI.

(Editor’s Note: Persistent misinformation about the Army’s SASS selection process deserves authoritative rebuttal. The General Accounting Office’s findings on the protest filed by the runner-up system’s proponent may be found at www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/297374.pdf)

Visit Knight’s Armament Company on the web at www.knightarmco.comSR-XM110 Rifle System Characteristics Military Description: Knight’s Armament Company’s SR-XM110 is a precision, medium weight, detachable magazine fed, gas operated, semi-automatic, free-floating barrel sniper rifle system, optimized to fire the M118 Long Range ammunition.

Each SR-XM110 SASS delivered contains the following components:

• 7.62x51mm NATO SR-XM110 Rifle
• MIL-STD 1913 Picatinny Rail forend with four rails parallel to the bore with the top rail surface on-line with that of the upper receiver. The design of this forend allows the rifle barrel to be free-floated for enhanced accuracy.
• Back Up Iron Sights front and rear, either integral to the rifle or installed on the MIL-STD 1913 Rail.
• Collapsible Bipod that is adjustable and Operator removable if desired.
• SR-XM110 Magazines: four 20-round magazines and four 10-round magazines.
• Leather Carrying Sling. This sling is also designed to support the rifle in various shooting positions as an aid to marksmanship.
• 3.5×10 Variable Power Day Optic Rifle Scope mounted on a one-piece return to zero MIL-STD 1913 Picatinny Rail scope mount. An Operator removable Laser Filter Unit, Anti-Reflection Device and flip-open dust covers may also be provided.
• A Sound Suppressor that provides very effective acoustic, flash and blast suppression.
• A Flash Suppressor that minimizes muzzle flash when the sound suppressor is not used.
• Protective (hard) Carrying Case for the complete weapon system, as well as a sub-component hard scope carrying case.
• Soft Weapon Carrying Case (aka: Drag Bag. Optional item dependent on individual contract requirements) and a Soft Rifle Scope Carrying Case with padded Scope Cover Insert.
• Cleaning Kit with coated bore rod and guide plus required brushes and jags. Also a pocket-sized field cleaning kit with flexible rod.
• Deployment Kit containing Operator Level tools not provided in the Cleaning Kit, Scope Cleaning Kit, Spare battery for Day Scope Illuminated Reticle, Carrying Case with Field/Operator Spare Parts.
• Operator and Armorer Maintenance Manuals.
• A modified Army M240B 7.62mm Machine Gun Blank Firing Adapter can also be provided.

By Christopher R. Bartocci

Last month we looked at Type’s A and B of Colt’s SCAR (Special operations forces Combat Assault Rifle) program. Both used the traditional gas impingement system as found in the M16/M4 family of weapons and fared very well in the trials. However, there was an unwritten requirement that SOCOM wanted a conventional piston operated weapon. They felt it would be more clean and reliable under the extreme circumstances that they operated under.

Colt set out to develop their own piston driven mechanism. Piston systems were nothing new to Colt as they had experimented with it many years ago. In the late 1960s to early 1970s, experimentation was going on at Colt, Rock Island and Winchester to develop a standard piston mechanism to deal with the problems the early rifles had with the switch-over to ball powder. This also was as a response to the publicity of the reliability of the AK47. In the end, a report in 1968 stated that the 10 prototype weapons performed about equal to the current M16A1 rifles. Colt developed the model 703 as a piston driven operating system. Although totally unlike the current SCAR design, it indicates that Colt had investigated this in the past. The 703 was a full-length rifle with a piston rod that was attached to the bolt carrier, much like the AK-type piston. By the time Colt had concluded the development of the 703, all the changes made to the M16A1 and ammunition made a piston-operated mechanism unnecessary.

The Colt 703 rifle when fired, the bullet would propel down the barrel, and gas was bled from the barrel into the gas cylinder created between the end of the piston rod and the front sight base. The piston rod, being attached to the bolt carrier group, would move rearward extracting and ejecting the fired cartridge case. When the bolt carrier group reaches it’s furthest rearward motion the buffer/buffer spring would drive the bolt carrier group forward stripping a round from the magazine, chambering it, and the bolt would lock into battery ready for the next shot.

Colt SCAR Type C

SOCOM’s unwritten requirement for a piston operated rifle was based upon their belief that this system kept the gun cleaner due to hot gasses not being blown into the bolt carrier causing fouling. This is especially true when being fired with a suppressor.

Colt began work to design their own piston system. With the requirement for a free-floated barrel, Colt opted to use their newly designed one-piece upper receiver. Keeping the legacy M4 platform was important as it was very user friendly. Once the shooter grasps the pistol grip, all manipulations of the selector and magazine catch can be made without manipulation of the shooters hand. The left hand will insert the loaded magazine a hit the bolt catch to reload. Due to the magazine dropping free and the bolt holding open on the last shot, reloading can be accomplished is seconds. An added benefit to keeping this platform was taking advantage of the existing familiarity of the operators’ use with the M4A1 carbine.

The SCAR Type C Upper Receiver

The upper receiver chosen was the Colt proprietary one-piece upper receiver. This allowed the barrel to be mounted to the receiver and permitted to free float; increasing accuracy as well as assist in cooling. The upper receiver utilizes a forward assist assembly, fired cartridge case deflector and an ejection port dust cover. There is a continuous Mil-Std 1913 rail that goes from the top of the charging handle area to the front sight base. This will allow the mounting of multiple optics including night vision, reflex sight as well as a laser. The side rails allow the operator to mount flashlights or other accessories. The bottom portion of the rail is removable allowing the mounting of a grenade launcher. When the standard cover with the rail is on, a vertical pistol grip may be installed. During testing, the newly designed Grip Pod Systems vertical pistol grip was used. This vertical pistol grip/bipod is made of 7075 T6 aircraft aluminum, the same as the Colt SCAR receivers. The bottom of the grip turns into a spring-loaded bipod with a push of a button. When the operator drops to the prone position and engages the bipod, the carbine has a stable base for aimed firing. When the bipod is engaged and the weapon shouldered, the magazine will not snag on the ground.

The carbine utilizes the same BUIS (Back Up Iron Sight) as the Colt Type A. The rear sight is a modified Colt carrying handle rear sight. Colt took a standard carrying handle and removed the handle just leaving a lightweight rear sight. There are no sharp edges to snag. It is adjustable for elevation out to 600 meters and has two sight apertures. A 0 to 200-meter close and a long-range aperture. However, any BUIS can be used whether it be an ARMS #40 L or a Knight Armament BUIS.

The front sight is a Colt designed foldable front sight assembly attached to the gas block. This same front sight assembly was used on all three of Colt’s entries and was activated and locked by a button on the left side. This utilized a square 4-notch front sight post and is adjustable for elevation only.

The Colt Piston Operating System

The piston system is very simple and very reliable. In firearms design there are two basic piston systems. The first is where the piston/operating rod is directly attached to the bolt carrier such as the AK47/AKM. The second is the short-stroke tappet where the operating rod strikes the face of the bolt carrier driving the carrier rearward while the piston rod reciprocates back to its rested position in front of the firearm such as the AR18, SKS and FN FAL.

The system chosen by Colt is the latter. By going with the two-piece operating rod the weight may be decreased. Colt has been working on their piston systems for a couple of years in their model shop. In 2003, a prototype was made showing an early attempt of their system. Over the next couple years their design would be modified and perfected to the final system they chose for their SCAR candidate

The final system begins with their proprietary one-piece upper receiver. The barrel is secured to the inside of the receiver and the barrel left free-floating. The system consists of the op rod and return spring. The front of the system consists of the gas cylinder and the mechanism is locked into the weapon by a large pin in the front sight/gas block. There is a gas relief vent in front of the gas cylinder that vents through the front of the front sight assembly. Colt has tested this operating mechanism with over 18,000 rounds without cleaning and without failure. This piston system does not require routine maintenance during cleaning.

As the bullet travels down the barrel upon firing, the bullet passes the gas port and gas is directed into the gas expansion chamber, driving the piston rearward. The rear of the piston impacts a modified carrier key on the bolt carrier group driving the carrier group rearward. While the carrier group continues rearward, the piston rod returns to its forward resting position. On the bolt carrier group’s rearward travel the bolt unlocks, extracting and ejecting the fired cartridge case from the carbine. Then the compressed heavy buffer and spring return the carrier group forward stripping an unfired cartridge from the magazine, feeding it into the chamber, and then the bolt locks into the barrel extension. The carbine is ready for the next shot to be fired. Another benefit of the piston-operated system is the ability to set the cyclic rate of the weapon. Colt chose to make the SCAR Type C fire at 800 rounds per minute comparable to that of the M4A1 with Mk 262 Mod 1 ammunition.

The Bolt Carrier

The bolt carrier group looks very similar to the standard M16/M4 family of firearms but with one major change: a new bolt carrier key. Also, there are no gas rings on the bolt due to the expansion chamber being in the front sight assembly instead of the back of the bolt carrier group. Another innovation that Colt has done is to change the finish of the bolt and carrier. It has a proprietary UCT Defense UltraChem (nickel boron) finish to eliminate the need for any lubricant whatsoever. This slippery finish needs merely a wipe with a rag to clean. This coating also improves corrosion resistance. The extractor utilizes the improved gold extractor spring with the stronger black extractor buffer.

The Barrel

As per specifications, the barrels come in two different lengths. The standard carbine barrel length is 14.5 inches and the CQC (Close Quarter Combat) barrel is 10.5 inches. Both barrels are heavy barrels to insure they can take the required heavy firing schedule demanded by SOCOM. The barrel utilizes the standard 1 turn in 7 inch rifling twist that is required to stabilize the Mk 262 Mod 1 ammunition currently in use by SOCOM. Additionally, as per requirements, a Knight’s Armament Quick Detach flash suppressor is installed for use with the silencer. The front sight base has a bayonet lug for mounting a bayonet on both barrels even though one cannot be mounted on the 10.5 inch barrel.

The chamber has been modified to comply with the “Over the Beach” requirement specified for the SEALS.

The Lower Receiver

The lower receiver is identical to the ones used on Type A and B. It is a standard M4A1 lower receiver with the modified selector lever. As per requirement, this ambidextrous selector operates over 90 degrees of travel (as opposed to the Colt standard of 180 degrees). After testing was completed, this change was not well received. The reasoning in unclear as to whether they were just too used to the standard or if it did not manipulate as fast as the original.

The magazine release is the patented Norgon ambidextrous version. The stock is the VLTOR stock with dual battery compartments for the optics. This is a standard four-position Colt buffer extension with a H2 buffer. Due to the carbine utilizing a heavy barrel, the buffer with 2 tungsten weights and 1 steel weight was necessary to prevent light strikes from bolt carrier bounce. Improved hammer/trigger pins are used that are manufactured of stainless steel. This increases service life especially with heavy volume of fire required of the SCAR weapon. The finish is done in the required flat earth finish (coyote brown) done by Kal-Guard.

Conclusions

The opportunity arose to test fire Colt’s Type C SCAR in their engineering range in the basement of the factory. There was little difference in the feel between the direct gas and the piston driven carbines and their cyclic rate was about the same. The carbine fired was quite worn and neglected from the SCAR trials. However, the carbine functioned flawlessly; firing nearly 500 rounds in 15 minutes. The bolt carrier group was completely dry without lubricant.

There seems to be little doubt that the next generations of M16/M4 carbines will be piston driven mechanisms. Colt plans to introduce a piston driven law enforcement carbine in early 2006.

With the SCAR program moving forward with procurement from FN Mfg. Inc., only time will tell how the new weapons will stack up compared to the M4A1 carbines currently in use. The SCAR trials were without a doubt the most grueling small arms testing in the world since the original Armalite AR-15 was pitted against the government designed M14. Lessons learned in this weapons development program will influence further research and development of further upgrades or new weapons designs of the future.

To supplement available supply stocks of modern US weapons in the Vietnam Theater of Operations, the four US Army Transportation Groups in the four Corps Zone areas each ran a USARV-authorized “Operation Self-Help,” which refurbished weapons from battlefield salvage for use as additional arms above US standard Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E) levels. They rebuilt from battlefield salvage significant numbers of M16-series rifles, M60 machine guns, .50 caliber M2 HB heavy machine guns with custom mounts, and M79 40mm grenade launchers, as well as the occasional aircraft-model machine gun and even 7.62mm Minigun. These extra weapons were primarily for Transportation truck units’ guntrucks and ordinary truck crews. This was the only source available to these units of the “over TO&E” weapons used to adequately equip the truck convoys and their covering guntruck crews; and the same program also supplied useful numbers of extra small arms over their official TOE authorizations to USARV MPs and Aviation units.

This was a major and well-organized workshop operation of the sort normally found stateside at the depot level, largely taken from Transportation group assets with the further assignment of a very small number of small arms technicians from the supporting corps area Logistics Support Commands, organized as one small arms workshop in each Transportation Group supporting the US Field Force to which that Group was assigned. Additional personnel from the group HQ company and Transportation battalions assisted at various times, primarily as labor details and individual volunteers under supervision for cleaning, sorting and packing. Other than this specially authorized salvage rebuild operation, official DOD policy at the time was that salvaged weapons needing more than ordinary maintenance by unit armorers were to be “retrograded” back to the US for depot maintenance.

This “Self-Help” program was originally authorized during 1967 to generate extra weapons by the Transportation units’ own efforts as needed for intense convoy protection operations, and under “command interest” by General Westmoreland, and then General Abrams, was still continuing in 1970 despite objections from high levels at Department of Defense. The Transportation units, and 1st Log’s supply and arms maintenance people, correctly pointed out that the flow of replacement weapons in the US supply pipeline to USARV was just about sufficient to maintain US line combat units during the intense operations experienced during 1968 and 1969, but were not sufficient to also supply the truck units nor the MPs with the extra weapons above normal TO&E needed for convoy protection during this period. General Westmoreland and then General Abrams both endorsed this unit rebuild operation, and insisted that it be continued unless and until greater numbers of weapons could be supplied.

The bottleneck for the Transportation Group armorers was in replacement parts and rebuild kits for the M16-series rifles, as “the service units in Vietnam were not authorized this weapon.” (Officially, the authorized rifle for all service support units was the 7.62mm M14 Rifle, supported in these units by relatively small numbers of machine guns and of M79 grenade launchers.) It took repeated “command interest messages” during late 1969 and early 1970 by both the MGen commanding 1st Log Command, and by Gen. Abrams himself, to finally kick loose from stateside some additional maintenance parts and some small batches of the M16 rebuild kits for the continuing “Operation Self-Help.”

Sufficient numbers of both ordinary critical repair parts and the “official” upgrade rebuild parts kits for the worn-out early M16 rifles were never available in sufficient supply to the Transportation Groups. Thus, a certain amount of local experimentation was done by these Self-Help workshops in polishing out moderately pitted chambers, repairing or locally fabricating a small number of certain critical parts, and even cleaning and retempering springs. (This last did not work reliably: the retempered old springs tended to be more brittle, but new springs were never available in the numbers required.)

Lacking chromed barrels for rebuilding, Transportation Group Operation Self-Help armorers during 1969 experimented by selecting lightly to moderately corroded M16 barrels with “tight” chamber tolerances, and then brought them to maximum “loose” dimensional tolerance while smoothing the pitting by lapping and polishing the chamber. (One operation that I saw in II FF used a modified brake drum lathe fitted with a shop-turned chamber lap, in order to mechanize this procedure.) A few of these rebuilt M16 weapons that I saw in trucker hands obviously ended up with chambers lapped out over-tolerance; these produced some expanded-near-the-case-head funny-looking fired cases, but still operated. Other rebuilt M16s polished out in this way ejected near-perfect cases.

Another unit experiment by Transportation armorers, finally abandoned upon direct orders from stateside, had explored the rebuilding of original Edgewater Spring buffers by opening the unit, variously pouring lead into a drilled hole for added mass, or adding various combinations of weights and rubber or nylon washers in an attempt to approximate the improved Colt buffer. The armorer then reassembled the separated unit in various ways (brazing, and cutting and threading two original buffers to screw together as one modified buffer, were among several methods tried).

In addition to the rebuilding of standard machine guns and M16-series rifles, a number of custom M14 auto rifles and chopped M60s were turned out as “bailout” and high-fire capacity close combat weapons for truck and guntruck crews. Even a few cut down M16s were built up from otherwise damaged weapons. M16 barrels with damage near the muzzle were shortened despite the “slam-bam” more abrupt pressure curve of the shortened tube. For better reliability, the new improved buffer was fitted to these experimental do-it-yourself M16 carbines.

In Vietnam, Weapon Collection Points were designated for units to turn in weapons salvaged from the battlefield. Here, the weapons turned in were sorted into piles of US and enemy types, rifles separated from machine guns, and heavy weapons set aside in another pile. Acquisition teams from the Transportation Groups, along with other authorized teams from Special Forces and from ARVN units, then would cherry-pick weapons which seemed to be salvageable. Once selected by the Transportation Group teams from the weapon collection points, these battlefield salvage weapons were taken to Transportation Group workshops to be stripped down, cleaned and inspected, then repaired or rebuilt as necessary. Unrepairable pieces were parted out for useable spares.

ARVN units also operated their own weapons salvage and rebuild programs. With the assistance of their US advisors, during late 1968 through 1970, they largely equipped their divisional reconnaissance and commando assault units with salvaged modern US small arms, alongside significant numbers of captured AKs and RPDs.

Return Shipment of Damaged Weapons to the US:

Unit packing of damaged weapons being retrograded to US stateside depots could be very rough-and-ready with some of the returning weapons having been hurriedly packed up for shipment. A plaintive message of complaint from a depot in Hawaii was perhaps typical: It mentioned finding shipping containers full of weapons and other items returned by combat units with no manifest at all; some weapons which had been shipped chamber loaded, cocked and safety off, many of these with dried mud in the bore; captured SovBloc weapons mixed in without manifest along with the US weapons, including some unusual or new items of interest to Military Intelligence; weapons along with loose ammo including grenades and mortar rounds thrown willy-nilly into a CONEX container without packing, and yet other CONEX containers stuffed with loose weapons, and then filled up with expanding plastic foam (then required to be tediously chipped apart by the receiving depot).

Captured Weapons:

Captured AK-47s had earlier been carried by some US riflemen or grenadiers, especially during 1966-1967 when some US units had such troubles with their early model M16 rifles. By 1968, aside from MACV-SOG and the LRRP units (who used a few AKs and RPDs during semi-covert patrols of the border areas and into Laos), and the occasional AK-47 carried on a turret top or as a sturdy supplemental emergency weapon by a “Bloop” gunner or dissatisfied M16 rifleman, US forces in Vietnam officially discouraged the use of captured SovBloc automatic weapons in combat. One reason was the characteristic sound of the enemy weapons, and their usual green, white or pink tracers. Especially at night, this was discouraged by experienced troop commanders, as either signature would draw heavy US fire, even more especially when US fighter bombers, gunships or attack helicopters were operating in the area. A gunship or fighter pilot, seeing characteristic enemy tracers in a ground action below, was likely to follow the tracer line back to its source as a target.

In early 1970, a firm final order (No discussion is desired!) came down over General Abrams’ signature: All captured enemy 7.62x39mm weapons, and all SovBloc machine guns, now were prohibited from use by US troops (except for certain recon elements on “Road Runner” operations), and all captured/salvaged weapons along with mortars and RPGs were to be immediately turned in. Besides the considerable friendly fire hazard of misidentifying US troop use of a captured automatic weapon, the newly independent Lon Nol Cambodian government under US blandishment had now declared against the VC and North Vietnamese. Cambodia already largely used the Soviet arms family, acquired as a 10% “transfer tax” from shipments through the port of Sihanoukville intended for the VC in Vietnam’s Delta region. They now needed additional weapons in a hurry so that they could urgently expand their small national Army and other security forces in an attempt to guard against further occupation of the Cambodian border region by the VC and NVA. Any SovBloc weapons that we could supply to Cambodia from captures in Vietnam would help, and that was to be the directed destination of all further salvaged AKs, RPGs and Soviet-pattern machine guns.

By 1970 the great majority of captured communist-made small arms in Vietnam (my recollection is some 80% of captures during the last half of 1969) actually were Chinese or occasionally Korean in origin, whereas in 1963-1965 about half of the small arms to the VC were then supplied by the USSR from Soviet production, with small quantities from virtually all of the Warsaw Pact states, and the other half a mixture of the new 7.62x39mm generation from China along with older Chinese equipment.

Individual Maintenance of the M16 Series Rifles in Vietnam

By March, 1969 when I received M16 familiarization training prior to my deployment to Vietnam, US Army policy on the M16 rifle had changed 180 degrees from the early “no cleaning needed” approach. We were carefully instructed in basic field stripping and daily cleaning of the M16 rifle, and advised to keep a toothbrush on your person for this purpose. Specifics of dealing with caked heavy fouling was not addressed, but was at least mentioned as a problem. During a break, one of the committee sergeants did pass on his own experiences in using Dri-Slide as a palliative when the chrome plating on the bolt slide began to wear and to gall the mating surfaces. Use of the Bolt Forward Assist was explained, but with the observation that the only effective measure of dealing with a case stuck in the chamber was to punch the jammed case out using a .223 sized cleaning rod.

After the three days of M16 familiarization training, my knowledge of cleaning and maintenance of the M16 was adequate for what was expected in my job as a REMF, should I have been in a unit where the clerks carried M16s. I still would have had to learn the hard way how to keep the rifle going during extended combat operations out in the field.

M16 Rifle Reliability Problems in Vietnam

The standard US Army gun oil intended for the M14 and other 7.62mm weapons was not suitable for the M16, and certainly was not an effective cure for M16 rifles which had worn through their chrome bolt plating to scrub off the internal dry lubricant. Standard US Army gun oil caked badly when exposed to the gas residue of the 5.56mm’s ball powder, and even more so in the presence of high humidity. The standard Army bore cleaner also was not an effective solvent for removing this stubborn carbonate fouling. Some US soldiers in Vietnam personally ordered commercial gun cleaning solvents intended for heavy fouling, and Dri-Slide or other molybdenum dry lubricant, from family or from mail order suppliers.

Despite the problems experienced by Army and USMC units in Vietnam with worn or corroded M16 rifles during 1966-1967, the USAF in contrast had no appreciable difficulties that I am aware of in using the original AR-15/M16 rifle in Vietnam, despite the heavy ball powder fouling, and the fact that their AR-15s also had the early form of buffer. They had emphasized proper cleaning and maintenance of the AR-15 from the outset, buying appropriate commercial products while the Army still dithered on the question of officially authorized cleaning materials for the M16. The USAF rifles introduced the chromed chamber quite early in production, and quickly went to the improved buffers as maintenance replacement items for their earlier rifles as soon as these improvements were introduced in new USAF production. Admittedly, the Air Force’s AR-15/M16 rifles, even in the USAF Base Defense Squadrons, received less intense usage and more cleaning than did those of Army infantry units as USAF weapons served with fewer long-duration patrols, and less time without cleaning in a salt-marsh environment such as numbers of Army units encountered. And, it is interesting, that the USAF never found it desirable to introduce the Bolt Forward Assist to their version of the M16.

When I had the opportunity in Vietnam during 1969 to compare the original USAF smooth-side bolt carrier side-by-side with the original Army chromed smooth-side bolt carrier, I noticed a number of subtle differences in shape. Possibly, these differences may have represented merely different production generations. Judged merely by estimated heft, the USAF bolt seemed slightly more massive. If so, this would have tended to bring down the high cyclic rate a bit.

The US Marines also made sure to order effective cleaning supplies, and as with any Marine weapon, they meticulously maintained their M16s. The severe M16 jamming problems which some USMC battalions experienced after changing over to the M16 while in Vietnam, I think, is due at least partly to the fact that to supply the numbers of M16s in a hurry, the initially issued USMC stocks of this weapon were largely used ex-Army rifles, some from Army holdings already in Vietnam and others were weapons returned to Army depot inventory after extensive stateside field testing during the M16 trials and/or the 11th Air Cavalry extensive proof-of-concept field exercises (with much firing of blank rounds and little, if any, cleaning), or after heavy use in training establishments. Continuing operations in a salt marsh environment aggravated corrosion problems of these used rifles, and to a lesser extent of new M16 rifles issued to the Marines at the same time. The unchromed chambers of the early M16 production pitted very easily.

Non-Supply of Army “Official” M16 Cleaning Items

During 1969, and at least until I left Vietnam at the end of March 1970, HQ 1st Log, HQ USARV, and many Army individual combat and support units, were still in constant correspondence with stateside authorities trying to arrange for regular supply of proper cleaning supplies (caliber .223/5.56mm cleaning rods, patches, proper cleaning solvent and dry lubricant suitable to the M16). Despite an official 1967 start of large scale distribution to troops of M16-specific cleaning materials, these still during 1969-1970 were almost impossible to obtain through official sources for any units in Vietnam save Infantry (and in early 1970 were still in short supply even for these combat units). Return messages from stateside were almost uniformly unhelpful even in early 1970, variously stating for example that “testing of cleaning equipment, of lubricant and of solvent agents for the 5.56mm weapon were not yet complete,” that “quantities of authorized cleaning materials available for shipment were not yet in the supply pipeline” (and hence could not be shipped – in 1970!), that “untested commercial cleaning supply items for caliber .223 were NOT authorized for government issue, nor for purchase with official unit funds,” as well as a host of other reasons why requisitions for such cleaning supplies could not, as yet, be filled. This despite the existence of official item numbers in the stock guide: Oh, no, “Those were older interim types, no longer readily available.”

Judging by unofficial comments from troops in the field, as well as official correspondence which passed across my desk during this period, most US Army units in Vietnam as late as early 1970 still were cutting standard caliber 7.62mm cleaning patches into quarters for use in the smaller 5.56 mm bore, and were using personal funds as well as “unit recreation funding” to irregularly purchase commercial .223 cleaning rods and brushes intended for varmint rifles (one-piece rods as well as sectional rods), various proprietary commercial bore solvents, and molybdenum dry lubricants such as Dri-Slide. Individual troops also were asking family members to ship these commercial items to them via personal mail.

Parts for M16 Rifle Series Maintenance and Rebuilding:

A parallel problem was the continuing difficulty of obtaining adequate numbers of M16 and M16A1 maintenance parts by many US units in Vietnam, as well as the limited numbers of rebuild kits available for the earlier model M16. These requisitions went through the same stateside offices for approval as for the requested M16 cleaning supplies. The M16A1 had become the official standard light rifle for the Vietnam Theater of Operations in 1967 and had entered widespread distribution in 1968. However, although many original M16 rifles had been passed on to the ARVN, or returned to the US for training, most units already in Vietnam still had some of the original M16 version on hand in 1969. A significant percentage of the rebuilt battlefield salvage M16s used by the Transportation Groups in Vietnam were the earlier version.

Replacement barrels with chrome chambers were in extremely short supply in Vietnam, and there were some other critical shortage item maintenance parts for the M16-series rifles, especially the buffer, disconnector, and bolt latch. Official DOD policy was to ship weapons deadlined for corroded chambers back stateside for depot-level rebuilding. Although the M16A1’s chromed barrel could be interchanged into the earlier M16, this was specifically prohibited to units in Vietnam, as the improved barrels in early 1970 were still in short supply and reserved for repair of the -A1 version. Infantry unit armorers at battalion level in Vietnam did perform a fair number of barrel changes to the new chrome barrel on pitted M16A1 rifles, as well as rebuilding some older M16s to the new standard with original pattern of barrel, improved buffer, disconnector, new bolt latch and new bolt carrier. It was an unfortunate choice, made at DOD level, not to routinely replace the unchromed early barrels with the new chromed-chamber version, but rather to replace these only on an “as needed” basis, and to continue use of the stock of old unchromed barrels already in the supply line. Experience of the Marines, and of Army troops also operating in salt marsh or littoral areas in Vietnam, is that the unchromed chambers of even brand-new barrels would quickly pit through corrosion when carried daily in such conditions.

At the start of 1970, US Army Infantry units and recon units (LRRPs) in Vietnam had priority on the available M16-series maintenance parts. It was the MPs, Army Aviation, and the Transportation truck battalions who were left relatively unsupported on the question of M16 maintenance parts, as well as left without M16-specific cleaning parts. Officially, said one message from stateside, this shortage of repair parts and of cleaning items was due to necessary allocation of items in short supply, and also due to further ongoing testing of both improvements to the M16-series weapon, and of “cleaning supplies proper to its unique design and materials.”

M16 Magazine Flaws

Some M16 magazines were inherently unreliable: The aluminum body of magazines in the soldier’s web pouch could easily be dented when hitting pavement or rocky ground, some magazines more easily than others. The feed lips of the aluminum magazine sometimes were too soft to retain their shape, resulting in failures to feed. Others were too soft in the area of the notch for the magazine catch. With wear, extra play here allowed the magazine to drop down slightly and gave a bad feed. By 1969, the answer in most units was to simply replace the soft magazine with a better one, and to either smash or cut the bad magazine so that it could not be reissued. (Many unit armorers kept a large pair of bolt cutters on hand for this purpose). Unfortunately, in some units an attempt was made to reshape feed lips by hand, or the bad magazine was simply cleaned and put back into stock to repeat the problem in the future.

Defective 5.56mm Ammunition

One further problem was the question of defective ammunition lots. We in Vietnam had several 5.56mm ammunition lots identified by units or turned in as defective as late as 1968 and 1969. Some had soft rims and were prone to let the extractor tear through the rim (this was especially likely when fired in a corroded chamber). Other 5.56mm ammo lots appeared not to have been properly annealed; the case was fully shiny rather than showing the annealing discoloration common to all military ammunition. These sometimes would separate when extracted, leaving the neck, or neck and upper case body, stuck in the chamber. In badly corroded chambers of individual rifles, headspace tolerances also could have worsened such a problem. However, repeated unit testing by many units established that the soft rim and case separation problems were associated with particular ammunition lots. The problem did not appear in other batch lots made to standard Milspec in the same test weapons.

Growing frustrated with continuing refusals by stateside to authorize withdrawal of the affected ammunition lots from the Vietnam Theater of Operations, most of the suspect ammo was finally marked on USARV authority as “Training Only.” Unfortunately, some of this was then given to the ARVN forces. Other quantities of these suspect ammo lots were destroyed as “damaged ordnance” during 1968/69 after major fires at both the Saigon and Qui Nhon ammunition dumps. Additional to the munitions actually damaged in the blaze, these bad ammo lots were declared on paper as damaged, and then destroyed by EOD teams along with other defective, damaged and dangerous munitions during the after-fire cleanup.

ARVN and Allied Maintenance of the M16 Rifle

Regarding maintenance parts for the M16, the Government of Vietnam was in even worse shape than US Army support units: They had received small numbers of early M16 rifles in a demonstration program as early as 1965, with accelerating numbers transferred to them after Tet of 1968. Initially, these went largely to ARVN Airborne and some Ranger units, but by mid-1969 a number of ARVN divisional line infantry units had rearmed with at least some M16s. Meanwhile they also had picked up substantial numbers of repairable M16s, M14 rifles, and M60 machine guns as battlefield salvage, along with AKs and RPDs.

Unfortunately, only very limited supplies of maintenance parts were supplied to the Vietnamese Government by the US within the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. For various reasons, the official US policy was to provide to the Government of Vietnam under FMS credits only limited numbers of rebuild kits and maintenance parts for early M16 rifles, capped at the numbers of early weapons officially issued to the Government of Vietnam. The Vietnamese government bought some limited additional quantities of M16 repair parts directly from Colt for cash, but with very limited foreign exchange (actually, negative reserves), they were only able to purchase a few hundreds of critical repair items in this manner.

In contrast, Australian, Thai and Republic of Korea troops in Vietnam seemed to be well supplied with repair parts for their M16A1 rifles, and were fairly happy with the handy little weapon. The Australians used the M16A1 in relatively small proportions; more as a replacement for the 9mm submachine gun in infantry companies and reconnaissance elements, and for M113 APC crew, than for their 7.62mm L1A1 SLR rifles. They made direct commercial purchase of the M16A1 from Colt, and usually purchased their repair and maintenance items in the same way except for small emergency issues from the US Army Saigon Support Command depot. US official supplies of repair and rebuild parts for the M16-series rifles to Thai and Korean forces in Vietnam seemed more freely available than to US units. Certainly we filled their requisitions promptly and in full. This would not always be the case for US Army units.

Save for Thai-specific supplies such as rations, uniforms and some non-US equipment, the US had a commitment to Thailand to provide full logistic support to Thai troops in Vietnam. As a condition of deploying this division-sized Thai force to Vietnam, the Thai Expeditionary Force was fully equipped with the current range of standard US equipment (including both M16 and M16A1 rifles as their standard infantry weapon). We supplied them with repair parts and limited numbers of M16A1 rebuild kits under this agreement at least to the same standard or better as for US infantry units. However, the most common practice during 1969-70 in Vietnam with deadlined Thai M16-series rifles was for the US to exchange worn-out or damaged Thai M16s as direct exchange, turning in and exchanging periodic batches at US Saigon Support Command depots at Long Binh.

The ROK forces in Vietnam arrived in-country with US World War II vintage generation .30 caliber weapons, and continued to use these as their basic weapons family into 1968. After Tet of 1968, however, we supplied to the ROK increasing numbers of both M14 and M16A1 rifles, along with M60 machine guns and M79 grenade launchers. ROK forces from 1968 to early 1970 seemed to use their M16 rifles mainly among recon troops and M113 APC crews. Although they also used some M16 rifles among their line infantry companies, they preferred the M14 rifle instead (with its heavier 7.62mm punch) to gradually replace the older ex-US M1 rifles and BARs in ROK rifle units. As did the ARVN, the ROK forces also acquired substantial numbers of repairable modern US weapons from battlefield salvage. During their operations along Highway 1, they recovered a significant number of ex-US and ex-ARVN weapons from the VC and NVA, especially following the bitter fighting during and for the 18 months after Tet 1968. We did supply the ROK with proportionately fairly large amounts of M16-series repair parts and rebuild kits. As did our own Transportation units, the ROKs operated their own weapons rebuild program while in Vietnam, and salvaged significant numbers of weapons.

Along with the first two US Marine battalions to convert to the M16 in late 1965 while in Vietnam, the US Army’s 1st Air Cavalry Division and 196th Light Infantry Brigades had exceptional trouble with the early M16: this included heavy fouling, corroded chambers with resulting extraction problems, worn bolt plating, broken bolt latch, broken disconnectors, and corrosion of the receiver body especially around the magazine housing. It did not help that these units’ receipt of the weapon was before the beginnings of regular issue of proper cleaning supplies, during the period when some Army authorities still were recommending that “the M16 Rifle did not need regular cleaning.”

I was assigned as a special project to dig through back message files in order to trace what I could of weapon serial number blocks issued to these units, and then compare them with messages detailing major unreliability problems. I found that apparently the Air Cav and the 196th Light Infantry Brigade both ended up with fairly large numbers of early M16 rifles originally used in the intensive 11th Airmobile Division proof-of-concept trials back in the States, and in Vietnam the Air Cav found themselves saddled with significant numbers of early M16 rifles which “had been rode hard and put away wet.” Likewise, among the M16 rifles shipped to Vietnam to rearm the Marine battalions were numbers of early M16 rifles from the M16 unit field trials, pulled from Army depots and from training bases and shipped in a hurry to make up the numbers. Among defective weapons reported by serial number by these units were numerous weapons from the serial blocks used for the various intensive trials programs mentioned above.

The 1st Air Cav had some of these used M16s early in their Vietnam tour, the 173rd Airborne Brigade also got some when it converted from the M14 Rifle to the M16, and the 196th Light Infantry Brigade (which later became part of the Americal) received numbers of used M16s when they were initially stood up and trained for deployment to Vietnam. On the other hand, the specially formed 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment had much less trouble with the M16 during the same period, being largely armed with new, never before issued M16s. Their lower incidence of trouble, however, may partly have been because of better rifle maintenance in their unit culture than among the Air Cav and Light Infantry, and perhaps also because of the 11th ACR’s lesser exposure to a salt environment than the light infantry units.

XM177E1 Carbine: Perception of Reliability

Despite the short barrel with its sharp pressure curve and resulting abrupt firing cycle, and despite later testing showing a similar rate of operating failures to that of the early M16A1 and actually not as good as the improved chromed barrel M16A1 that was starting to come along into the supply pipeline in late 1969, the relatively new XM177E1 carbine during 1969 was perceived among US troops in Vietnam as being much more reliable than the standard issue M16 and unchromed M16A1. In part this was due to all of this carbine issue having been manufactured with the chromed chamber, new bolt latch, new disconnector, and improved buffer as standard.

Since most of these non-standard carbines were issued to either reconnaissance units such as LRRPs (who generally were fanatical about weapons maintenance) or to combat officers, I suspect that better-than-average daily cleaning also played a role. Another factor is that in either role, the little carbine was seldom subjected to the routine daily protective “Mad Minute” on the unit perimeter that the ordinary rifleman’s M16 experienced, with its long bursts of automatic fire. Instead, the XM177E1 users tended to fire it in controlled bursts or on semiautomatic. The exception, of course, was when a small unit such as a recon team needed to break contact. But, that sort of heavy auto firing still was not done daily, so the recon team’s XM177E1 when badly needed usually had not been as worn and fouled by routine firing as the infantry rifleman’s M16 rifle. 

For more than 40 years now, M16 series firearms have been the American military’s weapon of choice. It is fair to say that few small arms have created such a history of controversy, which still persists to this day. What actually happened early in the Vietnam War forms the basis of ongoing misinformation and misconceptions about the M16 & M16A1 rifles. These weapons unfairly “earned” a reputation for malfunctioning when they were “dirty” and for being a lightweight piece of junk to many. The truth, however, is much more complex than the standard line that the gun did not work due to fouling. The M16’s initial reliability issues should not have fallen on the Black Rifle itself, but on the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps which was ultimately responsible for developing and fielding weapons used by U.S. soldiers.

The new lightweight rifle was adopted in 1964 based on its “superior performance” over the heavier M14 with its 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge designed for longer range engagements. The M16 was seen by many, including Special Forces advisors, as a good infantry weapon “nearly perfect” for combat conditions in Vietnam. With a larger “basic load of ammunition,” these small caliber, lightweight, low recoil weapons proved ideal for rapid multiple target engagements and close quarter fighting often encountered in Southeast Asia. Without digging into the early history of the U.S Air Force AR-15’s & M16’s, we will look at what went wrong “in the jungles of Vietnam.”

Soon after the new black rifles were deployed into ground combat with front line Army and Marine units, reports of significant malfunctions began to circulate across Vietnam and back to the States. Many of these problems stemmed from U.S. Ordnance Corps’ defiance, prejudices and outright negligence, which proved serious enough by 1967 to warrant a Special Subcommittee on the M16 Rifle Program in the U.S. House of Representatives. These proceedings within the Armed Services Committee are now known as the Ichord Hearings, after the chairman, Rep. Richard Ichord. The details of the entire M16 program brought out during these hearings showed incredible mismanagement and gross negligence which directly caused weapons to malfunction in the jungles of Southeast Asia. After the real problems were brought to the surface, corrective action was finally taken to develop a weapon system that would function properly with its ammunition and could be deployed reliably in extended combat operations for decades to follow. We will now take a hard look at the errors, oversights, and solutions which lead to the combat proven M16A1.

Fateful Selection of Ball Powder

Most problems encountered with the rifle would be based on the Ordnance Corps’ decision to load 5.56mm ammunition with Ball powder instead of the IMR powder it was designed for. The decision was made carelessly and without testing to see if the Ball powder would have any adverse effects on the rifle. This was a grave error, one that the government would be warned about both by Gene Stoner and by Colt’s.

So what difference does the powder make? All the difference in the world. Auto loading firearms are by far one of the most complex of all machines. The tolerances and manufacturing processes are very unforgiving. A military rifle is a weapon system. That system is made up of a weapon, cartridge, propellant, primer and bullet. Any time one is changed, it must be tested and qualified before a change is implemented to insure the integrity of the weapon is not compromised. It was not.

Ball powder caused a series of malfunctions due to its different burning properties from the IMR powder the rifle was designed around. Keep in mind that the gun and ammunition were designed together. Ball powder has a much sharper pressure curve (burns faster) and increased the port pressure of the rifle. This increases the cyclic rate of the firearm by more than 200 rounds per minute. What this means is the timing of cycling of the firearm was dramatically sped up. The rifle was designed to fire at a rate of 700 to 800 rounds per minute, with ball powder it was increased to nearly 1,000 rounds per minute. This alteration of operation caused numerous problems including exceeding the cyclic rate maximum. It was so bad that Colt (by instruction of the Army) performed acceptance testing with older lots of cartridges loaded with IMR powder so that they would meet the lower cyclic rate as specified in the contract with the Army so the rifles could be delivered to the Army. Ball powder has been used going back to World War II. Large stocks remained from that time period that could be converted into rifle powder. This significantly decreased the cost in comparison to IMR powder. The main problem with IMR propellant was the inability for DuPont to manufacture the quantities needed to the specifications required. The actual decision to use ball propellant for this rifle system was not a bad decision, the problem came into how they implemented it. The rifle/ammunition were not tested and qualified before ammunition with Ball propellant made its way to the jungles of Southeast Asia.

Failure to Chrome Plate the Chamber

The principal and most serious cause of the malfunctions of the AR-15/M16 rifle in Vietnam was the failure to chrome plate the chamber. From experience gained in the Pacific Theater during World War II, it was found that chrome plating a chamber of a firearm would prevent many serious failures to extract. This military requirement was set forth by Ordnance Technical committee since 1957. Corrosion causes pitting in the chamber. When the cartridge is fired, it expands to the walls of the chamber. The cartridge would stick in these pits causing the extractor to tear the rim off the cartridge cases and the only way to remove it was to hammer it out with a cleaning rod. If the chamber was corroded and pitted, no cleaning would make it function properly. The question is, if we learned this lesson in World War II and made it a military specification on all U.S. small arms, why did the AR-15/M16 rifle not have it? The blame here goes not to Ordnance Corp but to the “Wiz Kids” on Secretary of Defence McNamara’s staff who made all the decisions. This micromanagement of money in resources and decisions was made by people who had not the slightest clue about small arms. As stated by William Davis, Jr. about the decision to not chrome plate the chamber, “If the rifle needed a chrome chamber Stoner would have designed it that way. So it did not have one therefore it did not need one.” Despite that fact, the rifle that Stoner and Colt showed the government was not a finalized weapon. It would need development to get ready for the troops to use at large.

This problem was simply corrected. First to appear were barrels with chrome plated chambers only. The barrels were marked “CMPC”(Colt magnetic particle inspected and proof tested). Barrels were also sent to Rock Island to have the chambers modified and chrome plated. This prevented the serious failures to extract and made the chamber easier to clean. Later in the war, the barrels were chrome plated in both the bore and chamber. These barrels were marked “CMPB” or “ CMP Chrome Bore.” With this modification the failures to extract became a thing of the past in the rifle.

Additionally the original gas tube was made from AISI 4130 steel. Due to corrosion issues that came up in the jungles of Vietnam the gas tube material was changed to stainless steel. This was implemented in the 1966 to 1967 time frame. This change eliminated the corrosion issues.

Failure to Extract

Failure to extract problems were due to the bolt unlocking sooner due to the change-over from IMR to Ball powder. There was still high residual pressure in the chamber and the cartridge cases did not have sufficient time to contract to be easily removed from the chamber. Thus, the extractor would slip off the rim or shear part of the rim off leaving the fired cartridge case in the chamber. To clear this malfunction, often the bolt would be closed again and the cartridge would come out of the chamber. If you compounded this malfunction with a corroded and pitted chamber, the cartridge case would become lodged in the chamber and have to be pounded out with a cleaning rod. This was by far the most serious of any malfunctions of the M16 in Vietnam. Chrome plating the chamber cured the extraction ill. The next major improvement to extraction took place in the 1970s with the addition of the rubber extractor spring buffer, which greatly increased extractor force. This particularly helped carbines that had a much higher cyclic rate.

Fouling

Fouling has been played up by many as the main cause of the failures in Vietnam. Many claimed that the gun would malfunction and the only way to get it working again was to tear it down and clean it on the battlefield. This was not the case. The main malfunctions were caused by corroded chambers causing failures to extract. No matter how clean the rifle was, it would not function reliably with a corroded chamber. Cleaning will not increase bolt and fire control group strength to prevent parts breakage due to the significant increase in cyclic rate. However, Ball powder did cause more fouling in the firearm, particularly in the chamber and inside the bolt carrier in between the back of the bolt carrier and the rear of the bolt. Simple maintenance took care of this, but maintenance became a problem of its own. It should be noted that to this very day the military M855 Ball cartridge uses Ball powder and the M16A2 and later generation rifles work very well.

Correcting Slam Fire Issue

One of the earliest problems to surface was slam fire. Slam fire occurs when the bolt is released and the firing pin strikes the primer and that inertia is enough to set the cartridge off. The principal culprit was the inconsistency in the manufacturing of the primers. When soft batches of primers were loaded this was more evident. To cope with this problem, the weight of the firing pin was decreased thus correcting the problem. There was a complete retrofit of all the old firing pins with the new ones service wide. Based on my research, the old firing pins were destroyed to keep them from surfacing at a later date and causing slam fire problems.

The “Light Strike” Problem and Newly Designed Buffer to Cope

The “light strike” was consequence of the higher cyclic rate. This malfunction was only found on fully automatic fire. When the cartridge is fired, the bolt carrier moves to the rear and the hammer is held by the automatic sear. The bolt carrier moves forward by action of the buffer spring, strips a cartridge off the magazine, chambers it, and as the bolt moves into the locked position, the sear trip area on the back of the bolt carrier tips the auto sear releasing the hammer to fire. But when the bolt carrier slammed into the barrel extension, it would momentarily bounce off the barrel extension and when the hammer would strike the bolt carrier, it would not be completely closed. The hammer would ride the firing pin/bolt carrier group forward and by the time it would lock there would be insufficient energy left to fire the cartridge. Thus, there would be a light dent on the primer but the round would not fire.

This problem would be corrected by the redesign of the buffer/spring guide. The original buffer, which utilized the “Edgewater ring springs,” was basically a spring guide that worked well with IMR propellant. For use with ball powder, five sliding steel weights were inserted inside the buffer and in- between them are small rubber disks. The weights would be able to move freely inside the buffer. This accomplished a couple things. First, it slightly decreased the cyclic rate on the closing stroke. Secondly, it prevented the bolt carrier bounce. As the buffer moved rearward when fired, inertia kept all the weights to the rear and when the bolt carrier would move into the locked position the weights would move forward absorbing the energy preventing the bolt carrier bounce.

Excessive Parts Wear and Breakages

The bolt itself would crack and break from the higher velocity and impact caused by the higher cyclic rate. The rear of the disconnector would break as well. These components worked properly at their design parameters but the increase in cyclic rate caused them to be overworked and eventually fail. The bolt catch was found to break with extended use due to the higher cyclic rate. It certainly was not that the rifle would not work with ball powder, it would have to be modified to do so. That was the job of the Ordnance Corps as per directions given by Secretary of Defense McNamara: they failed to do that.

Refining some manufacturing processes and redesigning some components solved these problems. The bolt was shot peened to increase its strength to deal with the higher cyclic rate. The disconnector was redesigned and made stronger to deal with the harder impact. The bolt catch was strengthened to halt the bolt carrier group of the higher velocity caused by the use of Ball propellant.

Other Modifications and improvements

As the war progressed, the rifle was further modified and improved. After first fielding, it was clear that these rifles were corroding. This is called “Intergrandular Exfoliation.” This is a chemical reaction in the aluminum caused by a combination of humidity, body perspiration and other chemicals that caused the receivers to flake off in layers and had a white corrosive substance appearance. This was primarily due to the receivers being made of the lower quality 6061 T6 aluminum forgings. Eugene Stoner himself had pled with Ordnance Corps to use 7075 T6 aluminum and was shot down until 1968 when production changed to the desirable 7075 T6 aluminum, which is used to this very day.

The lower receivers went through three generations as well. The original utilized a removable front pivot pin. The second introduced the captive front pivot pin, which visibly showed a raised area/rib that went straight back behind the front pivot pin and ended near the rear of the ejection port. The third was the addition of the magazine release button fence, which prevented accidental release of the magazine by dropping or dragging.

The bolt and bolt carrier had gone through some changes as well. The original AR-15 had a chrome plated bolt and bolt carrier. The XM16E1 used the same with the addition of the forward assist notches. This was a proprietary “hard” chrome plating process that was quite expensive. It was found that the chrome did wear off and chip and eventually corroded. It had also prematurely worn the internal dry film lube inside the upper receiver. The original purpose of chrome plating was to make it easier to clean. This it did, but there was a better way to go about this.

There are no remaining records that state the exact time when the chrome plating process ceased, but it is safe to say in the 1967 time period the chrome plating was dropped in favor a more durable and cheaper manganese phosphate which was black in color. The inside of the bolt carrier and carrier key remain chrome plated. Both the smooth side as well as the forward assist notched versions of the bolt carrier was produced in chrome plating and eventually both changed to the new finish. In 1966 Colt stopped manufacturing the smooth sided carriers due to lack of interchangeability with the XM16E1/M16A1 rifles.

Additionally, a new firing pin retaining pin was introduced. The original part was a machined retaining pin that came in chrome plated and manganese phosphate finish. A much cheaper cotter-type pin replaced this. The original was a much better component but there was another more inexpensive way to do the same job.

The Self-Cleaning Gun

With the purchase and distribution of more than 85,000 AR-15 rifles in Vietnam, there was not a single .22 caliber cleaning kit, operator’s manual or chamber or bore cleaning brush available. As recalled by Gene Stoner, the Army had no intention of buying the rifle so the government did not want to waste money on cleaning kits and manuals. The AR-15 was supposed to be an “interim” solution until they could get the SPIW (Special Purpose Individual Weapon) finalized and fielded. Therefore, the gun was touted as being self-cleaning. Troops were instructed that it was not necessary to perform any cleaning or maintenance on their weapons prior to going out on patrol or on a mission. Due to lack of reasonable maintenance guns would be fouled, firing thousands of rounds without cleaning. By not cleaning, the humidity and other environmental factors, the gun was even more prone to corrosion in the barrel and chamber. With the lack of availability of cleaning supplies, operator manuals and maintenance training, rifles were found to be in unserviceable condition in the hands of infantry soldiers. Many soldiers in the early part of the Vietnam War received training on the M14 rifle in basic training and when they arrived in Vietnam they were issued an M16. They received no instruction on operation and maintenance. With the introduction of Ball propellant, the fouling became more of a problem without maintenance

It was not until late 1966 that the Army began distribution (small) of the newly designed chamber brush which cleaned fouling out of the chamber as well as the locking recesses in the barrel extension. It was not until 1967 that large scale distribution of manuals, cleaning rods, bore and chamber brushes and lubricant were issued to the troops in the field.

Many have seen pictures, video coverage or heard stories of the flimsy M16 that was so fragile to dirt that condoms were placed over the muzzle to prevent dust from entering the barrel. Once again, a half-truth. The reason for covering the muzzle was to prevent water from entering the barrel. Due to the smaller bore, water enters by capillary action and is retained by surface tension. The gravity overcomes the surface tension in a larger .30 caliber bore and it will run out more easily. This was to protect more so from walking thorough streams and rivers and large amounts of water entering the barrel rather than a few drops of rain. This is a characteristic of a .22 caliber high power rifle. The best way to improve the barrel strength is to massively overbuild it to take severe pressures but the weight would become unacceptable. It should be noted that M1 rifles during World War II also had condoms placed over the muzzle during landings on beaches to keep water out of the muzzle.

The Forward Bolt Assist

Many believe to this day that the forward assist was an improvement to the rifle. The designers contested that it was in fact not an improvement but rather a detriment. Testing performed at Rock Island Arsenal proved this. They were able to demonstrate the detriment of forcing a cartridge into a chamber, and in particular a dirty chamber that can cause serious failures to extract and to open the bolt under adverse conditions. The forward assist was added by the request of the Army so the soldier would have some external link to the bolt carrier to manually close it. Odd, since even the M14 manuals say that you never force a round into the chamber. If it will not chamber, eject it out and load another. As Stoner designed the AR-10 as well as the AR-15, this external link was found not necessary. The forward assist was added to fill a psychological need, not a mechanical one. Eventually, it was added to all production rifles and is still in use today. It is an expensive addition to the rifle that has no practical purpose. Under extreme conditions such as being heavily corroded (not seen since they became chrome plated), or with heavily fowled chambers, the forward bolt assist will aid in chambering the round but will not affect the inevitable failure to extract. In firing hundreds of thousands of rounds out of M16-type weapons, this author has never had a malfunction that the forward assist would have cleared.

The Final M16A1

On February 13, 1967 the XM16E1 rifle was type-classified the M16A1 rifle. The final version would carry this weapon system for the next 18 years until the adoption of the M16A2. The final “A1” would have the enhancements including the magazine fence for preventing the magazine from being accidentally released, the forward assist, the 7075 T6 aluminum receivers, chrome plated bore and chamber as well as the new butt stock with the trap door to hold cleaning equipment. With the development of this rifle in full swing after the hearings, troops who entered into service in late 1968 encountered little trouble and the weapon went on to become one of the most successful small arms the world has even known.

The Carbine

With the introduction of the short barreled XM177 and XM177E2 carbines, a new realm of problems were found. The U.S. Government never officially adopted any 5.56mm carbine until the Colt M4. So, all the carbines used were small runs of guns not fully developed and no final Technical Data Package, and therefore; no true mil-spec like the standard rifle. Due to the shorter distance from the gas port to the bolt carrier, significantly more pressure is created in the carbine increasing the cyclic rate even more than the standard rifle. Multiply this with the use of ball powder. Major problems were more frequent failures to extract and bolt carrier bounce. With refinements such as the new M4 “H” buffer, the bolt carrier bounce problem has been solved and with enhancements to the extractor (stiffer spring and stronger buffer) and the use of the new “O” ring have brought the failures to extract problem to a halt.

Conclusions

Reputation is a funny thing. It is developed by many factors, rarely are they based on fact. It is subjective based on the individual’s perception of the weapon and subjected by prejudices. The AR-15 as introduced by ArmaLite/Colt was an excellent firearm but needed to be put through a proper development program before it was issued to the troops. Through this process, issues such as chrome plated chambers, cleaning equipment and modifications to use the alternate Ball powder would have been addressed. The political infighting between the Ordnance Corps, the U.S. military and congress caused many U.S. servicemen their lives by putting a weapon in their hands that was not properly developed, which Ordnance Corps was responsible for. Development of a weapon should never be conducted in the field. This agenda was for one purpose only, to protect their inferior M14 because it was home grown. Regardless that the M16 was ideal for the combat conditions in Vietnam, it was clear that the increased hit probability due to lightweight and low recoil, controllability on full automatic and ability to carry significantly more ammunition over the M14 were a clear advantage. High volume of fire was required in the dense jungles where clearly defined targets were rare. History has a funny way of repeating itself – One has to wonder what the M4 will compete against.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank to Ken Elmore, President of Specialized Armament Warehouse for his contributions of both intelligence and materials for photography. An avid Colt AR-15/M16 enthusiast and collector, Mr. Elmore is also an instructor for Colt Defence LLC Law Enforcement Training Division. Specialized Armament Warehouse is one of the largest Colt parts dealers in the World located in Chandler, Arizona.

The HEL M2 was an experimental M16 suppressor that used a series of baffles coupled with an expansion chamber extending back over the barrel to the front sight. The M2 model for the M16 rifle was 14 inches long and used 24 baffles forward of the muzzle. Following an ENSURE (Expediting Non-Standard Urgent Requirement for Equipment) request (DA ENSURE Index No. 77) from the USARV (United States Army, Vietnam) for silencers for the M16A1 rifle in May 1966, HEL designed and tested a noise suppressor designated the HEL M4, which was a variant of the M2.

To reduce the bulk and weight of the M2 5.56mm suppressor, HEL shortened the length to 12 inches, reduced the number of baffles, and changed the internal arrangement of components. The number of baffles was reduced from 24 to 11, with the first baffle being positioned backwards (i.e., so that its apex was toward the front of the suppressor). Directly in front of this baffle was a short expansion chamber followed by a baffle positioned normally (i.e., with its apex toward the muzzle of the rifle). This baffle had a very large bullet passage, presumably to reduce back pressure. The next 9 baffles were the same design as the first baffle, but were oriented normally.

The new can eliminated enough of the muzzle blast so that the location of the shooter was undetectable to hostiles downrange, which greatly improved a shooter’s tactical advantage and survivability. Given ideal vegetation and terrain, the muzzle blast from an M16A1 was completely indistinguishable beyond 50 yards. Only the sonic boom created by the 5.56mm projectile remained, which sounds something like the report of a short-barreled .22 rifle. In the absence of a muzzle blast, the mammalian brain interprets the origin of the gunshot as perpendicular to the pressure wave of the ballistic crack striking the body. Combined with the sound of bullet impact, this phenomenon causes individuals to turn their attention 90 to 180 degrees away from the shooter. This is a very good thing during an ambush or when a small force equipped with silencers must cope with a larger force.

To meet the ENSURE #77 requirement, the USARV submitted an acquisition requirement for 1,080 HEL M4 noise suppressors. By December 1967, the first 120 suppressors had been produced, but further production was suspended pending a field evaluation by USARV. Twenty suppressors were sent to USARV for testing.

In March and April 1968, the USAIB (United States Army Infantry Board) tested the M4. The USAIB test found that the M4 had three shortcomings. (1) The gas deflector failed to deflect all of the escaping gases from the firer’s eyes. (2) The ejection pattern of the rifle with noise suppressor attached caused the spent cartridge case to strike the cheek of left-handed shooters. And (3) the malfunction rate of the test rifle was significantly higher than the control rifle during automatic fire. The USAB concluded that the HEL M4 sound suppressor had military potential but it was not the perfect tool for the job, so the Board returned the M4 to HEL for correction of these shortcomings.

Early development at Aberdeen also demonstrated that the M4 generated a number of problems with the M16A1 rifle: (1) increased back pressure; (2) increased cyclic rate; (3) increased rearward bolt velocity, and (4) excessive gas discharge from the ejection port into the shooter’s face. The major problem was the increased back pressure, which actually produced the other problems, such as shearing off the bolt carrier key. HEL solved the bolt velocity and cyclic rate problems by adding an additional gas pressure relief port to the bolt carrier, which enabled reliable functioning of the rifle whether the selector was set to SEMI or AUTO.

The only glitch with this solution was that the rifle would not cycle reliably with the modified bolt carrier unless the suppressor was installed. This meant that a rifle fitted with the modified bolt carrier had to be dedicated for suppressed use only.

Once installed, the suppressor became an integral part of the rifle that could not be removed without swapping the bolt carrier as well. This was not an ideal situation for special operators. Furthermore, the suppressed rifle with modified bolt carrier still dumped a lot of hot combustion gas into the shooter’s face, so HEL added a special gas deflector to the charging handle of the M16A1 rifle. This deflector was not entirely successful, however. In April and May 1968, HEL developed a new, shorter suppressor that eliminated the need for a specially modified bolt carrier. Apart from the removal of 5 baffles from the baffle stack, the new suppressor used the same arrangement forward of the muzzle of the rifle. This new 9.5 inch model was known variously as the HEL M4A, or H4A, or E4A which was its final designation. The gas deflector was also intended to be used with the new suppressor, but there is little evidence to suggest that it was actually used with the E4A suppressors in the field.

Other developers of noise suppressors tried to meet the ENSURE #77 requirement, including SIONICS (a commercial company that eventually merged with the Military Armament Corporation) and Frankford Arsenal (FA; which was a government facility). In May 1968, HEL, SIONICS and FA submitted a total of seven different noise suppressors for testing to meet the ENSURE #77 requirement. The Frankford Arsenal silencers were 1.25 inches in diameter and utilized porous aluminum rather than baffle technology. These very early SIONICS silencers used WerBell’s spiral diffusers, but did not incorporate baffles that would later be seen in his patents and production units. They also featured a flash hider that screwed onto the front end cap of the SIONICS silencer. The HEL M4 and M4A suppressors were tested at Ft. Benning, Georgia, by the USAIB in a Military Potential Test (MPT) against the FA (Frankford Arsenal) FA XM and CM noise suppressors and three different versions of the SIONICS 5.56mm suppressor (the MAW-A1, A2, and A3 models). The test recommendation was that the HEL E4A noise suppressor was suitable for a field evaluation in Vietnam.

The HEL E4A was win-win technology. While it was not as quiet as the M4, it solved all of the reliability and durability issues plaguing the M4 suppressor. Furthermore, it was more compact than the HEL M4. While the E4A did not require a modified bolt carrier (unlike its M4 predecessor), we find it quite interesting that the E4A was considered to be a permanent fixture once it was fitted to a rifle.

The E4A produced a net sound reduction of 26 dB (at 12.5 feet down range and 2 feet to the right of bullet trajectory). That was significantly better than the SIONICS suppressors (by about 10-11 dB), but not as good as the HEL M4 (which produced 35-36 dB reduction) or the FA XM (which produced 32-36 dB reduction). See the accompanying sidebar to learn more about the sound level measurement procedures used for these HEL tests. All of the other five suppressors tested by the USAIB had shortcomings. The performance of the E4A out-shone the other suppressors, especially with regard to the number of malfunctions that occurred during cyclic tests. The malfunction rate of the E4A was significantly lower than all other suppressors tested; during a 1,000-round cyclic rate test, only 3 malfunctions occurred with the E4A.

While some shortcomings were noted with the SIONICS suppressors, SIONICS was well advanced in the use of high-tech materials compared to the other suppressor manufacturers of the time. SIONICS used a plastic bushing under the rear retaining collar. Unfortunately, this bushing melted during a full-auto testing. A redesigned bushing made from Teflon was then submitted during the MPT to rectify this problem. Unfortunately, Teflon melted when temperatures reached about 1,000 degrees F, so SIONICS finally settled upon making the bushings from naval bronze.

Another problem was the gas pressure relief valve. The springs used in the relief valve failed during the cyclic rate testing, so a redesigned spring made from Inconel was submitted in an attempt to rectify this problem. Even resorting to using a high-temperature resistant alloy like Inconel proved unsuccessful, so SIONICS developed its third and final design: a passive gas pressure relief valve with no moving parts. Significantly, the MPT found that the pressure relief valve had no effect on the operation of the test items, and concluded that it was an unnecessary part of the suppressor. It is also interesting to note that use of a gas pressure relief valve with center-fire rifle suppressors has not been seen since its use in the SIONICS suppressors, with one exception. Recently deployed Israeli-made centerfire rifle suppressors for the M16A1 and M14 rifles have featured the use of gas pressure relief valves, despite the fact that advances in internal design have clearly eliminated any need for pressure relief valves.

Two of the SIONICS suppressors used titanium spiral suppressor rings, while the third used aluminum spiral suppressor rings. Following further destruct tests at Ft. Benning, SIONICS made significant changes to the construction and materials used in the 5.56mm suppressors. No internal parts were subsequently made from aluminum, and stainless steel became the material of choice. While the use of titanium has become more widespread in recent years, it is a little-known fact that SIONICS pioneered the usage of titanium in firearms sound suppressors, though undoubtedly the cost factor prevented its widespread use during the Vietnam years. Despite the advances in material use, the SIONICS/MilitaryArmament Corporation’s suppressors were not as widely used as the HEL E4A in Vietnam.

After the MPT report was published in September 1968, final production of the outstanding 960 HEL E4A suppressors was completed, and these were shipped to Vietnam in late 1968 and early 1969 at a cost of $42,000. That works out to less than $46 per unit. According to several sources, the HEL E4A suppressor was used in greater numbers during the Vietnam War than SIONICS/Military Armament Corporation’s suppressors designed for the M16A1 and CAR-15. Rangers, SEALs and Army Special Forces began using HEL M4 silencers in the summer of 1968 and then upgraded to the HEL E4A suppressors, which were employed throughout the remainder of the Vietnam War. The SEALs, however, eventually used a U.S. Navy-developed 5.56mm suppressor rather than the E4A suppressor.

Surprisingly, both the HEL M4 and E4A suppressors were considered to be expendable items. If they were damaged, they were to be destroyed by the company armorer rather than repaired. This may explain why the HEL M4 and E4A suppressors are rarely seen today in collectors’ hands. It is known that during the early 1980s, at least one mail-order company was selling parts kits for the M4, although this practice ceased when ATF changed the definition of a silencer to include silencer parts. If you ever find a transferable M4 silencer, it’s a rare and important historical artifact from the Vietnam War.