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.)

Long time readers of Small Arms Review should know by now that my favorite annual gun event is NDIA’s get-together for manportable weaponry enthusiasts, known formally as the Joint Services Small Arms Symposium, Exhibition & Firing Demonstration. I look forward to this in much the same way a kid anticipates Christmas morning when friends and family gather, gifts are opened, and there are lots of great new toys to play with.

This year’s three day fete was held in mid-August in a swanky hotel in downtown Little Rock, Arkansas (insert your own Bill Clinton and Paula Jones joke here), featuring the usual mix of thoughtful technical papers, exciting industry exhibits, and the chance to go out to the range for some earplug-packing, gunsmoke-snorting live-fire fun.

Now, there is much new and improved hardware to report on that is of immediate interest and practical value for military, police and civilian shooters. However, let’s start with something we saw there that may be a year or two away from the hands of freedom’s defenders but has damn sure got the attention of the firearms establishment right this very minute.

METAL STORM

“My amazement is at the process — O’Dwyer didn’t blow up a barrel or kill himself in making it.” SAIC Physicist Adam Drobot, quoted in Scientific American magazine.

I can’t think of a better name than METAL STORM to represent Australian inventor Mike O’Dwyer’s bold new concept in projectile pushing at fantastic rates and quantities. Now with private and government financing in excess of $400 million, O’Dwyers multinational corporation seems likely to brush aside nearly a millennium of warfare’s established launcher and payload technology.

Overhearing mutterings from a number of exhibitors and other conference attendees about some “weird Star Wars stuff”, I hastened to METAL STORM’s booth and wormed my way through the crowd to snag some promotional materials. Retreating to a quiet corner, I skimmed the handouts and zeroed in on the vivid description of its operational principle. O’Dwyer’s inspiration came, we are told, by the speed and precision of an inkjet printer head on his everyday desktop computer. This led him, by trial and error (fortunately not life-threatening error), to have a computer program electronically fire rounds at infinitely tailorable speeds and sequences.

In his METAL STORM ballistic system, the only significant moving parts are projectiles from uniquely designed (also patented) caseless ammunition, loaded one in front of the other as many as practical depending on the length and caliber of the launch tube. Discarded entirely are all the usual mechanical contrivances required by existing multi-shot weaponry for feeding, mechanically firing, extracting and ejecting. Time to reload? Just rip out and replace the pre-loaded, non-metallic barrel cluster.

Does it work? Documented firings of “Bertha,” the thirty-six barrel, 9mm prototype, burping out 180 rounds in about one one-hundredth of a second, have established a new official Guinness World Record. Is it practical? For one thing, this sealed block of bullets and barrels could prove vastly superior to complicated and maintenance-intensive cannon caliber Gatling type systems now protecting many free world warships against EXOCET type missiles.

Advanced Sniper Rifle

Numerous demonstrations of Bertha and other configurations including a handgun have been conducted for high level leaders in military and scientific communities in Australia and the US. This has resulted in a gusher of RDT&E funding including a $10 million contract from DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), the Holy Grail of America’s defense technology, to develop the Advanced Sniper Rifle.

The cluster of four barrels on the rifle’s conceptual prototype is apparently its only unconventional aspect. Microprocessor based fire control allows the gunner to key in and send the best combination of a variety of projectiles as required for antipersonnel or antimateriel applications. Aiming and related functions are to be optimized using ongoing developments from such official US government initiatives as the very expensive “Objective Individual Combat Weapon” and the very spooky “Project White Feather.”

Electronic Handgun

METAL STORM is also creating quite a buzz in the world of law enforcement with the O’Dwyer Vle (Variable Lethality Law Enforcement handgun). Another Guinness honoree as the world’s first 100 percent electronic handgun, as of this writing it is a single barrel, seven shot working prototype. In addition to a personalization feature that will let only one specific officer fire the weapon (desirable if it’s taken in a scuffle or otherwise lost) its computer chip “brain” also stores additional keypad instructions from the gunner. This allows tailoring of each firing among a number of options including single shot (semi-auto), double tap, triple tap, or high energy modes. This last setting kicks out two shots at a mind-boggling 500,000 rpm so as to drill right through body armor!

Subsequent handgun models forseen by METAL STORM include multiple barrels in a soft recoil mount with different ammo ranging from “less lethal” stuff like stun bags and CS, to conventional kinetic energy terminators.

Dick Tracy take note: The Vle will eventually be equipped, we are told, with any number of optional gadgets like a two-way radio for immediate situation reporting and “advice” from the incident commander, as well as a GPS so everybody knows where the gun and its owner are located. Even “political correctness” can be enforced by a provision for a superior to electronically jam the weapon if a combat-stressed peace officer is about to take out the “wrong” category of miscreant at an embarrassing moment. Try explaining that to the family of the subsequently slain or horribly injured officer…

Other applications of METAL STORM technology cry out for development. According to O’Dwyer in his formal technical presentation at the event, some military initiatives include several already funded programs such as the Area Denial Weapons System (minefield replacement), vehicle self-defense, and arming of unmanned aircraft.

Not surprisingly, much of the muttering about METAL STORM overheard at the show is coming from established gun and ammo makers. Many of those who do not have their heads in the sand are understandably concerned by the potential of the O’Dwyer system for rather quickly putting conventional firearms in the same category as bows and arrows in the atomic age. In response, numerous very legitimate objections and cautions are being raised including danger from exploding barrels and system vulnerability to EMP (electro-magnetic pulse). So, SAR will be watching and reporting as this story unfolds.

Back to Earth

The symposium part at NDIA is like going to school for a highly concentrated series of half-hour lectures on the latest developments in guns, ammo, sights and related things that are of value to the soldier and policeman. This year’s lineup of distinguished speakers presented some 48 technical and informational papers, most well illustrated with computer-generated visuals and some with fascinating video clips. Space does not permit a detailed account here, but what follows are some of the highlights. Those with internet access plus the time and tenacity to delve deeper are encouraged to access the full collection of technical presentations that are thoughtfully posted by NDIA in cooperation with the Defense Technical Information Center for your viewing pleasure at www.dtic.mil/ndia/2001smallarms/2001smallarms.html

Small Arms Master Plan

As should be expected, there is intense interest from many directions in the formal plans that the US military has for research, development and procurement of weapon systems. After all, America’s Armed Forces are the free world’s largest and have the most money to spend. This is well covered each year by a series of presentations from top names in the Joint Services Small Arms Program (JSSAP) who tend to cover everything from improving the old stuff currently in use (now euphemistically called “legacy systems”) to crystal ball projections of at what is possible ten or twenty years out.

Some short-term projects include development of non-lethal ammo that will work the semiauto action of the new M1014 shotgun (which works just fine right now with crowd control loads by pulling back on the charging handle after each shot) plus ways to lighten existing weapons like the M249 Squad Auto Weapon and the M240B Machine Gun. In the mid term, the US military wants an Advanced Medium Machine Gun – presumably to finalize the lingering death of the tin can M60 and replace the ultra-reliable M240 even though it will probably be lighter by then. Finally, programs are well underway to harness various forms of directed energy (real ray guns, sonic blasters, and who knows what else) for use in WWIII.

Interestingly, both the Objective Individual Combat Weapon and the Objective Crew Served Weapon have been bumped up a notch in funding and fielding and are said to be on track for FUE (First Unit Equipped) in 2009. It will be quite fascinating to see if METAL STORM technology has any impact on these programs in the next couple of years.

The Few, The Proud, The Oughta Be Better Equipped…

A bare-knuckled assessment of the current state of US Marine Corps weapons and equipment for amphibious warriors at the spear point was delivered by Lieutenant Colonel James Diehl of Systems Command, with a bit of dry humor backed up with lots of actual instances. For example, don’t tell the bad guys, but after making sure first line guns stay up and running, the Marines don’t have enough maintenance money to repair and recondition the M249’s in wartime reserve!

A later presentation by a top-level guy from JSSAP noted an $11 million shortfall in funding the Army’s small arms rebuild program to keep “legacy” guns working. Yes, they’re all waiting for something to happen from that presidential campaign-promise that “Help is on the way.”

LTC Diehl’s laundry list of the Corps’ initiatives includes dropping the 60mm mortar in favor of a lighter but longer-reaching 81mm, more M4 carbines and their add-on accessories, ensuring all optical devices have laser-proof coating, and painting all those black guns and other stuff “Coyote Brown” for better camouflage. The Corps is also seriously exploring the use of ceramic liners to enhance performance of machine gun barrels, searching for more effective airbursting fuses, and seems to have a healthy skepticism toward Army plans to replace the combat classic M26 “Lemon Frag” grenade with something smaller and lighter so that girls can throw it.

Oh, and by the way, the Marines are once again taking a hard look at and doing live-fire testing of Jim Sullivan’s light, compact and highly controllable ULTIMAX 5.56mm Squad Auto Weapon. Sullivan, by the way, is also the guy who worked on making Stoner’s AR-10 into the M16, designed the incomparable C-MAG, and lots too much more to mention.

High Tech Crap

The irreverent Mr. Sullivan himself was on hand at the meeting to receive this year’s prestigious George M. Chinn Award for his lifetime of high achievement in the small arms world. He delighted many and offended others with pungent remarks during his acceptance speech, decrying such “fribble-frabble of fashion” as full-auto provision on individual weapons and the expensive, heavy, complex “high tech crap” that is likely to break or otherwise be rendered useless in the crucible of combat. Nothing stings so much as the truth…

Sullivan wasn’t the only iconoclast to shake up this gentlemen’s club with frank and pungent opinions. Reed Knight, Mr. SEAL Weapons himself, delivered a lively talk formally titled “Challenge for the Defense Industry.” Noting JSSAP’s commendable and continuing search for weaponry that is more reliable, easier to make and maintain, lighter and more effective, he criticized the often poorly thought out and confusingly written requirements documents put out by the military’s bureaucracy that contractors must bid on. “The customer needs to clearly set goals, challenges and rewards,” Knight said, “and say what you are willing to pay to meet those needs.”

SOCOM

Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has lots of things underway to support Rangers, SEALs, Special Forces and such, but their three big initiatives are the Advanced Light Grenade Launcher (the SACO 40mm showcased last year), a 7.62mm Lightweight Machine Gun (SEALs have pretty much used up all their specially chopped M60s), plus more and improved bells and whistles for the M4 carbine and the Navy’s new Mark 11 Mod O (Knight’s SR 25) sniper rifle.

Step Right Up

Now, unrelated to SOCOM’s presentation but as luck would have it, Knight’s Manufacturing and more than forty other business and government entities were downstairs in the exhibit hall with a whole bunch of exciting hardware. This is a great place to pick up and point exotic guns, eyeball the latest in sighting systems and often be able to talk with the actual person who designed and/or built them.

Taking Knight’s for example, they had brought along not only the SR-25 in various configurations, but a whole array of new and improved items like their Rail Adapter System’s MRE (Modular Receiver Extension with “more real estate”). This is a response to the very critical need of many spec-ops types for lots more space to clamp on any number of devices as dictated by particular missions.

They also offer a bunch of things to clamp on to US military and other small arms including a forward pistol grip, bipod, various suppressors, and the in-line “KnightScope Model 007.” This unity magnification image intensifier is intended for tandem mounting with the customer’s preferred day scope, giving around-the-clock operation capability.

Oh, and if you want a handguard for your M4 carbine in the stylish new “Coyote Brown” or other terrain matching colors such as green or white, Knight’s can fix you right up.

Many other great companies were on hand with cutting-edge products like the Leitz Pocket Laser Rangefinder, AirMunition marking rounds, Armalite Mk 19 blank adapter, and lots of night vision devices.

Free Range Time

This year’s host for the event’s all-important live fire portion was the National Guard Marksmanship Training Center at nearby Camp Joseph T. Robinson. They had set aside Range 13, a classic Known Distance facility dating all the back to WWI, and thoughtfully provided a diverse and interesting array of hard and soft targets to accommodate a full spectrum of weapons from 9mm handguns to .50 caliber sniper rifles. In addition to such classics as swinging steel plate silhouettes and oil drums (empty, of course), there were several old 2 1/2 ton trucks positioned at various distances. Also, Caswell International set up a bunch of their radio-controlled popup target mechanisms complete with stroboscopic hostile fire simulators that are particularly lively in the dark.

Yes, in the dark. This year a significant departure from the usual blistering summer afternoon range ordeal called for the live fire demos to begin about 90 minutes before sunset — right after a speech by Little Rock’s mayor and a tasty barbecue supper. Theoretically, this was going to allow sufficient daylight for regular “shoot and tell” by nine companies, and then as darkness fell the night sight guys would have perfect conditions.

Well, a combination of factors delayed the first rounds going downrange and frequent halts for safe passage of small planes to and from a nearby airport meant that most of the rest of the live fire was done under conditions rapidly progressing from low light to pitch black. But hey, that’s a lot like what the real world imposes on infantrymen and generator-mounted floodlights give sufficient illumination to allow spectators to see what was being demonstrated. Suck it up and drive on.

Oldies but Goodies

Another departure from the norm was conspicuous in the evening’s first demonstration. Distinguished retired soldiers Colonel Tom Brown (now with VT Kinetics) and Colonel John Meloy (now with Benelli) put on vintage US Army uniforms and live fired several of the classic infantry weapons that were used in World Wars One and Two. Taking the microphone while “Private Benelli” stepped up to the firing line, Brown pointedly contrasted these old machined steel and hardwood guns with the sheet metal, cast aluminum and plastic weaponry of the period from the Vietnam War to the present. “These,” he said, “are the guns that actually won wars.”

New Generation

Moving down the firing line as twilight rapidly deepened into purple then black, subsequent presentations of ten to fifteen minutes each were made by VT Kinetics firing the ULTIMAX and the SAR-21, GEMTECH suppressors, HK’s new P2000 pistol, PDW and chopped G36k assault carbine. Knight’s Armament fired several KnightSight equipped suppressed weapons including their 5.56mm SR-15 and 7.62mm SR-25, dramatically closing with a long belt of ball and tracers full auto from a Stoner Light Machine Gun.

Big Boys

These relatively small weapons were followed by several big and spectacular .50 caliber sniper rifles, grouped near the center of the range and all mounting various types of night sights. Mark Westrom cut loose with his AR-50, Jim Owens touched off the FN-PGM, and Ronnie Barrett pumped out a few from his semiauto M82A1. All of these guns use a backward-deflecting muzzle device to help tame recoil and reduce the enemy’s ability to detect muzzle flash and report. Well, as dramatic as this is on firing in daylight when the dust and grass goes flying, you ain’t seen nothing until you stand behind and to one side of these shoulder cannons at night. Wow!

Nowhere to Hide

Well, nearly an hour after it was really, really dark, the night sight guys on the far end of the firing line had their turn and nearly perfect conditions. Moonrise wasn’t going to happen for a while and a crosswind was blowing clouds of smoke from numerous tracer-induced grass fires to completely obscure most targets from 300 yards on back. This is bad news for image intensifiers but just right for thermal imagers. Recent advances in the technologies of thermal imaging including micro-cooling and reduced power consumption have made these previously heavy, bulky and temperamental devices much more practical and affordable for wider use on small arms systems.

Jim Looby and the FLIR team had set up a table with computer and television screens right at the spectator barrier so the crowd could look at real-time color video output from the TIPS-HPC thermal sight mounted on a bolt action rifle. This got really dramatic when the rifle was fired and spectators watching the video screen could see sparks from the bullet’s impact on metal targets.

Raytheon was right next door, similarly feeding the output of a tripod-mounted AN/PAS-13 into table top video screens. This gave onlookers a great thermal image picture of whatever it was downrange that anybody was firing on at any given time.

First Look at the HK P2000 Pistol

Jim Schatz, Director of Federal Operations for Heckler & Koch’s American office, brought along the brand new P2000 semiauto pistol for display at NDIA Small Arms 2001. We caught up with him on the range at Camp Robinson where he was preparing to function test and zero the P2000 along with several other weapons in advance of the evening’s live fire demonstrations. Jim was nice enough to give me a few minutes alone with this interesting new handgun so I could take the detailed pictures seen here, and then he did a little shooting for action views.

Surprisingly slim despite having a 13 round magazine, the P2000 was created at the request of Germany’s federal police for reduced size and weight with greater operational simplicity and human engineered for higher hit probability. Purposely eliminated is any specific mechanical safety that slows getting off that very important first shot. Its innovative double-action-only mechanism can be set in “semi-cocked” mode for a smooth, relatively light trigger release on the first squeeze. Subsequent shots are even lighter and faster as the recoiling slide fully cocks the exposed hammer with each round fired. A polymer recoil absorber and improvements on the classic Browning locking system also contribute to smooth and low-shock blowback operation.

Ergonomics of its ribbed and rough-textured polymer frame and machined steel slide are noteworthy, with all surfaces comfortably rounded and no angular protrusions to hang up when pulling it out of a holster, handbag or shirt. Different sized hands are easily accommodated by a selection of interchangeable back straps and the double stack magazine floorplate comes with or without a last finger extension. Grooves and slots in the frame accept a wide range of tactical accessories like laser pointers or mini-lights.

Both the slide catch lever and mag release are ambidextrous for easy operation and a red insert on the extractor serves splendidly as a chamber loaded warning indicator. The fixed square “U” notch rear sight and post front are marked by big white dots for low light shooting.

P2000 Technical Specifications

Caliber: 9 x 19mm, 13 rounds capacity
System of Operation: Recoil, modified Browning locking system
Overall Length: 178 mm
Barrel Length: 92mm
Sight Radius: 140mm
Height & Width: 128 x 34mm
Weight: 620 grams unloaded

2002

Military, industry and law enforcement and government professionals who need to keep up with the latest in weapons technology are encouraged to join the National Defense Industrial Association and attend the 2001 International Infantry & Small Arms Symposium and Exhibition. This is currently scheduled for 13-16 May 2002 in Atlantic City, NJ, but up-to-the-minute information and registration is available at www.ndia.org or write to NDIA, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201.