“As a matter of course, we put all our developmental weapons through their paces before putting them in the hands of Soldiers. We test using thousands of rounds of ammunition in all kinds of environments. They undergo stress tests, drop tests, and extreme environment tests to include, arctic, jungle, desert and more before they get the green light. These weapons are durable, reliable and effective when we put them in the field. With regards to the punch of the 25mm round, we’re confident in the lethality the XM25 can deliver.” – Colonel Douglas Tamilio, PM Soldier Weapons

By the time you read this, the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System with its uncannily accurate airburst ammo will undoubtedly have drawn its first blood in Afghanistan.

This sci-fi looking individual armament, initially the “grenade gun” upper half of the ill-fated Objective Individual Combat Weapon, has been in combat operational test mode for several months now with selected elements of US Special Operations Command.

It’s the hottest new man portable grenade launcher anywhere, boasting indirect fire capabilities with “smart” ammo that can kill enemies smugly squatting behind walls and boulders, until now unreachable by squad level weapons.

At their recent press briefing and live fire event at historic Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, top officials of PM Soldier Weapons told Small Arms Review and reporters for other military and defense industry publications how the XM25’s unique capabilities would have been of particular value to defenders in the now-famous “Keating” firefight.

Among many lessons learned in the near-annihilation of this small, fortified camp in what’s formally known as the Battle of Kamdesh, Afghanistan, they said, is the need for unit level indirect fire capability that is highly flexible and immediately available.

Combat Outpost Keating

More than 300 Taliban fighters launched a surprise attack on Keating in the predawn darkness of October 3, 2009, saturating the small base with mortar rounds, RPGs and heavy small arms fire.

They quickly breached the perimeter, routed the panicked Afghan Army detachment and nearly overran the American soldiers of Bravo Troop, 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment.

Bad weather and slow response from artillery and air support assets combined to give the enemy special advantages in their initial assault from the high ground “bowl” around the camp, leaving the defenders below with little more than basic individual and crew-served weapons to fight back with.

Their direct fire arms and single shot M203 grenade launchers were of limited value against battle-seasoned attackers who skillfully used abundant cover from boulders and depressions in the surrounding rough terrain and defensive positions inside the wire.

Relief came slowly but soon built to a decisive level as artillery, helicopter gunships, jet fighters and bombers combined to rout the enemy.

When the smoke cleared an estimated 150 Taliban were dead at the cost of 30 U.S. troopers killed or wounded.

Cost/Benefit Ratio

Richard Audette, Deputy PMSW, responding during the press conference at Aberdeen, to implied criticism in a reporter’s question noting the projected $25,000 cost per XM25, called it a bargain compared to far more expensive weaponry wielded by external support elements like those that turned the tide at Keating.

“They were hitting the attackers with Apache gunships, Hellfire missiles and Excaliber artillery rounds,” he said, “far more costly, cumbersome, and slow to arrive.”

“The XM25,” he emphasized, “is an immediately available, squad level weapon that pays for itself, but more importantly it saves solders’ lives because it can take out those defilade (behind cover) targets.”

Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Lehner, Product Manager Individual Weapons, underscored the XM25’s remarkably fast target engagement capability against fleetingly-glimpsed targets.

“In under five seconds I can lase for range, get my adjusted reticle on target and pull the trigger,” he said. “At four hundred meters it takes another two seconds to get there and explode. Seven hundred meters another second or so. It really doesn’t give the Taliban a lot of time to reposition himself.”

Then, adding his perspective on the XM25’s $25,000 price tag, Lehner invited a comparison to the total cost of the current, less capable combination of weapon and accessories.

“Add up the cost of an M4 carbine with M203 grenade launcher, STORM laser rangefinder, plus night vision and aiming modules,” he said, noting that the XM25 fully integrates these components with the added benefit of a ballistic computer and airbursting ammunition.

SAR has been closely following the sixteen year saga of this 100 million dollar engineering marvel and we are pleased to know that it has finally made its way into the hands of the snake-eating fraternity. If all goes well, we’re told, it will be available in limited quantities for muddy-boots grunts in the 2013-14 time frame.

Lehner explained that the plan for fielding this exotic grenade launcher was under development but not to expect it to become a standard squad weapon.

“It’s potentially an arms room weapon,” he said, “like a shotgun or other specialized weapon that you’d draw for certain missions where you need the (XM25’s) unique capability.”

While the wizardry embodied in the XM25 is spectacular, there are several other developments from the dedicated team at Program Manager Soldier Weapons that also deserve special recognition.

Mulberry Point Range

PM Soldier Weapons had wisely set aside several consecutive days for hands-on demos for congressional and military VIPs, efficiently utilizing the considerable time and expense required for such things. These focused opportunities gave a wide variety of purse-keepers and decision-makers the chance to see for themselves what was in the weapons development pipeline.

Press day was a continuation of the process, with PMSW hoping that knowledgeable reporters would convey to the public how America’s defenders were armed. More than a dozen reps turned up, from outlets ranging in credibility and seriousness from USA Today to Army Times, with Small Arms Review in there on the right side of the scale.

After the obligatory meet, greet and ground rules briefing, Aberdeen Test Center’s Mulberry Point Small Arms Range went hot with a HE (high explosive) demo shot from the XM25. Safety concerns kept us inside the ballistic glass windowed observation building.

We could see the gunner just outside the thick glass window and his actions were explained in real time by Lieutenant Colonel Lehner. Using the weapon’s highly sophisticated fire control system with on-board laser rangefinder, he said, the shooter gets exact distance to the front wall of a simulated building with an open window.

With the simple push of a button he adds a meter to the range and the chambered “smart” round is electronically programmed with the precise distance from launch to detonation point. In this case right through the window and inside the room.

The fire control’s ballistic computer calculates angle of elevation based on range and displays a red dot in the electro-optical sight with the correct aiming point. Windage can be programmed as well.

When the round was fired, a computer chip in the 40mm HE warhead counted revolutions in flight and initiated detonation at approximately the center of the “room,” showering it with lethal fragments. A remote video camera linked to a large screen in the observation building provided dramatic evidence of the effectiveness of this programmable airburst weapon’s precision lethality.

Then, we were herded outside to observe a series of live fire demonstrations of selected current weaponry, starting with the lock-busting 12 gauge M26 Modular Accessory Shotgun System and moving down the firing line to see grenade launchers, machine guns, sniper rifles and the new “dazzling” laser on a hulking armored vehicle.

M240 Light

While highly reliable and very accurate, a standard 7.62mm M240B medium machine gun weighs a hefty 27 pounds, making it a burden for dismounted troops on the move.

PM Crew Served Weapons has responded with the M240L (Light), incorporating a titanium receiver and other refinements to drop 5.7 pounds without sacrificing combat performance.

Further weight reduction is realized when pairing it with the new M192 Lightweight Ground Mount tripod, boasting better stability and an improved traversing and elevating mechanism at a weight saving of six pounds.

Old Warhorse Returns

Soldiers and Marines of a certain age (including a few of us at SADJ) should take special pleasure in seeing the honored return of the post-WW2 generation’s venerable M14 rifles.

This hard-hitting, long reaching 7.62x51mm NATO caliber battle rifle was pushed aside by the pipsqueak 5.56mm M16 in the Vietnam War when it was deemed that an “assault rifle,” characterized by light weight and high volume of fire, was better for jungle fighting.

But now that the battlefields are in Iraq and Afghanistan – mostly treeless, arid plains and mountains – the M16 and its little brother M4 are noticeably lacking in necessary range (maximum approximately 500 meters) and knockdown power.

Spurred by urgent Operational Need Statements from combat units, the Army started pulling mothballed M14s out of storage, adding day scopes, and rushing them off to CENTCOM’s AO for use by “Squad Designated Marksmen.”

This eminently practical solution has since been kicked up a notch at PM Soldier Weapons by creation of the Enhanced Battle Rifle, a classic M14 retro-fitted at the Army’s Rock Island Arsenal with a modern chassis stock and capable of mounting a full range of day and night sights. More than 5,000 have been fielded so far and 1,700 more are in the pipeline.

LTC Lehner says that the EBR’s dramatically increased effective range, as much as 800 meters in capable hands, has forced the Taliban to “change its tactics,” backing way off when initiating an attack.

More Sniper Stuff

The 7.62mm M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS) from Knight’s Armament – apparently just about everything it needs to be already – will be outfitted with a collapsible buttstock, deemed better for close quarter engagements.

The awesomely powerful .50 caliber Barrett M107 Semi-Automatic Long Range Sniper Rifle is going to lose a little weight, get a specially designed suppressor and a new protective exterior coating.

Optics enhancements are in the works, starting with dumping complicated Mil-Dot reticles in favor of with a modern stadia type offering rapid estimation by fitting targets within graduated ranging overlays.

New sniper scopes are on the way, incorporating sophisticated laser rangefinders with electronic DOPE (Data On Previous Engagement) databases.

Two whiz-bang fire control systems are being conjured up by techno-spooks at DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), pushing cutting-edge technologies to increase operational range and hit probability for sniper-spotter teams:

* “One Shot” program seeks a technically advanced spotting scope capable of calculating cumulative wind effects to target and providing a near-instantaneous, accurate, adjusted ballistic aimpoint to the shooter.

* The EXACTO program takes One Shot to the “smart munitions” level; maybe like a laser guided bomb for snipers. It’s said to be a spotting scope-based target acquisition and guidance system that steers maneuverable .50 caliber projectiles directly to a target.

While SAR doesn’t shy away from wondering if EXACTO will be a ballistic breakthrough or an expensive, dead-end boondoggle, PEO Soldier documentation predicts maturity of these technologies and transition to the field over the next four years.

XM2010

Long range precision shooters should take particular note of an exciting development unveiled by PMSW just before this article was completed.

It’s a significant upgrade to the tried and true M24 Sniper Weapon System, that classic Remington 700 bolt action rifle, optimized for .308 cal. Winchester M118 Special Ball ammo.

The new “M24 Reconfigured Sniper Weapon System” carries the designation XM2010, now chambered for hot .300 Winchester Magnum rounds and wrapped in a modernistic skeletonized chassis.

• 5-round box magazine to make the system easier to load and reload with the additional option to change out ammunition quickly
• Rail endowed chassis and free floating barrel that allow for easier mounting of weapon accessories and greater accuracy
• Folding and adjustable stock that includes comb and length-of-pull adjustments
• Leupold Mark 4 6.5-20×50mm Extended Range/Tactical riflescope with advanced scalable ranging and targeting reticle; fielded with the AN/PVS-29 Clip-on Sniper Night Sight
• Quick attach/detach Advanced Armament Corp. suppressor to reduce audible and visible signature with an available thermal sleeve that reduces mirage effect on heated suppressors

The upgrade is said to have received high marks from skilled shooters involved in testing and evaluation.

“The XM2010 had pinpoint precision,” said SFC Robert Roof, NCOIC/Chief Instructor, United States Army Sniper School. “We were able to achieve shots well within the weapon’s capabilities both during limited visibility and during the day. The optics were clear and easy to use and the ergonomics of the weapon made it very comfortable to shoot.”

Remington won the contract following competitive trials and is well positioned to supply as many as 3,600 of these upgraded M24s with the first to be fielded in 2011.

Better M4 and a Brand-New Carbine?

While bravely defending against decades of criticism over reliability and durability of the 1.1 million M16/M4 weapon systems currently fielded, PMSW acknowledges the desirability of even more “product improvements.”

PEO Soldier is currently pursuing a “dual path” strategy; continuously improving the half million M4 Carbines in the field while simultaneously conducting a search for a replacement.

M4 Gets More

The first path is the three phase improvement plan for the M4, adding to more than 60 refinements since its introduction:

1. The Army will purchase 25,000 improved M4A1 Carbines with a heavier barrel for greater sustained rate of fire and fully automatic function in an ambidextrous fire control assembly (FCA). A solicitation will be issued for kits to convert up to 65,000 in-service M4s to A1 configuration.
2. Incorporate improvements in forward rail assemblies to increase accessory integration and more durable bolts and bolt carrier assemblies.
3. Evaluate commercially available operating systems against the performance of the M4’s current gas impingement system. It might even be an off-the-shelf piston kit.

Carbine Competition

At the same time that M4A1 upgrades are underway, Secretary of the Army has ordered a “full and open competition” for a possible replacement.

There’s a new requirements document and money is in hand to search for a new carbine that can outperform the current M16 and M4 series weapon systems.

It’s supposed to have improved features such as fully ambidextrous controls, semi- and full-automatic fire, and accurate and reliable firepower. In addition, integrated rails will accept accessories that currently attach to Mil-Std 1913 rails.

The new carbine will be capable of firing the family of U.S. Standard Type Classified rounds or nonstandard ammunition “with the same capabilities as the current 5.56mm family of ammunition.” We hope that’s actually supposed to read “better” capabilities.

Bye-bye Beretta?

Although combat use of handguns by conventional forces is said to be “statistically insignificant,” the intensely personal preferences of those who pack standard issue pistols is not kind to those designs handicapped by 9mm FMJ ammo, decidedly lacking in lethality.

And in the U.S. Army since 1989, that’s the Beretta M9, an eminently serviceable semiautomatic that has been unfairly maligned as unreliable due to stingy bureaucrats buying crappy magazines.

Credit Air Force Security for getting the latest handgun battle moving with the necessary validation from the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.

But it’s the Army taking the lead with what’s called the Modular Handgun System (MHS); a “non-caliber specific weapon” finished in a non-reflective neutral color with modular features to allow for adapting different fire control options, aiming aids on Mil-Std 1913 rails, alternate magazine choices, take a sound and flash suppressor and will fit various hand sizes.

Plenty of commercial firms have been working on all this for many, many years so there should be no lack of contenders. The timeline calls for trials and selection in FY11-12, completion of testing in FY13 and Type Classification expected in FY14.

Crew Served Weapons Future Initiatives

The American GI is a clever fellow and his natural admiration for the capabilities of vehicle mounted CROWS has led to urgent requests for a way to put these remote control rigs on top of guard towers.

The idea is to increase effectiveness by enabling them to conduct surveillance and engage threats from inside. That’s right – from up in the CROWS nest.

Armament, Research Development & Engineering Center (ARDEC) engineers are on it, working to retrofit an earlier CROWS variant into The Protector Lite Static Platform System.

Video and thermal surveillance cameras allow threat detection in all light and weather conditions and assist in accurate aiming of on-board M240B or M249 machine guns from elevated positions out to a range of 500-1,000 meters.

Ma Deuce on a Diet

The 90 year old “Ma Deuce” M2HB machine gun is getting a bit of modernization in the form of a Quick Change Barrel kit that speeds the process of swapping overheated barrels and eliminates the need for setting headspace and timing. And she’s getting a serious new rival.

The XM806 Lightweight .50 Caliber Machine Gun is intended to deliver heavy machine gun punch at about half the weight of the M2HB, making it particularly attractive to special operations, as well as airborne, airmobile, mountain, and light infantry forces.

Other important advantages claimed for the gun include 60 percent reduced recoil, improved reliability, manual safety, and a quick-change barrel with no adjustment needed for headspace and timing.

Development has reached the point where initial fielding is projected for sometime in 2011.

Grunt Gear and Guns from the “Big Green Machine”

Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier was created by the Army (informally known as the “Big Green Machine” by soldiers and others) with one primary purpose: To develop the best equipment and field it as quickly as possible so that our Soldiers remain second to none in missions that span the full spectrum of military operations.

As recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have vividly demonstrated, getting the right equipment to our military men and women is absolutely critical.

By viewing the Soldier as part of an integrated system, PEO Soldier ensures that the Soldier and everything he or she wears or carries works together as an integrated system.

The result is an overall systematic design that benefits Soldiers by enhancing their ability to accomplish individual and collective tasks, improving quality of life, building confidence, and saving lives.

By employing innovative concepts and technologies, PEO Soldier has made great strides in quickly getting improved equipment into the hands of Soldiers when and where they need it.

Headquartered at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, PEO Soldier designs, develops, procures, fields, and sustains virtually everything the Soldier wears or carries.

Projects and Products

This big and complex mission is somewhat simplified through the contributions of four distinct Project Managers under overall command of PEO Soldier. All of these PMs have specialized Product Managers, responsible for nearly 500 items ranging from the Advanced Bomb Suit to the XM806 Lightweight .50 cal. Machine Gun.

Project Manager Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment

PM SPIE develops and fields advanced Soldier protection products, comfortable uniforms to enhance mission effectiveness, and improved parachute systems. These products are designed to protect Soldiers and allow them to be effective in any operating environment.

Project Manager Soldier Sensors and Lasers

PM SSL provides Soldiers with improved lethality, mobility, and survivability in all weather and visibility conditions. Soldier-borne sensors and lasers enhance the Soldier’s ability to see in all battlefield and lighting conditions, to acquire objects of military significance before the Soldier is detected, and to target threat objects accurately for engagement by Soldiers or guided munitions. These systems provide critical, on-the-ground direct support to U.S. forces.

Project Manager Soldier Warrior

PM SWAR supports Soldiers through the acquisition of an integrated Soldier system. Current systems include Land Warrior, Ground Soldier, Mounted Soldier, and Air Warrior. Project Manager Soldier Warrior develops and integrates components into complete systems designed to increase combat effectiveness, decrease combat load, and improve mission flexibility.

Project Manager Soldier Weapons

“All the Services have agreed upon the following definition of Small Arms Systems: Man portable, individual and crew served weapons systems used principally against personnel and lightly armored targets. Included are both ballistic and non-ballistic systems and associated ordnance, munitions, aiming, powering, storage, training, specialized maintenance equipment, logistic support and other ancillary items.” (PM Soldier Weapons)

PMSW is the centralized manager for all activities related to the development, systems integration, test, evaluation, acquisition, production, configuration management, fielding, and all other Life-Cycle management requirements for Small Arms Systems including weapons, fire-control, optics and associated equipment, e.g., mounts, and the development of Small Arms ammunition, for the U.S. Army.

PMSW ensures that Soldiers on the battlefield have overmatch capabilities in individual and crew served weapons. Continuous improvement programs enhance both survivability and lethality.

Two product managers under PMSW drive the mission to provide Soldiers battlefield superiority:

* Product Manager Crew Served Weapons (PMCSW) is responsible for research and development of current and future light to heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, small arms ammunition, remote weapons stations, and related target acquisition/fire control products.

* Product Manager Individual Weapons (PMIW) is responsible for research and development of current and future rifles, carbines, pistols, shotguns, grenade launchers, small arms ammunition, and related target acquisition/fire control products.

PM SW’s Current Small Arms Lineup

Weapons:

9mm M9 Pistol
5.56mm M16A2 and A4 Rifles
5.56mm M4 Carbine
5.56mm M349 Squad Automatic Weapon
7.62mm M24 Sniper Weapon System
7.62mm M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle
7.62mm M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System
7.62mm M240B, H, L Medium Machine Guns
7.62mm Mk48 Mod0 Machine Gun
.300 Win Mag caliber XM24E1 (now XM2010) Enhanced Sniper Rifle
12 gauge M500 Shotgun
12 gauge M26 Modular Accessory Shotgun System
.50 caliber M2 and M2E2 Heavy Machine Guns
.50 caliber M107 Long Range Sniper Rifle
.50 caliber XM806 Light .50 caliber Machine Gun
25mm XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System
40mm M203 and M203A2 Grenade Launchers
40mm M320 Grenade Launcher
40mm Mk19 Grenade Machine Gun
XM153 Common Remotely Operated Weapon System

Weapon Accessories:

Improved M16 Magazine
M68 Close Combat Optic
M150 Rifle Combat Optic
M145 Machine Gun Optic
M24 Mini Binoculars
M25 Stabilized Binoculars
Close Quarters Battle Kit
M2E2 Quick Change barrel Kit
M192 Light Weight Ground Mount for Machine Guns
XM205 Light Weight Tripod for Heavy Machine Guns
Close Combat Mission Capability Kit

Ammunition:

XM1037 5.56mm Short-Range Training Round
XM1022 .50 Caliber Sniper Cartridge
XM116 12-Gauge Extended Range Less-Than-Lethal Cartridge
XM1140 40mm Extended Range Less-Than-Lethal Cartridge
XM1110 40mm Day/Night TP Cartridge
XM1112 40mm Airburst Less-Than-Lethal Cartridge
40mm Close-In Anti-Personnel Cartridge
Micro Electro-Mechanical Safe and Arming Mechanisms
Lightweight Ammunition

Learn More

Program Executive Officer Soldier: www.peosoldier.army.mil
U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center: www.atc.army.mil

It has been my privilege over the last three decades to represent the United States in international meetings when efforts have been made by some to regulate or prohibit, among other things, certain types of military small arms ammunition. Each attempt has been unsuccessful in large measure owing to the expertise and determination the U.S. government can bring to the table to challenge arguments often unsupported by facts, law, common sense or reality. This article summarizes one such effort.

Some historical perspective is necessary. Two events germane to the story occurred roughly a century and a half ago.

In 1863, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was founded in Geneva, Switzerland. It is an organization dedicated to protection of war victims, such as military wounded and sick, prisoners of war, and civilians in enemy hands. It has neither the expertise nor a mandate from governments (who finance its operations) to delve into the legality of weapons of war. Generally, the ICRC has declined to enter this area, as it has felt an endorsement of a weapon as “lawful” would be inconsistent with its humanitarian mission.

In a meeting hosted by the Russian Minister of War in St. Petersburg in 1868, representatives of seventeen governments prepared a declaration in which they agreed in wars between them to refrain from “employment by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grams (6,172 grains), which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances.” The United States was not a participant.

A variety of explosive rifle projectiles weighing less than 400 grams saw service during the 1861-1865 US Civil War, the most numerous of which was developed by Samuel Gardiner. The Union Army purchased 75,000 .58 caliber Gardiner projectiles for its infantry forces, and 25,000 in .54 caliber for its cavalry. Confederate forces captured 10,000 Union cartridges. They soon developed a crude but effective copy, prompting protests by Union General Ulysses S. Grant following the 1863 battle at Vicksburg. In his personal memoirs, Grant wrote, “The enemy used… explosive musket balls, no doubt thinking that, bursting in the trenches, they would do some execution; but I do not remember a single case where a man was injured by a piece of one of these shells (exploding in this manner). When they were hit and the ball exploded, the wound was terrible. In these cases a solid ball would have hit as well. Their use was barbarous, because they produce increased suffering without corresponding advantage to those using them.”

The argument offered in the last part of Grant’s statement was the issue delegates attempted to address in the St. Petersburg Declaration. While there was military value to explosive anti-materiel munitions, was there value in projectiles designed to explode upon striking a soldier? Unable to distinguish between projectiles designed to explode on impact with soft tissue and those that would explode on striking a hard surface, the delegates banned all such munitions.

Although the representatives in St. Petersburg signed the declaration on behalf of their respective governments, its practical life was short. Only two governments (Baden and Brazil) ratified or acceded to it. Then-President Ulysses Grant declined to endorse it. Technological developments and military requirements quickly outpaced St. Petersburg expressions of humanitarianism as various governments over the next half century developed and acquired projectiles at odds with the declaration’s prohibition. With World War I experience in mind, an international conference meeting in The Hague in 1923 declared, “The use of tracer, incendiary or explosive projectiles by or against aircraft is not prohibited. This provision applies equally to states which are parties to the Declaration of St. Petersburg, 1868, and to those which are not.” The 1923 Hague provision recognized that enemy troops being strafed by aircraft were likely to be struck by tracer, incendiary or explosive projectiles weighing less than 400 grams. World War II and later conflicts found tracer, incendiary and explosive small arms projectiles (or a combination thereof) in common use by all armed forces.

The history of the modern .50 caliber (12.7mm) began in the closing days of World War I. General John Pershing established a requirement for a heavy machine gun in April 1918. The Browning caliber .50 M1921 was type classified in 1921. Modified, it became the venerable Browning M2HB in the mid-1930s. Variants or other models were developed, including modern sniper models such as the Barrett M82A1 employed in Operations Desert Storm (1991) and Iraqi Freedom (2003). Between World War II and the 1980s U.S. ammunition included M2 Ball (to 1950), M33 Ball (1951), M17 tracer, M8 API (1944), and M20 APIT, with foreign counterparts.

There were ammunition performance limitations. Some U.S. and foreign 20mm and other caliber HEI would detonate on impact, without penetration, while API often penetrated through and through with little to no damage within the target. Safety concerns frustrated the desire for better high explosive-incendiary projectiles.

In the 1970s Nordic Ammunition Company in Raufoss, Norway (hereinafter Raufoss), pursued development of high explosive projectiles with fragmentation effect for use in 20mm and, subsequently, in .50 cal. for the Browning M2. The .50 cal. Raufoss Multipurpose projectile offered improved penetration and incendiary effect against attack helicopters and light armor vehicles. Accuracy of the .50 cal. Raufoss Multipurpose (1.0 MOA at 600 yards) proved better than the standard M33 ball (2.4 MOA at 600 yards).

The .50 cal. Raufoss Multipurpose ammunition functions at long range after striking a duralplate of 2mm (5/64”) thickness. With a sharp angle of impact it functions against thinner plates at short range. The Raufoss projectile’s five millisecond delay action virtually eliminated the likelihood the projectile would explode when striking soft tissue as compared with its predecessors. Thus the projectile challenged by the ICRC was more “humane” (to use an ICRC term) than high-explosive, incendiary (or a combination thereof) ammunition in use by militaries for the preceding seventy years.

Weighing 671 grains with a muzzle velocity of 2,650 fps, the .50 cal. Raufoss Multi-purpose round contains explosive, an incendiary composition, a fragmenting body and tungsten hard core. When striking a hard surface such as an aircraft skin, the projectile punches its way through. The projectile’s delay element is a combination of the incendiary in the nose cap, the incendiary in the projectile body and the high explosive. When ignited, the hot incendiary gases are transferred by convective burning of the shell body, igniting the secondary incendiary mixture. This process traces its origins to the World War II U.S. .50 cal. M8 API bullet. The high explosive then is ignited by those very incendiary gases burning under high pressure to a state of deflagration, rupturing the shell body into fifteen effective incendiary fragments to attack the target’s engine and fuel system. Fragmentation is optimized to damage components inside material targets.

The Norwegian Model (NM) 140-A1 .50 cal. Raufoss Multipurpose ammunition received Navy Weapons System Explosive Safety Review Board approval on March 29, 1985. The U.S. Navy designation is Mk. 211, MOD O (Grade A) or MOD 1 (Grade B). Grade A ammunition is bulk packed without links for Navy and Marine Corps sniper use. Grade B, less accurate than Grade A, is linked for machinegun use.

The U.S. military employs the .50 cal. Raufoss round primarily for anti-materiel purposes. Given its accuracy or the inevitability of an enemy soldier walking into a bullet’s path, intentional anti-personnel use or incidental anti-personnel results are not prohibited by law or doctrine.

In December 1998, an ICRC representative met with a Department of State colleague and me to express ICRC concern regarding the “exploding” .50 cal. Raufoss Multipurpose Projectile, arguing that ICRC tests showed it contravened the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration. My hasty review of ICRC test photographs raised questions as to his conclusions. As the glycerin soap blocks used as targets were cavitated but otherwise intact, the projectiles had not “exploded” as alleged. Further, the ICRC had mistaken the temporary cavity in the glycerin soap blocks for projectile “explosions.”

“Soft tissue” effect has become the accepted standard for evaluation of military small arms ammunition. Two media have been used, ten percent ordnance ballistic gelatin and glycerin soap. The former when shot at a block temperature of 4º C is the more accurate test medium. Most human tissue is elastic and has a memory. Wound ballistics tests of small caliber projectiles shot into ten per cent ballistic gelatin reveal the two areas of projectile-tissue interaction, permanent cavity and temporary cavity. The permanent cavity is proportional to the projectile size as it passes through soft tissue. The temporary cavity is transient lateral displacement of tissue, which occurs after passage of the projectile. In skeletal muscle, blood vessels and skin, this soft tissue is pushed aside, but quickly rebounds – something akin to throwing a small stone into a pond.

Glycerin soap is inelastic, and of greater density than soft tissue. Firing into glycerin soap is deceptive, as the temporary cavity deforms the soap to its largest stretched size. ICRC emphasis on the temporary cavity was misleading. Had the ICRC fired a M33 Ball projectile into glycerin soap as its control group, the wound profile would have been similar to that of the .50 cal. Raufoss Multipurpose projectile.

ICRC procedures were not consistent with standard wound ballistic testing. Shots were fired at full velocity at 100 meters into oversize glycerin soap blocks (fifty centimeters in length), a fact not disclosed by the ICRC representative in our meeting. The average adult male of military age has a thickness of thirty centimeters, while soap blocks for ballistic testing normally are thirty-five centimeters thick. Firing into three soap blocks measuring fifty centimeters thick each is equivalent to firing at five adult males standing in very close formation. Firing rounds designed primarily for engaging anti-materiel targets at 500 to 1,500 meters into glycerin soap blocks of heavier density than human soft tissue at full velocity at 100 meters is not a valid test.

Subsequently, I headed a U.S. delegation for the ICRC-hosted Meeting of Experts on “Exploding” Projectiles (an ICRC term) in Geneva, March 29-30, 1999. Participants were representatives from the four manufacturing nations (Norway, Belgium, Switzerland and U.S.). I know a fair amount about weapons and ammunition, but the most important thing I know is to have people who really are smart in this business accompany me. I had two of the best: Colonel Martin L. Fackler, MD, USA (Ret.), was a career military surgeon with Viet Nam experience. As founder and director of the U.S. Army’s Wound Ballistics Laboratory, Letterman Army Institute of Research, Presidio (1981 to 1991), he developed and established the wound ballistic methodology adopted by the United States, its NATO partners, and many other governments. He is the most knowledgeable person I know in the field of wound ballistics. Joining us was Charles F. (Chuck) Buxton (Master Gunnery Sergeant, USMC, Ret.), Supervisory Engineering Technician/NAVSEA Acquisition Design Agent, Navy Small Caliber Ammunition, Naval Weapons Center Crane.

The invited experts were unanimous in challenging the ICRC test methodology and its conclusions, noting ICRC use of the term “exploding” was technically incorrect and intentionally pejorative. The projectile does not explode, as was evident in photographs from the ICRC’s ballistic tests. Had the projectile “exploded,” the glycerin soap block into which each projectile was shot would have disintegrated. The government experts agreed a munition would be illegal were it designed to detonate on impact with soft tissue, that is, the human body. The ICRC’s argument was that were there any chance, under any circumstance, of a single projectile exploding within the human body, the ammunition was prohibited by the St. Petersburg Declaration. There was consensus that its 400-gram limitation is obsolete. The experts demanded a re-test.

The re-test was conducted at the Swiss Low Noise Ballistics Testing Facility, Thun, September 9-10, 1999, attended by the same experts from manufacturing nations. ICRC representatives attended in an observer capacity. Another error came to light in the original ICRC tests and the tests at hand. Both tests utilized 1989 and 1994 production Raufoss Multipurpose ammunition. Early projectiles loaded with PETN were overly sensitive. The main body explosive was changed to the less-sensitive RDX (also known as H-764) in 1997.

Tests were shot at 100 meters at reduced velocities to simulate shots at 500 meters. No projectile “exploded” in shots fired into glycerin soap or ten percent ballistic gel. Nor did full velocity shots fired into ten per cent ballistic gel. Re-test of the ammunition did not support the ICRC methodology, findings or assertions. The report prepared by the Swiss Ministry of Defense concluded in part: “The tests at the simulated distance of 500 [meters] which generated no deflagration or unexceptionally late deflagrations (after passing through soap blocks of greater density than human tissue and equivalent to the thickness of three average adult males) were not seen as a matter of major concern by governmental experts” (emphasis in original).

“The United States experts have indicated they do not regard tests of the projectile at full velocity at 100 meters range to have any validity, given its primary, intended ranges. Furthermore, they stated these retests supported the point of view that the 12.7mm Raufoss Multi-purpose ammunition will not deflagrate in soft tissue at intended ranges of 500 to 1,500 [meters]. This viewpoint was shared by the representatives of Belgium, Switzerland and Norway.”

One would expect this to be the end of the story. It was not. Two years later, as governments met in Geneva in a periodic meeting of States Parties to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the ICRC distributed a new document calling for new regulation of so-called “exploding bullets” based upon the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration and its discredited original test. The document contained mischaracterizations of the original ICRC test and the 1999 re-test. It lacked critical information, such as the distinction between the temporary and permanent cavity. It failed to mention the many technical shortcomings of the original ICRC test identified by the experts. Astonishingly, the ICRC paper incorrectly claimed that fifty per cent of the shots in the two tests “exploded;” a claim wholly at odds with the tests and experts’ unanimous conclusions. The United States delegation strongly resisted the renewed ICRC effort. The meeting concluded on December 21, 2001, with the following statement by Martin Sorby, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “We believe that the (ICRC proposal introduced during this conference) fails to take into account some basic considerations, both on the legal and technical level regarding the 12.7mm Multipurpose ammunition. In light of the fact that we seem to have consensus among … (governments) …in our view the ammunition in question fully complies with the requirements of international law.”

No government disagreed with Mr. Sorby’s statement.

One factual issue remained outstanding from the 1999 tests. The second and third blocks in some shots contained internal smudging. The official Swiss report suggested the possibility of late deflagration of six of the eighteen shots, and early deflagration of two shots fired at full velocity. In response to an inquiry from members of the Norwegian Parliament, the Norwegian Ministry of Defense prepared its own analysis. In 2004, Bjarne Haugstad, Director of Research, Norwegian Defence Research Institute, concluded that what the Swiss report identified as “deflagration” was instead the result of ignition of the small incendiary charge in the nose cap, releasing gases as the pyrotechnic train was initiated. This would have lead (outside the three glycerin soap blocks) to eventual deflagration of the high explosive. The gases from the small incendiary charge in the nose cap flowed back into the soap blocks. It did not in and of itself constitute deflagration of the projectile in the blocks. The report found the 1999 Swiss conclusion “to be both qualitatively and quantitatively erroneous.”

Conclusion

Governments devote considerable time, labor and effort to the development of weapons and munitions for their defense. In doing so, they also ensure their weapons and munitions are consistent with their treaty obligations. U.S. legal reviews of the Raufoss .50 cal. Multipurpose munition, conducted by the author in 1998 and 2000, confirmed its legality. Legal reviews by other governments (e.g., Australia, Belgium) agree with the U.S. interpretation. Today Raufoss .50 cal. Multipurpose ammunition is in the inventory of more than two dozen nations. The failed challenge by the International Committee of the Red Cross to the Raufoss .50 cal. Multipurpose cartridge was based upon flawed test methodology, assumptions and arguments of history, fact and law. It was defeated through a determined effort by the U.S. and other governments to identify and refute the errors contained in the challenge.

(The author is a retired US Marine Corps Colonel with four decades military and federal service. He is writing in his personal capacity. Additionally, the author is indebted to Martin L. Fackler, J. Buford Boone III, Charles F. (Chuck) Buxton, Charles T. (Chuck) Marsh, and Keith R. Pagel for their assistance in preparation of this article.)

With the advent of the industrial revolution in the 1800s, the foot soldier no longer carried just a pike, lance, spear, bow, sword or rifle. The rapid development of more complex mechanical weapons systems necessitated the use of small carts to move materiel right up to the front lines. World War I saw a tremendous increase in the need and use of small carts in all types of applications. Foot soldiers responsible for the newer and larger small arms such as machine guns and mortars needed a mode of transportation that addressed their needs in the field. (See Small Arms Review Vol. 3, No. 10, July 2000 for a discussion of the Model 1917 Machine Gun and Ammunition Carts used in World War I.)

The lessons learned in World War I brought about a series of rapid developments in the inter-war years to meet the demands of a rapidly changing military culture. Among the many items that were further refined were the small hand carts. No longer designed with the horse or mule as the primary means of power the new carts had to be able to withstand the demands of towing by motored vehicles over longer distances and at faster speeds and be more robust in their construction. Of course, provisions still had to be made to accommodate the last line of power: the foot soldier.

Shortly after World War I in the mid 1920s, the Mount, Wheeled, Machine Gun, M1 was developed for the dual purpose which combined the idea of a T base (trail assembly) for the M1917 tripod with that of a two wheeled light weight cart for transportation of the Browning M1917 water cooled machine gun, accessories and ammunition in the set up and ready to fire configuration. The idea being that the set up gun could be quickly brought to use and fired from the cart if need be or the soldier could quickly dismount the gun and tripod and set up in a position without having to assemble the components. A third option was to leave the gun as set up and remove the wheels and simply drop the entire T-frame with the mounted gun on the ground. This method was viewed as especially valuable in sand or soft earth conditions that without it the tripod feet would bore into the ground and the gun become unstable. The M1, the first post World War I hand cart, was a simple T-shaped affair with solid rubber coated wheel rims and a simple bracket to hold extra ammunition boxes.

Quickly on the heels of the development of the Cart, M1 were the Cart, M2 and Cart M2A1. These carts were basically updated versions of the old wooden M1917 Ammunition Carts in that they were still designed to be drawn primarily by horse or mule but were constructed of metal rather than wood. The Cart, M2 was issued for transporting .30 caliber machine gun ammunition, 37-mm gun ammunition, light mortar ammunition and communication equipment. The Cart, M2A1 is the identical cart as the M2 except that it has front and rear brackets specifically for transporting the 81-mm Mortar and Bipod Mount M1.

Next in the litany of hand carts developed in the 1930s were the Carts, Hand, M3 and M3A4 (utility), M4 and M4A1 (.30 caliber machine gun), M5 and M5A1 (.50 caliber machine gun) and the M6 and M6A1 (81-mm mortar). They consist of two types and are of four purposes. The first (earlier) large wheeled type have 4” x 18” motorcycle wheels on a straight axle and are identified by the designations M3, M4, M5 and M6. These carts were classified as limited standard during World War II. The second or small wheel type have 4” x 12” cast aluminum wheels on an offset axle and are identified by the model designation M3A4, M4A1, M5A1 and M6A1. These carts were classified as standard during World War II.

The carts are drawn by man power but are equipped with a lunette for limbering to a Jeep or other small vehicle. When drawn by man power a drawbar is secured to the lunette with the hand cart drawbar retaining pin. When not in use the drawbar is carried on the drawbar bracket which is riveted to the front body. Provision is made for attaching tow ropes with D-handles to the cart body when additional man power is required to pull the load. The carts are also designed so that two loaded carts can be transported on trucks when placed between the seats provided for personnel.

The M3 and M3A4 utility hand carts are comprised of the chassis and body. The chassis of the M3A4 small wheeled cart is composed of an offset axle, tongue and drawbar assembly. The axle is an aluminum-alloy tube and assembled on each end are aluminum-alloy axle brackets that are riveted to the axle. Steel spindles, to which the wheels are mounted on anti-friction bearings, are assembled in the axle brackets and secured by nuts and cotter pins. The axle brackets are fastened to the side and bottom of the cart body by bolts. The tongue is an aluminum-alloy tube reinforced by a liner made of the same material. The spade lunette is riveted to one end and the tongue and axle bracket which fastens the tongue to the axle to the other end. The tongue is secured to the front of the body by a clamp. The body, which is the same for both the large wheeled M3 and small wheeled M3A4 carts, is a rectangular shaped open box which is bolted to the chassis. The M3 body is constructed of aluminum channels and rails reinforced with angles and gusset plates held together by rivets. The M3A4 body is made of steel and does not require the reinforcing angles and gusset plates. Holes are drilled in the body of both the M3 and M3A4 to bolt the brackets which are required to convert this cart for its other uses.

The M4 and the M4A1 .30 caliber machine gun hand carts are converted from the M3 and M3A4 carts respectively by the addition of three brackets to which the legs of the M1917A1 tripod mount are attached. The Browning .30 caliber M1917A1 water cooled machine gun, which is used on this mount, can then be used as an anti-aircraft gun or the gun and mount can be quickly removed to be used as a ground gun. Leather straps are also provided to hold spare ammunition boxes and accessories.

The M5 and M5A1 .50 caliber machine gun hand carts are also converted from M3 and M3A4 carts respectively by the addition of brackets to receive the Browning .50 caliber M2HB, flexible and the M3 tripod mount during transit. Unlike the .30 caliber set up, the .50 caliber is transported in a disassembled state though the brackets are equipped with quick release clasps to facilitate speedy unlocking. A leather strap is provided to secure the ammunition boxes.

The M6 and M6A1 81-mm mortar hand carts are also converted from M3 and M3A4 carts respectively by the addition of brackets and supports to secure the 81-mm mortar M1, and 81-mm mortar mount M1 during transit. Quick release clamps and leather straps are also provided.

Though there are a number of “M” designations for the cart, the basic M3A4 Utility Hand Cart fulfilled a vital need in the war effort by easily being converted to a number of uses merely by the selection of clamps and brackets.

The carts were manufactured in the tens of thousands (some estimates go as high as 70,000) by Rock Island Arsenal, John Wood Manufacturing, Trussbilt Incorporated and Omaha Industries. Yet, only about a hundred or so are accounted for today in conditions ranging from rusted out basket cases to restorable examples. The carts did not have a priority for return after the war and were left wherever they were to pretty much rot away. They were used extensively by the Army and Airborne units in Europe and by the Marines in the Pacific. (As an interesting side note, in the movie “The Longest Day”, John Wayne, playing Col. Benjamin Vandervoort of the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division, breaks his ankle when jumping into France on D-Day and is hauled around on a M6A1 mortar configured cart.)

By Robert Bruce

“Though the .50 caliber figures little in the hilltop fighting, it has paid its way in Korea, particularly in defense against infiltration of ground rearward of the infantry main line. Close defense of the artillery gun positions could hardly hold together without this weapon.” Operations Research Office Report R-13, Oct 1951

First introduced into the US military inventory in the 1920’s, John M. Browning’s .50 caliber M2 Heavy Barrel machine gun is still the best in its class. Indeed, “Ma Deuce,” as she has been affectionately called by GI’s for more than seventy years, is still on active duty today. During the Korean War, the powerful M2 HB proved versatile and lethal not only as a single weapon, but particularly so in multiple mounts.

Bigger is Better

While the .30 caliber Brownings were relatively light, portable and effective in combat when properly maintained and utilized in tactically sound roles, their range and hitting power were often inadequate. Faced with well dug in enemy defenses at ranges in excess of 800 to 1000 yards, the rifle cartridges fired by these smaller machine guns fell short in reach and penetration. Fortunately, an excellent solution to the problem was readily available.

The .50 caliber M2 HB can be considered a beefed up version of the Browning M1917 and 1919 guns, sharing many of their mechanical characteristics and combat proven as a star performer in WWII. Although setting of its headspace and timing could be a bit tricky to the uninitiated, the big beautiful Browning earned a reputation for reliability and lethality in ground, air and seaborne operations under the worst conditions.

Plenty of M2s were on hand with Army and Marine units at the outbreak of the Korean War. Of course, each infantry battalion had tripod mounted “Fifties”in headquarters and heavy weapons sections, and this was also the case in artillery, engineer and other combat or combat support formations. These heavy machine guns were a mainstay of perimeter defense as well as giving significant protection against low flying enemy aircraft.

“With the .50 which I was operating, and with an LMG (light machine gun) which PFC Lloyd A. Perry was firing from right next to me, we put up the covering fire which enabled the (artillery) battery to hit the road. As the position was laid out, the guns had to come from my left and turn around the .50 to get on the road…they were a pretty well exposed target. But the .50 and the LMG, together spraying the area ahead of us, kept the enemy fire pretty well dampered.” Sgt. William F. Aragon, 8th Field Artillery Battalion, quoted in ORO-R-13.

Ammunition Options

The exceptional performance of the M2 HB’s ammunition, impressively measuring some 5.45 inches long and weighing a hefty 1800 grains or more, deserves comment. Even ordinary ball cartridges, also designated M2, have a muzzle velocity of about 2930 feet per second and range in excess of 7000 meters. Penetration of the 709 grain gilding metal covered lead-antimony slug at all ranges is also a dramatic leap beyond that of .30 caliber bullets. At 600 meters, for example, the M2 ball would chew through a foot of dry sand and more than two feet of clay, ruining the day for North Korean and ChiCom soldiers even when they are hunkered down in bunkers.

Other types of ammunition are available for special situations such as dealing with lightly armored vehicles. The M2AP cartridge, with its manganese-molybdenum steel penetrator, will punch through a half inch of face hardened steel plate at 600 meters. Then, combined with an incendiary element to light up what’s behind that armor, the M8 API round can be particularly nasty at any range. Tracer fillers to assist fire control are also available in various combinations. The most common at the time was the Tracer, M1, which lights up at about 250 yards and continues to burn out to some 1700 yards.

.50 Caliber Sniping

Although Korea’s abundance of seemingly endless parallel ridgelines was a limiting factor in “by the book” tactical employment of many infantry and support weapons, this terrain feature also prompted a revival in the science and art of long range marksmanship. It is readily understandable why, when the enemy is dug into or advancing along a hillside right across from your position with only air in between, GIs would experience the natural desire to “reach out and touch him.” This was done at moderate ranges with accurized and scoped versions of the ’03 and M1 rifles, but something more was needed when the distance got well 600 or 800 yards.

The 84 pound M2 HB machinegun on its sturdy 44 pound tripod with precision traversing and elevating mechanism is a very stable shooting platform – sort of a self-contained bench rest setup. In addition, its massive “bull barrel” is inherently accurate and 45 inch length helps develop maximum velocity for the bullet. Luckily, performance of the M2 .50 caliber ball cartridge was pretty good despite being mass produced in the tens of millions. Army specs called for “…average of the mean radii of all targets at time of acceptance at 600 yards is not greater than 9 inches.”

Then, since the gun fires from a locked breech and can be operated in single shot mode, it compares favorably with bolt action rifles. “Ma Deuce’s” conversion from workhorse machine gun to sniper weapon is completed with addition of a telescopic sight, and she found gainful employment in numerous observation posts all along the battlefront.

Quad Fifties

M2HBs were also found on tank turrets, truck ring mounts and on other vehicles; notably the halftrack-mounted “Quad Fifty.” Fielded in WWII for both antiaircraft and ground support roles, the Multiple Gun Motor Carriage M16 had four heavy Brownings in a power operated M45 Maxson Mount piggyback on an M3 halftrack.

“…it is an adjunct of infantry fighting that the AA (anti-aircraft) gun has had its most decisive impact upon Eighth Army operations. This is particularly true of the quad-50 (M16). Which has a greater tactical flexibility in ground fighting and a visibly greater demoralizing effect upon the enemy infantry line than the Bofors twin-40. It would be difficult to exaggerate the effectiveness of the quad-50 when used in this role.” ORO-R-13

The M16 system was a good combination of mobility and firepower, able to travel quickly to places it was needed and immediately relocate within an operational area in response to the direction and intensity of enemy actions. The total rate of fire for all four M2s in this system is an awesome 2000 rounds per minute with an effective range approaching 2000 yards. Enemy MIG fighter jets knew better than to make close strafing attacks where Quad Fifties were on the job.

This combo served particularly well in supporting infantry attacks by saturating enemy defensive positions with a hail of steel, severely limiting their ability to resist. In defense of American positions against Communist assaults, a Quad Fifty could drive to the best location needed to repel the spearhead of an enemy assault. Armored sides on the halftrack and a protective shield on the gunner’s station were impervious to rifle caliber small arms fire.

Primary References

FM23-65 and TM 9-1005-213-10 Brig. Gen. S.L.A. Marshall, “Commentary on Infantry Operations and Weapons Usage in Korea; Winter of 1950-51,” Johns Hopkins University, Operations Research Office Report ORO-R-13, Oct 27, 1951
Terry Gander, “The Browning M2 Heavy Machine Gun,” PRC Publishing, Ltd., 1999