Hiram Percy Maxim (1869-1936) was the offspring of the inventor of the world’s first modern machine gun, Hiram Stevens Maxim. H. P. Maxim started developing one of the world’s first modern metallic firearm silencers, shortly after the dawn of the 20th century.

The nature of supersonic (beyond the speed of sound) gas flow from a firearm’s discharge was not totally understood by scientists in the early 1900s. They did not have ultra high-speed photography available back then, and they did not understand how a flow of supersonic propellant gas would create a loud gunshot noise. Regardless of this, Maxim did understand that the sudden and violent exit of high velocity propellant gas from the muzzle of a firearm was directly responsible for the loud noise associated with gunshot discharges.

We in a more contemporary world now realize that most physical objects moving through our atmosphere at a rate of speed beyond 1,100 feet per second (fps) will create the phenomenon known to the world as sonic crack. The tip of a leather whip, when snapped rapidly, moves at a rate of speed beyond 1,100 fps, creating its own sonic crack. A bullet moving beyond 1,100 fps creates two similar sounds, one from the front and one from the rear. Surprisingly, human ears can hear both sounds and discern them, one from the other, if the mind concentrates hard enough.

In today’s world, a common U.S. military M16 rifle discharges a 62-grain bullet at a velocity close to 3,000 fps. The mass of propellant gas, being much lighter and extremely elastic, leaves the muzzle of that same firearm at roughly 16,000 fps – many times beyond the speed of sound. It is not widely known, but the energy of exiting propellant gas from a high-powered rifle constitutes roughly 90% of the force available, while the bullet represents but 10%.

A mass of exiting propellant gas forms or gathers into a hardened front resembling a curiously rounded, elongated disc – known to ballistic scientists as a Mach disc. With a .308 rifle, that Mach disc is close to 5 inches in diameter, and it actually turns into a solid state for a fleeting moment. The supersonic disc projects a very loud noise in all directions, like an extremely loud speaker. That violent impulse of sound is so loud and so powerful that it can and will cause permanent hearing damage to any unprotected individual in close proximity.

Most firearm discharges form Mach discs. With a .22 LR rimfire pistol the exiting gas (only about a grain in weight) forms a smaller, elongated Mach disc well under an inch in diameter. Even though the smaller Mach disc is very temporary (less than 6/1,000 of a second in many cases), it causes an impulse sound that is so loud that it too will also cause permanent hearing damage to those unprotected ears in close proximity.

It is extremely unlikely that Maxim knew what a Mach disc was in the early 1900s, but he soon figured out that he had to first capture and then slow exiting propellant gas from a firearm in order to silence its report. Maxim used soft, malleable iron to form gas shearing baffles of various shapes, using stamping procedures and stepped metal forming technology. A brilliant engineering graduate of The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (at age 16) Maxim experimented with different techniques and baffle designs for capturing the violent blast of gas discharge – thus confining the (still unknown) Mach disc and slowing the velocity of the remaining gases below the speed of sound in air before they exited. His vision and hard work were eventually rewarded. At the age of 40, Maxim was awarded U.S. Patent No. 916,885 for his Silent Firearm, on March 30, 1909.

Maxim’s patent and deceptively simple baffle design resulted in a silencer about 1.35 inches in diameter by a touch under 5 inches long. Because all firearms of the day used relatively low, open sights, he developed his silencer with an unusual eccentric design that didn’t occlude the view of iron sights on rifles and pistols.

The Maxim Model 1909 silencer worked extremely well on .22 rimfire rifles, since they achieved a fair (but subsonic) bullet velocity with relatively low terminal gas pressure. The .22 caliber lead bullets of the day were covered with beeswax mixed with animal fat, which tended to protect a rifle’s bore. Highly corrosive materials in the priming and propellant gas required that a Maxim silencer be removed and boiled in soapy water after each and every use. It then had to be drained, dried and re-oiled to prevent destructive corrosion. Most of the early Maxim silencers have been ruined over the years because they lacked this high level of care. Almost all ammunition in the 21st century is now loaded with non-corrosive priming compounds and propellants, which currently negates the need for extreme care. Crud will continue to build up in .22 caliber silencers, but it will at least be non-corrosive crud.

The use of the 1.35 x 4.5-inch Model 1909 Maxim silencer on .22 rimfire rifles was very successful, but there must have been problems with rotation (clocking) of the narrow part of the can so that it could be nearest the top side of the weapon to which it was fitted. A silencer gets most of its axial alignment from mating with a shoulder at the base of threads on a barrel, with rotational alignment being almost an afterthought, initially. Rotational alignment is a real problem with an eccentric silencer, however, and thread wear (or QD coupling wear) eventually causes more and more rotation to occur. Thus a can that was properly affixed when new would eventually have the thicker side of its body intruding into the sight plane as threads and seat wore with use. Maxim provided an adaptor of hardened steel, with interrupted threads. This allowed the silencer to be easily attached and removed.

A perceived need for a thinner silencer design soon led to the adoption of the 1910 Model, which was about an inch longer in the body, smaller in diameter and considerably less effective. The longer, thinner 1910 Model silencer worked fairly well on both pistols and rifles, but it is not considered as desirable as the earlier 1909 model by suppressor cognoscenti. Again, the longer 1910 Model is much louder than the shorter, fatter, eccentric 1909 Model. An open space (containing no baffles) at the rear of the 1909 Model makes it more effective on a .22-rimfire rifle, but it still performs very well on a pistol.

Both models of silencers were sold by mail order, for about $5, a considerable sum back then. They shipped directly in a sturdy cardboard mailing tube with a metal screw cap, and with a U.S. postage stamp pasted directly on said cardboard tube. While the silencers were easily obtained, they required careful threading on a gunsmith’s lathe to prevent destructive baffle strikes by bullets. Major firearm manufacturers of the day sold weapons with factory-threaded barrels to accommodate Maxim silencers. Maxim also made hardened, interrupted thread couplings with shims that could be driven onto the ends of non-threaded barrels with a mallet. These fittings sometimes lacked accuracy because most barrels were not of standard and true dimension, but they did help with the difficult problem of rotational alignment. In truth, the fitting and installation of threads or a coupling by a gunsmith probably took a lot more time than it took the Maxim factory to actually manufacture the silencer itself. Few gun barrels are truly straight and concentric, especially those built in the early 1900s.

As the silencer industry progressed, quiet shooting became widely accepted. One was considered rude if he did not silence his firearm to avoid annoying family and neighbors during target practice. Finely crafted, stained and varnished Maxim boxes were filled with sand and used as indoor target backstops, so that target practice could be held indoors on special occasions and during festivities. The two-chambered boxes contained sand in the rear chamber to stop bullets. Densely packed rags in the front chamber kept the sand from leaking out. A replaceable wood panel in front kept the rags in place, and also provided a surface for mounting a target face.

Maxim and his silencers had a pretty good run for about 25 years. In the early 1930s, during the depths of the Great Depression, the U.S. Congress suddenly took it upon itself to ban all pistols in the country. This gun-grabbing act led to citizen anger and a massive public outcry. It resulted in a widespread and massive political correction during following congressional elections. The pistol ban was struck down in federal court, and quickly reversed a couple of years later. Unfortunately, some of the guilty legislators had another few years to run before their terms were up, and in 1934 they passed the National Firearms Act, which placed a restrictive tax on machine guns, shortened long firearms and a few related items.

This sudden legislative move in 1934 proved to be a devastating blow to the Maxim Silent Firearm Company. Fortunately for the survival of the company, it had already moved into the area of silencing internal combustion engines for motor-driven vehicles. Hiram Percy Maxim died a little more than a year later, from a very sudden illness.

Very few of the original, fragile, 1909 Maxim silencers exist today, most having been destroyed through loss, mishap, ATF confiscation or corrosion. Even though the Maxim silencer technology is over 100 years old today, it is still very good technology, and surprisingly effective in our contemporary world. It is interesting to occasionally use the historic Maxim 1909 silencers and compare them with what we have available today, since they are still quite competitive when used with subsonic rimfire ammunition and moderately long barrels.

The Maxim 1909 Model Silencer and Related Notes:

According to respected silencer expert Al Paulson, all of the original Maxim papers, patent drawings and original inked drawings remained in the hands of Maxim’s New York City attorney, who died many years ago. These were put into sealed storage in cardboard boxes in an attic of a law office in NYC, and only came to light about 10 years ago. At that time they were offered for sale for a handsome sum. I have not followed up on what became of them. I believe that they still exist, somewhere, and that the collection was not broken up. There is another collection of Maxim papers residing in a State Museum in Hartford, CT.

The original Maxim 1909 .22 LR silencer was said to have been the most effective of all of those built by the Maxim Company. It is easily the equal of many of those built during the 20th and 21st centuries. According to Al Paulson, the 1909 measured 4.88 inches in overall length by 1.35 inches in diameter. The main tube is a scant 4.55 inches in length. There is a 3.77-inch long groove pressed into the bottom of the dead soft tube, as a sort of key used to hold the baffles upright. The rear thread size is typically 1/2-20, RH. It weighs 6.8 ounces. In the past I have been able to examine an original Model 1909 that was attached to what apparently was at one time a Quackenbush .22 LR rifle, turned into a pistol and used for many years in a slaughterhouse. According to Al Paulson, the unit turned in a respectable 118 dB sound level when tested with 40-grain subsonic .22 LR ammunition on a pistol. The Model 1910 tested at 126 dB.

The Maxim 1909 used flat baffles with a deceptively simple, tiny scoop stamped into the rear face of each baffle with a punch. When used in combination with the eccentric design, the tiny scoops forced incoming propellant gas into the lower section of the eccentric can between each baffle. The 1909 Model was and still is remarkably effective. The two proximal (rearmost) baffles are of a thicker material and are about 3/8-inch apart. The rest of the baffles are about 1/4-inch apart, quite thin, and they go all the way up to the front end cap.

While brilliant in design, authentic Maxim construction is fragile. Maxim silencer construction was crimped, and it was definitely not solid. The dead soft metal in the main tube or body has very low tensile strength and little resiliency. Dropping the can on a hard surface could definitely injure alignment.

I am indebted to Al Paulson for clarification of a number of conflicting issues and information relating to the Maxim Silent Firearm Company. Because of the 100-year elapsed period of time there have been more than a few facts and events that took knowledge and research to reconfirm.

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

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

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

The early Model 1895 machine guns in caliber 7.62x54R.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The air cooled aircraft Maxim PV-1.

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

Acknowledgements :

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