As long as you keep water in the water jacket and keep the loaded belts coming, it will keep on working as steadily as a sewing machine, only requiring a new barrel every 15,000 rounds; a change that can easily be done in 15 seconds. If a part does break, the Maxim is a modular design that allows the swapping out of the bolt or feed block with a spare to keep on firing. When faced with swarming infantry, this is a life-or-death matter. When the Russians attacked the Ukrainian Bakhmut meat grinder in waves, reminiscent of a WWI-style assault, the Maxim really came into its own, cutting down lines of attackers like wheat before a McCormac reaper.

There have been other ingenious applications of the Maxim, such as mounting telescopic sights and grouping four or six guns together in one mount. This enables 2000 to 3000 rounds per minute to be fired at attacking aircraft. When a modern jet comes in low with all the electronic warfare devices to hide it from sophisticated ground-to-air missiles, it’s still quite vulnerable to a low-tech anti-aircraft position that can raise a curtain of lead with a row of linked Maxims.

As the war drags on, the costs keep mounting and the Ukrainians are hard pressed to get enough ammunition, as they have drained the NATO stockpiles. Only Russia has kept all its WWII production lines intact and modernized and, while they are well-supplied, the cost of artillery shells necessary to deny continuous passage through an area is astronomical. A steady rain of indirect machine gun fire does the same job for a fraction of the cost. This requires a water-cooled gun that does not wear out quickly.

This is a job for a Maxim. Its toggle action spreads out the shock of operation so there is less wear and breakage of parts. When it does wear out, the bearing surfaces on the receiver are riveted on and can simply be changed for new ones while the modular parts are sent back to the ordnance depot for rebuilding. Being recoil operated, it does not have a gas system to foul and jam as the number of rounds fired adds up. The Germans were well aware of this issue with gas operated guns and stated that the gas operated systems had inherent problems. They kept designing recoil operated guns as a result.

TACTICAL USE OF THE MAXIM IN 2024

To get the best use of the Maxim today, you would want the WWI German 08-15 version with the optional Lafitte 34 mount. No one today seems to remember that the 08-15 with its shoulder stock and bipod was just intended as a more mobile heavy machine gun that storm troopers could emplace as they infiltrated the enemy lines and then dominate that sector with sustained machine gun fire. The mobility of the 08-15 eliminated the weakness of the emplaced heavy machine gun under artillery fire as the 08-15 machine gunner could move about like a rifleman, changing firing positions. Even though the weight was 50 pounds with a full water jacket and a 100-round belt in a drum magazine, the weight was so well distributed that many men could fire it from the shoulder like a rifle. This was something almost no one could do with the barrel-heavy Lewis gun, which was a true light machine gun and weighed considerably less. The ability to use a heavy, sustained-fire, water-cooled machine gun in the light machine gun role was a testament to the Maxim’s versatility.

For accurate fire in the heavy machine gun role, many of the remaining 08-15 Maxims were mounted in the Lafette 34 mount in the 1930’s. This ultimate machine gun mount features recoil absorption, telescopic sight, automatic traverse (if desired), and enabled accurate fire out to 3500 meters converting any machine gun mounted in it to a miniature artillery piece. We see these today with MG34’s and MG42’s primarily mounted on them, but they cannot deliver the sustained fire of a water-cooled gun in the Lafette 34.

HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE

The abandonment of the sustained fire machine gun and its replacement with air cooled guns had disastrous consequences. The air-cooled machine gun is a wonderful weapon in its place, but it can never do the job of a sustained fire machine gun. In WWII, the Germans found that the Russian human wave assaults kept coming until the air-cooled guns overheated allowing the Russians to overrun them. The Normandy invasion was admittedly a close-run affair and water-cooled Maxims fully deployed for both direct and indirect fire would have been more than enough to dip the balance in the German defender’s favor.

During WWII, in Burma, the British managed to sucker the Japanese into Banzai charges against WWI-style barbed wire backed by their Vickers machine guns (a Maxim variation) resulting in the annihilation of the attacking Japanese troops.

No machine gun is as reliable or able to fire as long as a Maxim. When John Basilone got his medal of honor defending Henderson Airfield at Guadalcanal with the two machine gun sections he commanded, his commendation stated, “he went from machine gun to machine gun repairing them and keeping them firing.” They weren’t supposed to need repairing! If they had Maxim guns, there would not have been any stopping for repairs. And if there was a problem, the gunner could have swapped out the modular part in a few seconds and kept firing without needing his commander’s help. It seems clear that water-cooled guns would have been a powerful help against Japanese Banzai attacks throughout the war as they could keep on coming long after an air-cooled gun overheated.

In the Korean War, the Chicom human wave assaults pushed back the American troops just as the Russian human wave assaults had done against the Germans in the preceding war. Water-cooled guns properly employed for direct and indirect fire would have foiled these assaults, but they were scarce, and the U.S. military has never wanted to invest the training time and equipment needed for effective indirect machine gun fire.

During the Vietnam War, American fire bases were overrun largely because of inadequate machine guns of modern design and the improper use of them. No one wants to learn the lessons of history if it involves using old ways. Newer is always supposed to be better and anything from the past tends to be dismissed out of hand if not ridiculed as anachronistic and obsolete. What could be more obsolete than the world’s first machine gun? A weapon designed back in 1884! The problem with that line of reasoning is that the inventor got it right and the design was perfected. Once you get to the top of the mountain of machine gun design, all roads go downhill… and the Maxim is the pinnacle. No gun made since has come near its longevity and reliability.

MORE THAN GUNS

Maxim was one of the great geniuses of all time. He patented the electric light bulb and Edison was only able to steal the design when Maxim went out of town and told his plant director to renew the patents… which he failed to do. The patents lapsed and Edison was able to grab the invention and run with it.

Maxim also flew the first airplane in front of England’s elite and the English press. When investors were not forthcoming, he wisely dropped the project. The airplane industry didn’t take off until many years later in WWI. When the Wright brothers wanted to build an airplane, they went to Maxim, and he gave them his notes, enabling them to build an airplane, as well.

When you look up and see an automatic fire sprinkler system in a building you are looking at another of Maxim’s inventions that has remained unchanged, defying improvement.

When you look more closely at the man behind the Maxim machine gun you realize why it has also defied improvement and still reigns supreme as the all-time greatest in its field.

During 1983-1985, Harold “Hal” Johnson designed and built an experimental prototype .30 cal., lightweight machine gun for the Austin Aerospace Corporation for use on their ultra-light aircraft, the Austin Hawk, the Austin Armament Support Program (ASP) referred to it as the ASP machine gun, showing it as a twin gun system in their promotional literature. Two ASP machine guns and a supply of 1000 rounds of belted .30 caliber carbine ammunition in M-27 links formed a light-weight offensive/defensive gun system. This gun system, when mounted under a Hawk, would have been used for scout and escort missions in a hostile environment. This system never saw field use, and all that remains is one gun, some drawings, some literature, several memos, a few photos, and a rather interesting story.

Prior to tasking Johnson with the design and manufacture of the ASP machine gun, Austin Aerospace did a trial with dual-mounted 7.62 NATO caliber M-60 machine guns on their Hawk aircraft. The M-60 was available as an off-the-shelf item and was well worth trying as it had a proven track record. Two M-60s were mounted on a Hawk and, during live fire with the Hawk air born, one of the M-60s jammed and ceased firing. Due to the sudden lack of recoil impulse on one side of the aircraft, the aircraft became unstable in flight. At that point it was decided that a recoil-free machine gun was what they needed. This live fire testing was done at Edwards Air Force Base, California.

The .30 caliber carbine round was chosen because it most closely met the criteria for this weapons system: a gun and caliber combination that Austin literature states has an effective range of 600-700 meters and a maximum range of 1400 meters, and that was as near to recoil free as possible. The fact that an ASP with a given load of ammunition was approximately half the weight of an M-60 with the same quantity of ammunition was also a factor.

The gun is simple in design, and could be produced in quantity without great expense. The bolt has a fixed firing pin, with a claw extractor, and operates much as a blow back sub machine gun does. When cycling, the bolt travels to the rear, until spring tension overcomes the movement of the bolt, and pushes it forward to pick up and fire the next round.

The gas operating system is somewhat unique. Gas is tapped from the barrel, travels to the feed block in a gas tube and powers a feed piston with an attached feed pawl. High pressure gas pushes the piston and the attached feed pawl over the next linked round. As  pressure drops in the barrel, the compressed gas piston spring repositions the piston, whose feed pawl positions the next linked round in the feed block for pick-up by the forward traveling bolt. The  guns are fired by the pilot via an electric trigger motor.

The Austin Hawk was intended for sale to small countries fighting small non-conventional wars. It was small, lightweight, and modular for ease of shipping. It would be easy to maintain and easy to learn to operate. (Part of what Austin Aerospace was going to offer was training on operation, and use and maintenance of the system). It could operate off a 300 foot, smooth surface and while no information exists as to the cost of a complete system, it would certainly have been less expensive to buy and operate than modern military aviation hardware.

Johnson did not make any profit from his design and work on the ASP. There is a memo to him from Austin Aerospace explaining that he would receive a $15-per-gun royalty for the first 2000 guns sold, and $7.50-per-gun thereafter. In this he joins many inventors throughout history who did not receive a benefit for the fruits of their labor.

Sidebar: A word on Hal Johnson. Hal grew up in New York near Bannermans, and got an early start In the world of guns. He enlisted in the Marines at age 17 in 1944 and fought on Okinawa as a bow gunner in an M4-A2 Sherman tank. He served in the Korean war as a platoon Sgt in 1st Battalion, 5^th Marines. He went on to serve 20 years and retired as a Chief Warrant Officer after spending most of his career in ordnance, to include having been the officer in charge of the 5th Atomic Ordnance Platoon at Camp Pendelton. (Atomic Ordnance Platoons are now called Nuclear Ordnance Platoons). He authored several editions of the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide’s. Simply put he was the master of all things ordnance.

If you are a fan of the classic Vickers belt-fed machine gun, this book is for you.

Noted author Dolf Goldsmith has done it again. As the title page states, “This is an authorized, revised, and expanded edition of The Grand Old Lady of No Man’s Land, originally published by Collector Grade Publications, incorporated in 1994, which is now out of print.”

As often happens with high quality reference books, once they are out of print and unavailable from the publisher, the price rises dramatically. For quite some time, I have wanted to buy a copy of The Grand Old Lady but simply could not justify the inflated prices asked. (Asking prices of $500 and up are commonplace for several Collector Grade titles.)

With the closing of CGP following the passing away of owner R. Blake Stevens, it seemed as though we had few options. So, it was good news indeed, when Chipotle Publishing announced they were working with Dolf Goldsmith to produce an updated and enlarged edition entitled The Vickers Machine Gun: Pride of the Emma Gees.

Joining Goldsmith as contributing editors on this new edition are Dan Shea, Robert Segel, and Richard Fisher. Most unfortunately, Segel passed away just prior to the release of this book.

This new version follows the general layout of most Collector Grade titles, divided firstly into parts, then chapters, and then a series of short segments, often only a paragraph or two. While effective, this can give it a bit of a choppy effect. Where new material has been added, it’s noted by a vertical line adjacent to the addition. The new book has over 270 more pages than before. Most, if not all, Collector Grade books did not include an index at the back of the book. Presumably, this was thought not necessary due to the division into parts, chapters, and small segments. Fortunately, this Chipotle version does include a full index.

Parts

Part I: Early Days covers the history of the Vickers firm, a look at hand-cranked guns the early Maxim guns, and the adoption of the Vickers just prior to the start of World War I.

Part II: The Legend Is Born looks at the Vickers in WWI service from many angles. From manufacturing at Erith and Crayford, to the finer points of the various types of mechanical synchronisers that allow the guns on early aircraft to fire through the propeller arc… if it relates to the Vickers in WWI, it is likely here.

Part III: The Legend Continues covers the 1919 to 1968 period. (1968 saw the retirement of the Vickers in British service.)

Part IV: The Legend for Sale deals with various special models. The drum-fed Class “F” variant that fed from a 97 round Lewis drum mag is examined, as is the .5-inch (not the same case as the .50 BMG cartridge case) tank gun. In fact, there are several models of .5-inch Vickers for AFV, naval, and anti-aircraft use examined. Also covered are guns found in service around the world, literally from Abyssinia to Venezuela.

Part V: The Vickers in Depth is all about the inner workings. I suspect this will be the most interesting section for most readers. Theory of Operation, Accessories, Ammunition, and even a Troubleshooter’s Handbook make up the bulk of this section.  

The majority of the many photographs are black and white, as was the original version. However, starting with chapter 18, Parting Shot, there are many full color photos. Incidentally, Exercise Parting Shot was an event held in July, 2002 to commemorate the 80^th anniversary of the disbanding of the British Army’s Machine Gun Corps, in 1922. Among those in attendance were Goldsmith, Shea, and Segel. Also taking part were three original WWI MGC veterans! More than 40,000 rounds of .303 British ammo were fired during the event.

Chapter 19, Vickers Memorabilia, features many items from Segel’s huge collection. The items range from badges and medals on up to fully complete guns and accessory carts. Just an amazing collection! And, of course there are the all-important accessories, such as clinometers (to measure incline when firing long distance), belt-filling machines, military manuals, etc. The chapter ends with a series of beautiful photographs of another privately owned Vickers. These studio-quality images would be suitable as large posters, with the light and shadows bringing out the stark beauty of the Vickers.

Chapter 21 is an extended interview of Goldsmith by Shea that was published in Small Arms Review magazine dating back to July 2006. He has lived an interesting life!

The book ends with Chapter 21, The Contributors.

Richard Fisher got interested in the Vickers by way of his grandfather, a WWII machine gunner. He bought a deactivated Vickers at the age of 12 and has been a fan ever since. He founded the Vickers MG Collection and Research Association and the website VickersMG.blog.

Robert G. Segel was the senior editor for Small Arms Review and Small Arms Defense Journal for many years.

Dan Shea is the owner of Chipotle Publishing and is the editor-in-chief and technical editor of both Small Arms Review and Small Arms Defense Journal.

This updated version of a classic title, by a much-respected author, is highly recommended.

Details

One of the most famous machine guns of the World War I, the Lewis MG, was based on a basic design by Samuel McClean. However, the eager tinkerer and inventor himself was denied great success throughout his life.

The name Samuel Neal McClean means something to only a few machine gun enthusiasts today. Yet the man was extremely active in this field and ultimately held more than 150 patents for weapons technology alone. Along the way, he also invented and improved washing machines, spark plugs and other devices.

McClean was born in Columbus City, Iowa, in January 1857. At the age of 28, he successfully completed his studies in human medicine at the University of Iowa and then practiced medicine in Washington. In the course of time, however, his penchant for technology probably gained the upper hand and, in 1896, he dissolved his medical practice. From then on, McClean devoted himself to the development and improvement of all kinds of technical equipment. And, of course, weapons.

In 1900, he therefore founded his own McClean Arms & Ordnance Company in Cleveland, Ohio and hoped to successfully market his projects. One of the first was a self-loading pistol and automatic cannon called the 37mm L/51 Automatic Cannon Mk I. Basically, the cannon was equivalent to an oversized gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. A new feature was the possibility of continuous fire. In the spring of 1901, 670 rounds were fired with it at Sandy Hook Proving Ground, but the results were not very satisfactory. Malfunctions and defects brought the test to an early end. But even after revision and new trials, firing bursts never succeeded without problems. Even though the U.S. Army showed no interest in it, the company was able to sell some copies abroad, such as 218 rifles to Russia.

At the same time, another major project was underway, namely a water-cooled machine gun. McClean was so convinced of success that he invested almost his entire fortune in the development of this weapon. Contrary to expectations, the work dragged on and turned out to be more difficult than he had foreseen. The expenses were offset by only a small income from sales and McClean was forced to sell his company to investors. However, he himself remained general manager and continued to work on his projects. In 1908, he brought the U.S. Army officer Ormond Mitchell Lissak on board as support. Together they developed a water-cooled gas-operated weapon. The complicated design tended to jam and failed U.S. Army and U.S. Navy tests. By this time, the company’s coffers were already alarmingly depleted and in December 1909, the Arms & Ordnance Company was forced to close. All patents were transferred by the investors to the newly founded Automatic Arms Company the following year.

McClean was now no longer there. He moved to the innovation department of the automobile manufacturer General Motors as an employee. The Automatic Arms Company now recruited the U.S. Army officer and weapons engineer Isaac Newton Lewis to give the machine gun project a successful turn after all. And the decision was a good one, because on the basis of the preliminary work Lewis developed a light, air-cooled machine gun with a drum magazine on top, which was then produced in large numbers during the World War I. McClean took legal action against the transfer of his patents in 1920, but he lost the case. He was not allowed to share in the success of the Lewis machine gun.

Even after the World War I, Samuel McClean was not defeated. In the meantime, he had earned money again with his work at General Motors and his civilian inventions and tried his hand again in the weapons sector. He developed an automatic rifle that could also fire bursts. Ideally, it was fired from a tripod with a small seat for the shooter on the rear strut. The unusual magazine is built like a ring and is slid over the rifle from the front until it locks in its place. The cartridge feed is from the top, the case ejection to the lower left.

The gas-operated system of the weapon resembles that of his early machine guns. The weapon is not an aesthetically pleasing sight. Below the barrel sits an unusually large gas tube, containing a push rod with a sealing disc of a proud 2.6cm diameter. There is no fire selector, but there are two triggers. The rear one for semi-automatic function and the front one for continuous fire. The system is cocked by a handle on the right side. It moves during firing and can be folded down when not in use. The barrel and the gas tube are additionally connected with a clamp, on the underside of which the foregrip is attached. In contrast to most other automatic weapons, the bolt does not lock via a few sturdy lugs but via interrupted-thread style locking lugs milled into both sides.

McClean gave the rifle to the U.S. Navy in 1919 for testing at the Naval Air Station in Anacostia (Washington D.C.). Unfortunately, without success. After this renewed failure, he gave up gun building for good and continued to work at General Motors. Samuel Neal McClean died in Cleveland on 30 May 1930.

Due to fortunate circumstances, the only one produced has been preserved to this day. Albeit without a magazine. And unfortunately, partially cut open, because in the United States the weapon is considered a machine gun and one of the previous owners had legalized the unregistered weapon in this way by deactivating it.

Photos: Thanks to Morphy Auctions for photos and information.

At the end of the World War I, that “War to End All Wars,” there were many lessons learned about the weapons and threats that would be encountered. This was a new kind of war; machine guns, armored vehicles, aircraft, Zeppelins, and underwater craft were among the evolving threats. The U.S. military called once again on the great John Moses Browning, weapon designer extraordinaire, to produce a new heavy machine gun round to counter the new threats. There are different theories on how Browning arrived at the .50 BMG cartridge; one camp believes he simply upsized the U.S. 30.06 cartridge; another that he scaled up the German 1918 13.2x92mm anti-tank cartridge. In truth, it was a combination of both. By 1921, Browning had developed the .50 BMG cartridge as well as the M2 machine gun and its link system; these are still in use today, a century later. There are improvements, of course. The guns went from water-cooled to air cooled, and refinements were made to the cocking system and mounts, but this long-lived system is still on the front lines around the world today.

As an aside, gunners are taught to reach up under the retracting charging handle and pull it to the rear, as opposed to reaching over the top, wrist behind the handle. It’s widely believed this method gives better leverage, but that’s not the real reason. Browning’s first designs had a “bottle” charging handle that was directly in the bolt and traveled with the bolt, and if the operator reached over the top to charge and the cartridge fired, it could break the operator’s wrist in recoil. The retracting charging handle was designed to separate the functions. There is a stud that is in the bolt, and the new charging system pulls that to the rear. If there is an accidental firing while the operator holds the handle, the bolt goes to the rear, but the handle is disconnected. No broken wrist. In the ensuing century, there have been many modifications such as this, but the core system, the M2 Heavy Barrel machine gun, “Ma Deuce,” is still with us.

The major issue with the system, the biggest operator malfunction, and an issue since day one, is that the barrel is removed and installed by the operators in the field and need to be properly gauged before firing. This requires a set of headspace and timing gauges, as well as proper training. It also takes a significant amount of time to do this properly, especially under pressure in combat. Threading the barrel in and out, and headspacing and timing as needed, is an operator distraction. Most machine gunners know their guns, and develop little tricks to shortcut the system. But unless they’ve been taught to “read the brass” and properly headspace and time the gun, those shortcuts don’t equal proper field performance.

Enter the quick-change barrel (QCB) concept. There have been many attempts at this, a few successful. All share two things; first, interrupted threads where the barrel locks to the extension, and second, a method of guiding the barrel in correctly and rotating into position, which is done with a pin.

What style of QCB system is in our inventory?

This is a very important question for those in procurement who already have some M2 QCB machine guns in their inventory.

Essentially, whether the pin is on the barrel or on the barrel support designates what basic style of QCB you have. The U.S. DoD-adopted system is the M2A1, and the pin is on the barrel with a guiding slot in the barrel support. The other systems where the pin is part of the barrel support and the guiding slot is in the barrel are variants of the M2A2. Look to the photos to further identify which system you have if you are matching new orders or adding support parts.

The strength of the pins used in all systems are an issue, and how to repair them if damaged. The basic M2A1 pin diameter is .376 inches, and it is installed into the barrel as shown in the M2A1 photos. The M2A2 pin diameter is .446 and it is a replaceable part in the barrel support. So, if damaged, this is easily repaired at the depot level. For the M2A1, they use a TIG system to install the guidance pin in the barrel well. Because of the apparent issue with M2A1, barrel pins being damaged by exuberant and perhaps not so observant operators, U.S. Ordnance can repair existing barrels by installing a new stud, but they’ve also come up with a solution for government consideration. A pin of the same diameter and height is used, but it has a wider base and a not so radical 90-degree angle at its base. It has a much more supportive radius, and is more robust and should limit the damage done by improper assembly of the M2A1 systems. The M2A2 and M2A2-N do not suffer from an issue here, as stated, the guidance pin is replaceable in the barrel support.

As another aside, if the barrel guidance pin is removed from the barrel support of the M2A2 system, regular M2HB barrels can be used in the system for in an emergency or training scenario.

Manroy Engineering, FN Herstal, General Dynamics, Ohio Ordnance Works, and U.S. Ordnance have all been manufacturers of variants of QCB. I’ve had the pleasure of working with all of the above over the years, testing the firearms, and there are many fine products. That said, on my recent visit to U.S. Ordnance in the Reno, Nevada area, I confirmed that US Ordnance is in production and support of all of the QCB variants, and is the U.S. DoD contractor supplying the U.S. M2A1 to the U.S. military and allies with foreign military sales or private purchase contract ability. They can fill orders for new guns, provide rebuilds, and repair/support parts with almost any .50 BMG variant. Thus, this report has focused on information gained at the U.S. Ordnance facility.

During the tour of its manufacturing facility, U.S. Ordnance employee Beaux Armand explained the full testing procedure. Most impressive is the requirement to build ten guns, run them through all gauging, testing and cleaning, then completely disassemble all ten, mix the parts and then gauge and test again. All ten guns must pass this rigorous acceptance testing. More about the gauging is in the accompanying photos and captions. 

We at SADJ hope this look into the QCB world of .50 caliber machine guns helps you to understand what’s on the market, properly identify what may be in your inventory, and answer the questions you might have. I’m available regarding serious enquiries on technical issues, as always, at info@chipotlepublishing.com. U.S. Ordnance can be contacted for further information at sales@usord.com.

The SAW; the “Squad Automatic Weapon.” Looking at the photo above, astute observers will note, “Dan, that’s not the SAW, it’s an M240.”

Actually, the M240 is a squad automatic weapon… from the old school definition. In the 10- to 12-man infantry squad, there were mostly riflemen, variously one or two automatic riflemen (the 1918 BAR guys who later were the guys with the full auto switch on their M14), grenadiers, and each rifleman usually had secondary responsibilities. Historically, there’s no squad automatic weapon (machine gun) in the military table of organization and equipment (TOE) at the squad level. The weapons platoon provided the machine gun and lighter mortar support to the squads, as directed. This meant the M1917A1, M1919A4 and A6, M2HB, and later the M60 general purpose machine gun, then the M240G and B variants were all part of the weapons platoon, not the infantry squad.

So, why did we call them Squad Automatic Weapons? Basically, these were support weapons for specially trained machine gunners to deploy in support of the squad, at order from the platoon or company, and had to perform suppressive fire missions and other machine gunner jobs at 1000 meters plus, as well as in closer fighting. 7.62mm was considered the minimum caliber for that. During the Vietnam War, the M60 drifted into more squad level usage, and by the 1970s when the Squad Automatic Weapon program began, a smaller caliber firearm had been decided on with 5.56x45mm round, the same as used by the M16A1 being the final choice. By 1980, the FN Minimi was chosen in the (X)M249 configuration and after various Product Improvement Programs, in 1986 the M249 began integration to the infantry squad. This allowed a belt fed machine gun in every squad, albeit in a smaller caliber with diminished range and capability compared to the 7.62mm machine guns. My personal opinion was that it was more of a belt-fed rifle than a SAW, but the 5.56x45mm M249 has proven itself on the battlefield many times.

In a 1980s parallel development, the U.S. military wanted to replace the M60 GPMG. Saco Defense had the M60E3 then the lighter M60E4, which failed in competition with the M240G, which was the dismounted version of the M240 tank guns. The 240G was, basically, the Belgian MAG-58 that was in use by many nation’s militaries. Don’t confuse the M60E4 of those 1980s trials, with the actual M60E4-issue gun made by U.S. Ordnance today, which is a much more evolved and proven system.

The M240 series guns are large machine guns, larger than the M60 GPMG, but considerably more reliable, and with a longer life. The M60 was designed in the 1950s as a 100,000 round maximum gun. We spoke with the designers back in the 1980s and had a lesson on that issue. They never intended it to be more than a 100,000-round gun. In Vietnam, a door gunner might do more than that in a month of hammering treelines around hot LZs. Thus, the unique receiver stretch gauge… and the advent of the M240G & B series machine guns.

U.S. Ordnance is well known around the world as the manufacturer of the U.S. M2HB and M2A1 machine guns, MK19 Mod 3 grenade machine guns, the M240 series, and the M60E4 and M60E6. So why would they add the M249 “SAW” to their pallet of machine guns?

There is definitely a supply void for the M249 system. There are at least a dozen countries that count on the Minimi/M249 system, and many others that have smaller user populations but larger needs. There are many requirements in the defense industry for M249 as well as support for existing guns.

U.S. Ordnance is an agile company, they are able to focus quickly on a problem, and move into reliable production. We’ve been involved in many machine gun programs, several involving M249 production, and our confidence level in the expertise at U.S. Ordnance is very high. The welding of sheet metal requires very experienced fixture designers, as warpage is always a big issue. I recently toured the facility again, and went through the production lines for the M249 with their production manager.

U.S. Ordnance is bringing their full engineering capability to the table. Their ability to quickly produce machine guns in volume, with high quality and very reliable function, is legendary in today’s market. I reviewed the production line, examined the end products, and as in the past, when I’ve tested their M240 and M60E6 with military spec live firing, we plan to do a 25,000 round live fire program very soon. SADJ will report on this as soon as we have finished. It would seem that adding the M249 machine gun, the Para variant, and support/parts capability to U.S. Ordnance’s production would be a very good fit. We’ll follow up with the full mil-spec test report as soon as it’s done.    

M249 MACHINE GUN SPECS

Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO
Weight: 17.06lb (7.73kg) w/bipod & tools
Length: 32.875- 35.25 inches (835-895mm) Complete M249
Barrel Length: 21in or 18in (533mm or 457mm)
Rifling Twist Rate: 1:7in RH
Cyclic Rate of Fire: 700-900 RPM

Browning M1919A4 machine gun.

By Robert G. Segel

The Browning M1919A4 air-cooled machine gun in .30-06 was the standard rifle caliber belt fed machine gun of the United States for three decades from the 1930s to the 1960s. It was the main infantry machine gun during World War II and Korea and saw initial service in Viet Nam until replaced by the M60 General Purpose Machine Gun.

Produced in the tens of thousands by many manufacturers it saw service in every theater of war. A simple spare parts roll was developed in the mid-1930s for the gunners to carry with them to maintain their weapon in working order providing key spare parts that could be easily replaced if the original became worn, damaged or broken.

The M-13 Spare Parts Roll is a canvas carrier with a braided canvas carrying handle that folds in on itself four times and is closed with a simple snap. When unfolded, a series of nine pockets, each numbered, present themselves each containing one or more spare parts. No tools are present in this roll. The numbered pockets and their contents are listed below.

Spare parts and placement in appropriate pockets.

Pocket #1:
1 Firing Pin Assembly (1-1)

Pocket #2:
1 Trigger (2-1)
1 Cover Extractor Spring (2-2)
1 Belt Holding Pawl Pin (2-3)
1 Belt Feed Lever (2-4)

Pocket #3:
Contains a canvas Envelope, Small Parts, M1, No. 1 (3-1) with contents:
1 Driving Spring (3-2)

Pocket #4:
1 Extractor Assembly (4-1)

Pocket #5:
Contains a canvas Envelope, Small Parts, M1, No. 2 (5-1) with contents:
1 Sear (5-2);
2 Buffer Discs (5-3);
3 Sear Spring Assemblies (5-4);
1 Belt Feed Lever Pivot Assembly (5-5);
2 Breech Lock Assembly Pins (5-6)

Pocket #6:
1 Accelerator (6-1)

Pocket #7:
Can, Tubular (not shown) with contents:
2 Barrel Locking Pins (7-1);
1 shown of 4 Ejector Pins (7-2);
2 shown of 12 Breech Lock Pin Springs (7-3)
1 Spring (7-4)
1 shown of 2 Firing Pin Spring Pins (7-5)
1 Trigger Pin Spring (7-6)
1 Ejector (7-7)
1 Trigger Pin (7-8)

Pocket # 8:
1 Belt Feed Slide (8-1)
1 Belt Feed Spring (8-2)
1 Belt Feed Pin Assembly (8-3)

Pocket #9:
1 Bolt Handle (9-1)

The Slide Fire Ruger 10/22 kit turns the little rifle into a sleek, fast firing, and very “tacticool” looking rifle. The Ruger BX-25 magazine was one of the few that could keep up with the machine gun like rate-of-fire produced by the Slide Fire conversion.

By Chris A. Choat

Several years ago this author reported on a then new stock that allowed an AR style rifle to be bump-fired and thus produce almost as high of rate of fire as a full-auto gun. As the stock was merely an addition to a semiautomatic rifle and the rifle’s trigger still had to be pulled every time the gun fired, the device was approved for sale by the BATFE. One of the major advantages to this unit over other bump-fire devices is that the shooter could not only produce high rates of fire but he or she could do it in a safe and controlled way. Also, with a little practice, the shooter could produce semi-auto type fire as well as 2 or 3 round burst fire without changing anything on the rifle. The stock was produced by a company called Slide Fire Solutions (www.slidefire.com) and to date they have literally sold tens of thousands of these stocks.

In the past year or so the dramatic increase in the price of ammunition has caused lots of shooters to cut down on the amount of rounds that are put downrange. While the prices of all ammunition have gone up, centerfire seems to have taken a bigger hike than rimfire. That being said, more shooters are now turning to rimfire guns to go to the range with. This (along with a shortage of rimfire powder) has produced what seems like a shortage of .22 shells for sale on store shelves. It is very possible that more shooters are now turning to their favorite rimfire guns to satisfy their desire to go shooting. It also has increased the market for rimfire rifles that look and function like their AR style centerfire counterparts.

One of the most popular AR style rimfire rifle is produced by Smith & Wesson (www.smith-wesson.com) and is a member of their M&P series of guns. The M&P15-22 is styled about as close as you can get to an AR-15 style rifle – in fact, a lot of parts will interchange between the two. The M&P15-22 has an AR pistol grip, M-4 type stock, quad rail forearm, flat-top upper with Picatinny style rail and a 1/2 X 28 threaded barrel. While the gun uses polymer upper and lower receivers, it is built plenty strong enough to handle rimfire ammo. It uses S&W proprietary magazines in either 10 or 25 round capacities but several aftermarket companies have now started producing magazines that fit this rifle including 50-round drum magazines. The function and quality of this gun is typical S&W with flawless performance.

Another rimfire gun that offers flawless performance is the Ruger (www.ruger.com) 10/22 rifle. This rifle has been produced since the early 1960s and Ruger, as of last count, has sold well over 6 million of them. Almost every shooter has at least one of them in their collection. For over 50 years this gun has been the one to go with when teaching new shooters or just going out for a
day of plinking.

Now, Slide Fire Solutions has started producing a couple of kits that incorporate their bump-fire style stock units. These two new kits are being made for the S&W M&P15-22 and the Ruger 10/22 rifles. These new kits not only allow the Slide Fire stocks to fit the two most popular .22 rifles being made, they also include some other added enhancements for the guns as well.

The kit for the M&P15-22 is called the SFS 15/22. The kit includes a Slide Fire SBS stock with attaching hardware, a CMC Triggers (www.cmctriggers.com) complete drop-in 3.5 pound trigger unit and one of their new custom designed muzzle devices called a recoil enhancer. The SBS stock is Slide Fire’s newest design stock and will fit any rifle with an AR style buffer tube whether mil-spec or commercial. The trigger is a complete unit that includes the hammer, disconnector, trigger and associated springs in a drop-in module. The unit has been factory tuned to a 3.5 pound trigger pull. This light trigger pull has been found to allow the rimfire guns to work perfectly with the Slide Fire stocks. The final item included is Slide Fire’s recoil enhancer. The recoil enhancer replaces the standard flash hider on the rifle and helps to give the rifle a gentle rearward push as the bullet exits the barrel. This is accomplished by the design of the recoil enhancer. Think of the unit as a small enclosed chamber with tiny gas ports around the front of it. As the bullet exits the barrel escaping gas is trapped in the chamber and then vented out of the ports creating a slight rearward push. This can hardly be felt but does add to the reliability of the gun with the Slide Fire stock.

The kit for the Ruger 10/22 is called the SSAR-22 and is somewhat different in that it includes a chassis system. The system includes three pieces; an upper and a lower receiver and a forearm. The upper and lower combine to encapsulate the action of the 10/22 as well as having an attached AR style buffer tube. A uniquely styled forearm fastens the three pieces together and gives the 10/22 a very modern, tactical look. With all the pieces installed it gives the rifle a full-length rail across the top for attaching optics or other accessories. The kit also comes with a complete 3-pound trigger unit that is manufactured by Volquartsen Custom (www.volquartsen.com), long known for their work on enhancing the Ruger rimfire guns as well as a complete line of guns of their own. This trigger unit is a complete unit made to replace the whole trigger pack of a Ruger 10/22. The kit also includes Slide Fire’s OGR stock, which is their original pattern stock. The chassis system is available separately as the TAC-22 and comes with a standard M4 type stock and A2 pistol grip.

Either kit can be installed in just a matter of minutes with the only tools needed being a supplied Allen wrench and a Phillips and a straight blade screwdriver for the Ruger. To install the M&P15-22 kit the rifle’s original stock and pistol grip are removed and replaced with the Slide Fire stock with attached pistol grip. The original pistol grip is replaced with an interface block. This block and the buffer tube allow for bearing surfaces for the Slide Fire stock to reciprocate on. The S&W M&P15-22 uses the same fire control parts as a standard AR-15 so the original parts are merely replaced with the CMC Triggers drop-in module and pins. The only thing left to do is to unscrew the original flash hider and replace it with the recoil enhancer. To install the Ruger kit the original barrel band and stock are removed. The original Ruger trigger group is removed by pushing out two trigger pins. The Volquartsen unit is then installed into the Ruger’s receiver. The author chose to replace the original steel bolt stop pin with a Buffer Technologies recoil buffer. The high impact polymer pin absorbs the bolt’s rearward momentum and cushions the impact. Every 10/22 should have this inexpensive accessory. The three piece chassis system is then installed along with the matching forearm. The Slide Fire OGR stock is then attached to the chassis system and the installation is complete. The kits are available in either right or left handed versions and now come in three colors: Black, Dark Earth and OD Green.

With the kits installed it was time to grab lots of ammunition and head to the range. While on the subject of ammunition, it needs to be made clear, these devices work by harnessing the recoil energy of the gun and using it to assist the cycling. They require good, high quality, high powered ammo. Not the white box discount store variety. Low power, target or standard velocity just will not work as reliably as the “good stuff”. This author chose CCI Mini Mag and the newer CCI Tactical .22 and they both work well; but most other high velocity .22 LR will work well. There is no fun if you have to always clear malfunctions due to weak ammunition.

The S&W unit was tried first. The gun was loaded with a S&W 25-round magazine of CCI Mini Mags and the fun began. There is a slight learning curve associated with a Slide Fire stock. Someone picking up a gun equipped with one might not have the best of luck with the first couple of magazines. It seems like it usually takes a couple of magazines before a new Slide Fire user gets the feel for it. First of all to use one of these stocks you don’t PULL the trigger, you PUSH the rifle. Slide Fire stocks incorporate a little shelf that is positioned just to the side of the trigger. The shooter places their trigger finger through the trigger guard and onto this little shelf and keeps it there. The rifle is then pushed forward with the off hand, which in turn pushes the trigger against your stationary trigger finger. The result is that when the gun fires it recoils rearward and the trigger resets but the shooter still has forward pressure on the rifle, which pushes the rifle forward again and the cycle starts over. The all happens in a nanosecond and the result is a rate of fire that equals a full-auto gun. A .22 equipped with a Slide Fire stock will shoot at a cyclic rate of about 500 to 600 rounds per minute. Though there are other select-fire .22s that fire twice as fast (1,000 to 1,200 rpm), their cyclic rate is was too fast. At those rates a 30-round magazine is finished in about 1.5 seconds. With the slower rate of fire, a shooter with a Slide Fire equipped gun has more control and gets the full-auto sensation without going through ammunition like water through a fire hose.

Secondly, a light grip on the rifle’s forearm works the best. In fact, with the .22’s tested, if you just laid the forearm on the palm of your offhand and used the thumb and forefinger to grip it and pull back they worked best.

The S&W gun worked just as advertised with a 10-round burst erupting from the gun. Another forward push and the rest of the magazine fired completely. This was followed up with several more magazines. The only time that the gun quit was when it came across a “light” load. You could actually tell by the feel of the shell’s recoil that it was a light load. In a standard .22 bolt action or even a semi-auto you would never notice as the gun would continue to function as long as the shell produced enough energy to eject the empty brass. But with a Slide Fire equipped gun a light load will usually cause it to stop. With quality ammunition and a little practice you can empty a full 25 rounds without a hitch.

The Ruger 10/22 equipped with the Slide Fire unit was a little problematic at first. The gun was loaded up with a 30-round Butler Creek magazine. It would fire just 2 or 3 rounds and stop; then maybe 4 or 5 and stop. This continued through the first two magazines, both Butler Creek. We then tried a third magazine that was one of Ruger’s own BX-25 mags. The whole magazine fired without one malfunction. This was repeated several times with the same result. It turns out that the two Butler Creek magazines would not work 100% in another 10/22 that was tried as well. The magazines that worked the best turned out to be the original Ruger 10-round, the aforementioned Ruger BX-25 and the HC3R magazines (www.hcmags.com). If you haven’t tried one of the HC3R magazines do yourself a favor and get one. They load easily, hold a total of 45 rounds on board and can be taken apart to be cleaned. They are a first rate piece of equipment. By switching to the other magazines and giving the rifle a shot of WD-40 the gun ran perfectly. We found that both guns seemed to like just a small amount of lube and they would run multiple complete magazines without an issue.

Another great feature of the Slide Fire stocks is that they can be converted from working in the bump-fire mode into a regular “fixed” stock instantly. All of the stocks have a small engagement lock lever located at the bottom of the stock about where the release lever is on a standard collapsible carbine stock. This lever is turned 90 degrees either right or left to select either a locked or a sliding mode. This is handy when letting a youngster that is not quite ready for the Slide Fire experience shooting the gun.

In conclusion, the testing revealed that the Slide Fire Solutions .22 kits are a complete blast and work just as advertised. This company hit on the magic remedy for accessories. Make them for a reliable gun that is produced in very high numbers. The Ruger 10/22 and the S&W MP15-22 rifles fall into both of these categories. You can’t go wrong with either rifle or with the Slide Fire Solutions .22 kits. The stocks are not tactical and they are not for everybody. But if you want to have an afternoon of shooting fun without spending a fortune, try one.

By Robert G. Segel

Argentina was an early user of the Maxim water-cooled machine gun, ultimately purchasing English and German made Maxims under three separate contracts. The first order was placed by Argentina’s Navy Purchasing Commission in 1895 for 50 World Standard Maxims manufactured by the Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company Limited (MNG&ACL) in England. These first 50 guns were given Argentine serial numbers 1-50 and chambered in the 7.65×53 Belgium Mauser caliber. The nomenclature information on the fusee spring cover included the MNG&ACL information and the 1895 year of manufacture. In 1898 a second contract for the World Standard Maxim was placed, this time with Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken (DWM), a licensed Maxim manufacturer in Germany, from the Argentine Army Purchasing Commission for 130 guns still chambered for the Belgium Mauser 7.65×53 caliber. These guns were serially numbered 51-180. The DWM nomenclature information on the fusee spring cover included the 1898 year of manufacture. The third and final contract signed in 1900 brought in another 20 World Standard Maxims from DWM and were serial numbered 181-200. All of these World Standard Maxims had brass water jackets and brass fusee spring covers except for the last twenty DWM guns, which were fitted with steel water jackets and fusee spring covers. Interestingly, most South American countries adopted the French Hotchkiss machine gun, yet Argentina had 200 of these early Maxims in their inventory.

Beautifully made with its water jacket, feed block, fusee spring cover, receiver floor plate and rear grip plate made of brass, the World Standard Maxim Models, often just called “Brass Maxims,” were a stunning, and lethal, piece of the firearm maker’s craft that was also esthetically pleasing to the eye. These guns had the early straight style of crank handle, an 1889 style lock and wooden roller belt assist located within the brass feed block. The gun is mounted on an Acland tripod that can be mounted on a wheeled field carriage.

All 200 of Argentina’s Maxims were originally chambered in the 7.65x53mm 1891 Belgium Mauser caliber and the long sight bar affixed to the upper receiver was calibrated for this heavy, round-nosed, high trajectory bullet. Each gun was fitted with a brass data plate on the top cover over the feed block reading, “Cartucho Mauser Argentino 1891” indicating the use of the 1891 Mauser cartridge. In 1909, Argentina adopted the new 7.65x53mm Spitzer round with the pointed bullet and flatter trajectory. All of Argentina’s Maxims were then sent back to DWM to be rebarreled for the new cartridge, have the long rear sight bar shortened to match the high-speed, flatter trajectory of the new cartridge, an optical sight bracket was attached to the left side of the receiver for attaching a commercially made 2×12 optical sight made by Carl Zeiss of Jena, Germany (that also fit the Swiss Maxim MG11), and provision was made also on the left side of the receiver for a removable shoulder brace made of steel and wood. The original brass cartridge data plate riveted to the top cover over the feed block had the “1891” milled out and “1909” engraved in its place to reflect the updates and change in cartridge use.

Though well equipped, Argentina did not participate in any major conflicts during the period that the Maxims were in their military inventory up to 1929. After that, they were given over to the police where they remained until 1959 when they were declared obsolete and sold.

It wasn’t until the turn of the century that Maxim water jackets were made of steel rather than brass. While there were many brass-jacketed Maxims made and sold around the world in the 1880s and 1890s, very few made it into the U.S. at the time and of course can’t be imported in now. Thus, these early brass Maxims of any vintage or type are rare in the U.S. and highly desired by collectors. To our good fortune, Sam Cummings of Interarmco in Alexandria, Virginia was able to import 91 of the guns into the United States in 1960. Those that remained in Argentina were used to decorate various officers’ clubs, donated to museums or sold to Argentine collectors. Of the 91 guns imported into the U.S., 8 were exported, 28 ended up in government custody for museums, storage or destruction, and the remaining 55 are now mostly owned by collectors.

Maxim Operating System

The Maxim operating system used in the World Standard is the basic operating principle employed in all Maxim guns. The gunner inserts the tab of a loaded cartridge belt into the feed block from the right, pulling it to the left, until it is secured by the belt holding feed pawls. The gunner then manually pushes the crank handle forward and holds it there while pulling on the protruding end of the belt, then releases the crank handle to return to the rear under spring tension. This allows the extractor on the T-slot to grip the first round in the belt. The gun is now in the “half load” position. Rotating the crank handle forward again, pull the cartridge belt tab once more to the left and let the crank handle fly back under its spring tension. The gun in now loaded with a cartridge in the chamber and is ready to fire.

Upon pressing the trigger, that actuates the trigger bar releasing the sear; the firing pin is released and goes forward igniting the cartridge driving the bullet down the barrel. The barrel and the bolt are securely locked at this point. After recoiling three-quarters of an inch, the bolt is unlocked and the crank engages the unlocking cam, breaking the toggle joint and freeing the bolt. The recoiling forces are now able to accelerate the bolt assembly to the rear and rotate the crank. This winds the actuating chain, loading the extension-type driving spring while the recoiling mechanism completes its rearward stroke.

After unlocking of the bolt from the barrel, the sliding boltface (T-slot) begins simultaneous extraction of the empty case from the chamber and withdrawal of a loaded round from the belt. Continued rearward movement engages cams in the receiver to force the sliding boltface downward, bringing the loaded round in line with the chamber and the empty case in position for the ejection tube.

Also during recoil, a cam lever action moves the entire feed block slide to the right. The top feed pawls move over to engage the incoming round in the belt, at the same time compressing the barrel return spring. After completing its full recoil stroke, the forward action of the barrel and barrel extension returns the feed block slide to the left, bringing the next live round in the belt into position against the cartridge stops for engagement by the sliding T-slot.

The complete force of recoil having expended itself, the extended driving spring starts the movement of counter recoil. As the bolt moves forward, the cartridge to be fired is positioned for chambering. When this happens, the T-slot rises, “wipes” itself clear of the spent case and slips over the rim of the incoming round in the belt.

When the bolt has reached its extreme travel forward, the toggle joint is forced slightly below the horizontal by the connecting rod. At this securely locked position the sear is depressed and disengaged from the firing pin, removing the safety feature, so that continued pressure on the trigger permits full automatic fire.

What’s in a Name?

Question: Which of the following is the proper name for the Argentine brass Maxim?
Model of 1895;
Model of 1898,
Model of 1909.

Answer: None of the above.

It is common and convenient among collectors and other interested parties to refer to Maxims as relating to a “model” number based upon the year of manufacture that is typically stamped on the fusee spring cover as part of the manufacturer’s nomenclature. While this is actually quite helpful, this is in fact, technically, incorrect. While the military may designate a model number (German MG 08, Swiss MG 11, U.S. Model of 1904, etc., usually based upon the year of adoption for service), Maxim in England, and all the other licensed Maxim manufacturers, did not use model numbers for their commercial sales.

The top cover of the Argentine contract World Standard Maxim showing the brass plate riveted over the feed block that originally read “Cartucho Mauser Argentino 1891” for the round nose, heavy, high trajectory Belgium Mauser 7.62×53 round. In 1909, the Spitzer round was adopted, and its much flatter trajectory necessitated the much shorter rear sight as shown here. The old ë1891í was milled out on all the converted guns and ë1909í stamped in its place. Also notice the original rear sight holding slot (in front of the word ‘Argentino’) that was used to help hold in place the lowered much longer sight bar when using the old Belgian Mauser round. The difference in length between the two sights shows how dramatic the improvement of trajectory was with the newer pointed-nose Spitzer round. The small brass plate affixed to the brass fusee spring cover denotes the fusee spring tension for blanks and the new ammunition.

Maxim’s first guns dating from 1884 to 1887 were really hand-made prototype affairs. As sales increased during this time period, so did the learning curve experience in manufacturing techniques and methods, operational efficiencies, weight and material used to make his product better. Outgrowing his little shop in London due to increasing sales, Maxim merged with the Nordenfelt Gun Company, which greatly expanded his production capabilities and Maxim was able to then incorporate his improvements on a production line scale. Every bit the salesman he was, Maxim named his guns the World Standard in 1888 as a marketing tool to imply the epitome of firearm development in his sales presentations and literature. (The name World Standard was never marked on the guns themselves.) Thus, a Maxim produced after 1888 is properly called a World Standard with the year of manufacture being noted as an aside. As years progressed and further improvements were made in the lock, feed block, crank handle, etc., these advancements can fortunately be tracked as the production or contract years are duly noted on the guns. So while a gun produced in 1898 may have certain features not present on guns produced in 1895, they are both correctly just called World Standard. The same holds true for the 1909 date as that appears on the top cover brass plate on the Argentine contract guns. The year designation helps determine what improvements can be expected to be found on the gun. The shorthand for this in the collector’s world is to call it as a model number. All these dates properly place the weapon in a linear time line, and are convenient in noting the introduction of certain product improvements.

American engineer and inventor Hiram Maxim, living in London, developed an automatic gun that was presented in Great Britain and in several European countries. On October 20, 1886, a ministerial dispatch advised the Versailles Commission of Experiments that Mr. Maxim was authorized to present a semiautomatic rifle of his invention. On November 4th of the same year, another dispatch informed the commission that Mr. Bariquant, representing the inventor in France, would also present an automatic machine gun. According to the official test report, this weapon shot Gatling cartridges, while the files of Maxim-Nordenfelt spoke about a machine gun No. 129, shooting the .450 Martini-Henry.

11mm Machine Guns

During the first tests, the Maxim machine gun appeared remarkable and the Commission wanted to conduct further tests firing the ammunition of the Gras M1874 rifle. Four machine guns arrived on August 6, 1887 and after some tests, three of them were modified by the inventor and were turned over on August 12th. These weapons carried No. 53, 54, 55 and 63.

Each one of these weapons had a single barrel that moved back at the time of firing and ensured the unlocking of a mobile bolt knuckle. It returned to battery by action of a laterally installed spring. The cartridges are installed in a flexible fabric belt with brass eyelets. Its advance and feeding is the result of a distributor associated with displacement of the bolt. Weapons No. 54 and 63 had a rate of fire from 620 to 650 rounds per minute and were fitted with a water jacket ensuring the cooling of the gun. Machine gun No. 55 was fitted with a regulator that appeared as a glycerine-brake that made it possible to vary the rate from 5 to 500 rpm. It is fitted with the same water jacket. The model No. 53 had a cyclic rate from 620 to 650 rpm. Its water tank, under pressure, is installed in the tripod and is connected by a flexible tube, with a small baffle sleeve that surrounds the barrel. Machine guns No. 53, 54 and 63 could be mounted on the following supports: folding tripod made of steel, wheeled mount with armor-plated shield and crinoline mount made of steel. Weapon No. 55 could be installed on: folding tripod with tubular bronze leg forming the water tank and a conical mount made of bronze arranged as a water tank. The weight of the weapons varied from 24 to 35 kg and that of the mounts from 33 to 98 kg. Machine gun No. 55’s weight climbed with the wheeled mount, three cases of loaded cartridges and armor-plate to 190.8 kg.

During the tests, accuracy was considered to be very poor as the sight graduations did not correspond to the ranges and the mounts were unstable:

* H + L = 0.74 m x 0.69 m at 200 m,
* H + L = 1.95 m x 1.20 m at 400 m.

Between 600 m and 1,000 m, the results were even worse and as the rate of fire increased, accuracy decreased. Though this is not surprising today, at the time when automatic weapons were an innovation, they seemed surprising.

The operational tests were satisfactory and failures to fire incidents were scarce in spite of a significant heating of the barrel. Also noticed was a significant depositing of lead in the bore of the barrel; but this fault was charged to the use of lead bullet ammunition without a jacket. After shooting three 334-round belts (more than one thousand cartridges) in less than three minutes, it was also noticed that the chamber was fouling, though not surprising, with cartridges loaded with black powder.

The tests of model No. 53, fitted with a condenser tank, showed that the cooling of the barrel was not carried out in a reasonable way and involved a deformation of the barrel that was detrimental for accuracy. As for the model No. 55, fitted with a regulator, it was noted that its operation was too sensitive to room temperature and that its system was too intricate compared to the possible advantages which it could offer.

In conclusion, the Commission while recognizing the ingeniousness of the mechanisms present on the weapons tested, wanted improvements to the cooling system, the feed mechanism, safety, the belts carrying the cartridges and more stable mounts. In its final report of September 26, 1887, they encouraged the development of the model with regulator and single tank.

Following that, the inventor presented on June 20, 1888, two new machine guns No. 88 and 89 that comprised the majority of the desired modifications. But the first tests proved to be less than satisfactory and the weapons were returned for repair and then returned for testing on July 20th. Their operation was similar to that of the models presented previously. The barrel is cooled better as it sits entirely in the water of the jacket whose capacity was increased to 2.5 litres. The distributor was simplified, which made it possible to cure the problems of incidents of supply met previously. The regulator appeared to operate randomly. The mounts (model with wheels and tripod) were unchanged, but the attachment device of the weapons was improved.

The majority of the defects in firing were attributed to the feeding attachment and a failing of synchronization between the movement of the bolt and the advance of the belt. In spite of the noted defects, it was recognized that the accuracy of the machine guns were much higher than the various distances with that obtained with a collective shooting with rifle. Finally the French officers, conscious of the advantages had by the machine guns, but also of the stresses driven by their use (consumption of ammunition, training of specialized personnel) wanted the inventor to propose to them a new weapon fitted to fire the 8mm Lebel cartridge.

8mm Machine Guns

May 8, 1889, the Versailles Experiments Commission took delivery of two 8mm Lebel Maxim machine guns, carrying numbers 169 and 173. These weapons were fitted with an easily dismountable barrel enclosed in a bronze water jacket of 2.7 litres capacity. The system of waterproofing around the jacket was simplified. The actuating lever was improved, the bolt was lightened and the feeding system modified. These machine guns were then installed on a lighter mount with wheels.

The weapons worked well at the beginning of the tests, but thereafter there were many failure to fire incidents and the breaking of several parts were noted. The rates of fire lay between 550 and 600 rounds per minute. The endurance tests were concluded up to 1,300 rounds. Accuracy was lower than that of a Lebel rifle, with:

* a H + L of 66 x 48 cm at 200 m,
* a H + L of 90 x 70 cm at 200 m,
* a H + L of 100 x 120 cm at 400 m.

After that, the Commission asked that many modifications be carried out.

Following that, Misters Bariquant and Marre, representing the inventor, asked the Commission to test four other 8mm machine guns: No. 174, 612, 613 and 614. These weapons were subjected to tests similar to those carried out previously. The results obtained were compared with those obtained with other machine guns also put to the test at the same time:

* Hotchkiss machine gun,
* Colt-Browning machine gun,
* APX 1895 machine gun, gun made at the Puteaux Arsenal near Paris, it was a Gatling type gun with mechanical repeater system.

The final conclusions were rather severe. While they recognized the ingeniousness of the mechanism, which was judged complex, the many-times improved mechanisms had suffered much from the tests and did not support any more the comparison with a new weapon. And it was recommended that the water cooling system be abandoned in favour of air cooling. This report, dated February 27, 1899, finally rejected the Maxim machine gun that was specifically conceived for the French Army. However, an ultimate model in 8mm Lebel (No. 9646) was presented in 1909, but by then it was too late.