General Motor’s Hydra-Matic Division

The United States’ direct military involvement in Vietnam ended in 1973. During most of the war, the standard “A” infantry weapon of U.S. troops was the 5.56mm M16 rifle.

Colt’s Patent Fire Arms Company was the manufacturer of the M16 and held the exclusive rights to the design. As the Vietnam War was escalating, more rifles were needed and the U.S. government wanted to establish a second source for the weapons. However, Colt resisted the idea of relinquishing the manufacturing rights and the M16 Technical Data Package to the government—despite paying Armalite only $325,000 for the right to manufacture and market the AR-15. Colt’s position was that they took a chance on the AR-15. At the time they bought the rights to the weapon in 1959, it had already been rejected by the Army.

Finally, on June 30, 1967, a contract was signed for the manufacturing rights and the Technical Data Package for the M16, M16A1 and XM-177 rifles, thus allowing the U.S. government to start the bidding for a second source to produce the weapons. Colt received a payment of $4,500,000 and a 5.5% royalty on all future weapons and parts procured by the government. During November of 1969, the XM-177 rifles were deleted from the contract agreement.

Initially there were 26 firms interested in a government contract to produce M16A1 rifles, but only 12 firms made bid deposits. After obtaining the Technical Data Package for review, only 8 remained interested in bidding. After intensive negotiations with the interested parties, GM’s Hydra-Matic Division and Harrington & Richardson (H&R) were awarded contracts. The decision immediately came under fire from members of Congress. The decision to use H&R was in question because of their marginal performance during their M14 rifle contracts. Hydra-Matic had manufactured the M39 20mm cannons, but had no experience with small arms. Bidders with successful small arms manufacturing experience like Saco-Lowell (who produced the M60 machine gun) and Cadillac Gage (who manufactured the Stoner weapon systems) were not chosen. The 65-member Source Selection Board making the decision felt that GM and H&R were positioned to get the urgently needed rifles in production the fastest.   

General Motors

During World War II, General Motors, better known as GM, had a long history of manufacturing military hardware by its many divisions. The hardware included, but was not limited to, ordnance, tanks, vehicles, machine guns, carbines and submachine guns.

The Hydra-Matic Division

General Motors’ Hydra-Matic Division was founded in May 1939 as the Detroit Transmission Division. It was created to continue the developmental work begun by Cadillac engineering and to manufacture the newly developed Hydra-Matic automatic automobile transmission. In 1962, the Division officially changed its name to the Hydra-Matic Division.

After the government procured the manufacturing rights for the M16A1 rifle, then Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, approved the Department of Defense’s plan to expand M16 production in March of 1968. Estimated ceiling prices with non-reoccurring startup costs were: first year production of 60,000 rifles at a cost of $316 each, second-year production 180,000 rifles at $105 each. The learning curve in the small arms industry was estimated to be 98%. The establishment of multiple sources for M16 production was not considered to be economically justified unless GM was at least 60% below the established ceiling price. Colt was producing M16A1 rifles at a cost of approximately $104 each.

Hydra-Matic received a sole source, one-year contract, number DAAF03-68-C-0048, dated April 19, 1968, for 240,000 M16A1 rifles. Cost per rifle for the first contract was established at $151.54, well below the estimated ceiling price. The contract prices did not include the reoccurring cost of $8.68 for seven magazines or the $4,500,000 and 5.5% royalty paid to Colt for the rights to establish a second source production.

A GM plant in Ypsilanti, Michigan was chosen as the location for the manufacture of the M16A1 with the first deliveries to be during January of 1969. Production was to level off at 25,000 rifles per month. GM shipped the 100,000th M16A1 rifle to the Army two months ahead of the required schedule. It became apparent that GM/Hydra-Matic was proving capable of quality production ahead of schedule, while H&R was struggling with production and quality issues.

A year later, the company had delivered another 140,000 rifles. On July 18, 1969, Hydra-Matic was awarded a second contract, DAAF03-70-C-002, for an additional 229,217 M16A1 rifles at a cost of $99.74 each. All the GM-produced M16A1 rifles were serial numbered in the 3,000,000 range.

Original GM/Hydra-Matic M16A1 rifles, manufactured over 50 years ago, are quite rare. There are not many original transferable U.S. Property marked Colt, GM or H&R M16 rifles in the NFA registry. Occasionally when they are offered for sale, the asking price is in the mid to high five-figure range. Buyer Beware: There are some M16 rifles in the NFA registry that were destroyed by the government and welded back together and registered prior to the cut-off date of May 19, 1986. An M16 with a receiver that was cut and welded back together would be priced considerably less than an original uncut one. An article describing the receiver welding process appeared in an old FIREPOWER magazine dated July of 1986, ironically published two months after the ban of the new registration of transferable machine guns.

The AR-15/M16 rifle has come a long way since it first appeared in the jungles of Vietnam. After a controversial and troublesome start, the rifle is now one of the most popular civilian semiautomatic firearms in the U.S. Currently, there are hundreds of companies offering numerous configurations of the AR-type rifle. Many younger AR aficionados don’t recognize the rifle in its original configuration. When seeing an original M16, they are often confused by its appearance and ask, “What is that; a carry handle?” With the widespread use of modern optics, the carry handle was removed from the design and replaced with a rail. High-tech optical devices also became a standard issue item in the U.S. military. There was a period where no commercial manufacturer offered an AR model with a carry handle, and soon the existence of the handle was unknown or forgotten.

Replica Retro Rifles

There has been growing enthusiast interest in AR/M16 rifles in their original as-issued Vietnam War guise fitted with the carry handle upper receivers, thin “pencil” barrels and triangle handguards. Many formerly obsolete original parts are sought after by individuals and many of the parts bring premium prices. Some of the rarest and difficult to find are those used in the M16A1 rifles made by GM’s Hydra-Matic Division and Harrington & Richardson, last manufactured in the early 1970s. Most of the M16A1 rifles from that era were given away as military aid or scrapped, making the parts difficult to find.

The assembly of a “correct” GM/Hydra-Matic replica rifle can be quite expensive. When building a Vietnam-era copy the quest for an all-original clone usually ends at the lower receiver; most must settle for using a modern replica semiautomatic receiver. There are a few companies that will duplicate the GM/Hydra-Matic and U.S. Property markings by laser engraving, or roll-marked like the originals were. Most of the available receivers found today are the later reinforced M16A2 design—to be “correct” an M16A1 style lower receiver should be used.

A less expensive alternative to using hard-to-find, expensive original parts for a retro build are reproduction parts from companies like Brownells, NoDak Spud, AR15sport.com and JSEsurplus.com, to name a few.

Identifying GM/Hydra-Matic Parts

Original GM/Hydra-Matic and H&R M16A1 parts occasionally surface, knowing how to identify them is key. During the research for this article there were four original GM/Hydra-Matic M16A1 rifles studied, and several internet resources, used as an attempt at identifying parts used in the assembly of GM/Hydra-Matic M16A1 rifles.  

There are certain features that are common to most Hydra-Matic manufactured M16A1 rifles; with the small fraction of the weapons available for examination it is not possible to make statements using the word “all.” The attrition rate of 50-year-old Vietnam era M16 rifles, arsenal rebuilding and repair of weapons in the field by armorers, and the large number of subcontractors suppling parts make definitive identification impossible. That said, observations made by the authors and others have concluded the following are common characteristics of M16A1 rifles made by GM/Hydra-Matic.

It is quite likely that many subcontractors were used by GM during the production of their M16A1 rifles. Some of the similar markings on some parts common to GM and H&R rifles suggest that they may have used some of the same subcontractors.

There are several ways to ID GM/Hydra-Matic parts from those from H&R and the far more common Colt parts. Many GM parts are marked with a number, most likely to identify the subcontractor who made the part.

Lower Receiver

The finish color on GM/Hydra-Matic rifles varies, many are darker in color than the 1960s era Colt’s gray. Hydra-Matic Div., G.M. Corp. U.S.A. Property U.S. Govt marked on the left side of the magazine well. On the right side there is a full “fence” around the magazine release, and often a white 1-inch DoD eagle acceptance stamp that is larger than those found on Colt and H&R rifles.

Bolt Stop

GM contract bolt stops have a subcontractor ID number on the bottom. Numbers 1 through 7 have been noted. Bolt stops marked with a number “3” are common.

Upper Receiver

There are variations of the upper receivers documented, one common sign is the lack of markings in the concave area on the right side under the rear sight. Colt contract upper receivers made after 1970 will have two letters in that area. GM upper receivers will generally have a forging flash, or “seam,” on the rear of the carry handle. The front lug is recessed on the left side. The forward assist will have a number on the back side of the teardrop handle. The ejection port door with have a small pad with rounded corners. Any wear of the anodized finish will reveal a yellow-gold color. H&R uppers typically have a forging flash on the front and rear of the carry handle and the rear sight direction arrow is usually different. They often have the same style ejection cover door.

Notes:

• Rifle 3018041 upper receiver no forge seams
• Rifle 3027458 upper receiver no forge seams
• Rifle 3136345 upper receiver forge seam on rear only
• Rifle 3245701 upper receiver no forge seams

Charging Handle

GM contract charging handles will have six punch marks, or dots, across the back of the handle and have a slightly thinner profile.

Fire Control Group

The fire control components, hammer, trigger and fire selector lever will have a stylized letter “G” with a number inside. The disconnector was not marked. The mode of fire selector levers were marked on the rear surface. Keep in mind that using M16A1 fire control group parts in a semiautomatic AR rifle can cause legal problems. It is strongly suggested that any M16 internal parts be altered to a semiautomatic configuration.

Barrel

The GM barrels with have the letters “MP” on the rightside between the legs of the front sight base. There will be a letter “C” on the top of the barrels indicating chrome chamber. Barrels are the .625-inch outside diameter “pencil” type with a 1:12 twist, and a “birdcage” flash hider. Original barrels are probably the most difficult component to find, many M16 rifles had to be re-barreled due to excessive use and / or corrosion of the bores. Original barrels, front sight blocks and flash hiders typically have a rougher finish machining than those found on Colts. Colt and other contractors made thousands of replacement barrels during the Vietnam War. During 1967, there was a projected demand of 11,800 barrels per month. Note: one of the GM rifles examined, serial number 3018041, had the “MP” mark on top of the barrel under the front sight base.

Front Sight Base

There are several front sight base variations. Some have forging flash on the front and/or rear, and on the bayonet lug. Some bases observed had a forging code letter or number on the sides and on the lug for the bayonet. Some are not marked with any codes. None of the rifles examined had any visible markings on the front sight base.  

Furniture

Most were fitted with “type D” buttstocks, without trapdoors, a rubber buttplate and a moveable sling swivel. The furniture often has an aged “mottled” appearance. The “fat” pistols grips have a slightly larger circumference than those fitted on Colt M16 rifles. GM pistol grips, handguards and buttstocks will have a raised cross symbol on them, letters and numbers have been observed in various locations. Buttplate screws have a drain hole drilled through the center. Triangle handguards secured with a flat slip ring.  

Bolt Carrier and Bolt

GM/Hydra-Matic bolt carriers do not have any manufacturer’s markings; the finish machining appears rougher than on most Colt bolt carriers. The GM bolts were marked “MP” to indicate that they were magnetic particle inspected. The marking is very similar to Colt’s, but the “MP” letters are connected on the GM.

Buffer

The buffer will usually have a dimple on the front and an orange or maroon color pad (possibly discolored with age).

Sling

The sling issued during the Vietnam War was the mildew-resistant nylon sling with cadmium plated hardware. Front and rear sling swivels on all GM/Hydra-Matic rifles were secured with roll pins.

GM/Hydra-Matic Rifles Used for Study

Courtesy of ATF’s Firearms Technical Division. Serial numbers: 3245701, 3018041, 3136345, 3027458. Special thanks to Eve Eisenbise, Anthony Ciravolo and Jeff Bodell (ATF FATD).

Resources

Government Documents (Declassified)

• Procurement, Production and Distribution of the AR15, M16 and M16A1 Weapon System (1 June 1968)
• Procurement History and Analysis of the M16 Rifle (Printed 2 Aug 71)
• M16A1 Initial Production and Comparison Test; GM. H&R, Colt. (9 Jan 69)
• M16A1 Rifles, Hydra-Matic- collection of Amendments to the original contract and correspondence 1968-1971, on the General Motors Corporation Hydra-Matic Division M16A1 contracts. English Language. (Courtesy Dan Shea, Small Arms Review Reference Library)

Books

• The Black Rifle: M16 Retrospective R. Blake Stevens and Edward C. Ezell
• The Great Rifle Controversy Edward Clinton Ezell  

Since the company’s inception in the 1980s, Barrett Firearms has made leaps and bounds from the former garage that Ronnie Barrett used to make the first M82 anti material rifles. Today the company is expanding into the AR market, machine guns, and precision rifles with their MRAD design. Taking that momentum into the 21st Century is Christopher Barrett, the current president of the company. Chris was kind enough to sit down with SAR as we interviewed him about his history with the company, and where he wants the company to go in the near future.

SAR: Were you involved with Barrett Firearms from the beginning?

Chris: My earliest memories were of my dad shooting, and his firearms interests. He had machine guns in the 1980s, was a big time hobbyist, always shooting in sub-gun matches. He just had the coolest things in the world to a little boy. I’ve always been a part of the culture of this industry. I was around four years old when dad really came out with the company in 1982. I was shooting at a very young age, which a lot of people might not agree with these days, but it came naturally to our family. It helped make me the shooter I am today, and also helps with the designing aspect. I mean, people who actually shoot a lot, can identify what works and what doesn’t, and we put that into our designs. You could call it the Barrett “DNA” of the company, a lot of us are shooters, and we use the products we make. As an example, we don’t make submachine guns, but we still learn things from them that we can put into our other designs. If you are always in tune with that sort of thing, it makes you a good designer.

SAR: How did the company develop, throughout its history?

CHRIS: Well we started with the garage years, we lived in two different houses, with two different garages that dad was putting the rifles together in. The first house was in downtown Murfreesboro, and it was literally a wood walled garage, with gravel on the floor. They rolled out carpet over the gravel, and they realized that if they dropped a pin or other small part, they couldn’t find it. So they took the carpet and turned it over, and you were walking on the back portion of a carpet. But dad made a lot of guns out of there. Then from the garage, we actually leased a building because we outgrew it, out on Manchester highway. It was a former bus repair building where they fixed Bluebird school buses. It was owned by a man in Murfreesboro who invested in the company early on. We had that building for several years, during the 1990s. Then in the early 2000s, we moved over to this building. We built every M107 of the initial contract in that old building. We quickly outgrew that new building, and then built an extension to it, which is where we are today, connected by a ramp and it was a much higher ceiling for the running of CNC machines. Very thick concrete floors because these machines have to be on a very stable base, because of the vibration and harmonics.

SAR: When did you really start getting involved with the company?

CHRIS: Even as a young teenager and a child, I was tinkering at the plant. I remember being a kid, around 10-12 years old and I was operating acetylene torches, and doing stress relieves on welds. When you see your dad doing stuff like that, you always want to be a part of it. Another thing that helped was that we worked on cars together, we restored cars together. When I was 14, he bought a 1964 Corvette and we restored it together. I did the small jobs while he did the big stuff, but what you learn about metal working, fiberglass working, engine building, playing with gears in a transmission, you really take with you for the rest of your life. Most people just don’t have that opportunity anymore. We were doing that as the company was growing from the very early times. I went to High School, took computer aided drafting as a class, specializing in AutoCAD, working with two dimensional drafting. We don’t really even do that anymore, we do all our work in three dimensions now. When I graduated High School, I had no aspirations to attend university or go to college whatsoever, didn’t even occur to me. I wasn’t a good student, so I came right out of high school and that summer I came to officially work for the company full time. I got to work in the back, doing some of the jobs that I was already doing as a teenager, sand blasting, operating a band saw, sawing up raw stock. Every job I did, I wanted to improve immediately. For example I said, “Hey, let’s get a new sandblasting cabinet, let’s automate this sawing process”. So I got to move around the company and do a number of these jobs. This was around 1997 or so. After having this spot for a while I started realizing that this was all still on paper, there was no automation to it. We needed to make a revision to this. Chris Vaser, one of our oldest employees, was still drafting designs on paper for the company. Absolutely phenomenal draftsman, old world type with the lead pencils and putting things on paper. But this was what our technical data package was at the time, and this in the 1990s! It was on pencil and paper. It is beautiful and romantic when you think of it, but the technology of the industry at the time had far surpassed this. I mean, as a high schooler in 1995, I was working with AutoCAD programs. As an example, it automatically verifies geometry, with a pencil and paper, you could “cheat” and could get away with making mistakes. Computer aided drafting has really changed this industry in ways that we can’t imagine. I mean, we are in the golden age of firearms design. There is nothing like a brand new off the shelf rifle, a $400 hunting rifle that can outshoot the sniping rifles from the Vietnam War. A lot of this is because of computer aided modeling.

SAR: What role did you play in this computer revolution?

CHRIS: I bought the first engineering computer for the company, I remember it was a monstrosity of a tower and a monitor which was probably only 18 inches at the time, and we thought it was huge. We spent almost five grand on it, and in that day it was considered a major investment, along with the Pro Engineer software package. At the time it was the leading computer modeling software, so I sat there and learned how to use it. Not the most intuitive thing in the world, but after about a year or so, I designed the very first Model 98 on that. The prototype was actually a semi automatic .338 Lapua. Up to that point, it was the most radical departure we had made from our .50 caliber designs. The .338 Lapua Magnum was just starting to really gain some traction in the U.S. in 1997/98.

SAR: Accuracy International was becoming successful with their .338 Lapua and the Swedish contract in the early 1990s.

CHRIS: I hate to throw a bone to a competitor, but that rifle, at the time was recognized for there being nothing like it outside of AI. We heard the buzz about .338, and through that we kept plugged into our community of military and police buyers, so we knew there was beginning to be a need for the cartridge in a sniper rifle. It was sort of the thing in 98, but then it went dormant. We then heard of military solicitations for a .338 rifle in 2008, about 10 years later. At the time, we only had the Model 82A1 series, and the Model 95 and that was it. We only had two products back then, and they came in one color, and in one caliber. We essentially had two fixed products, like Henry Ford with the Model T, just coming in black. They were of a certain architecture at that time, and stamped sheet metal. They were .50 caliber, and were actually precision limited, in some part due to the ammunition. The .50 BMG round is not developed like a .338, a .308, or even a .223 is. It’s a machine gun round. Getting into the world of precision shooting was tough because we really didn’t build things like that.

SAR: Essentially they were 3 MOA anti material rifles.

CHRIS: Exactly, I mean even the Model 95, you probably could get an inch, inch and a half group out of it, depending on handloading. At the time we knew we needed a precision rifle. We did like semi autos, but we looked at what was the most accepted, most accurate, and precise rifle at the time. And it was the Accuracy International line. So dad bought one of their AWs for testing and evaluation. And we were looking at certain things, about what made it shoot so well and we found out it had some principles that we liked. But we wanted a semi-automatic, and were thinking along the lines of what would a semi auto version of the AW look like. So in the Model 98, you can see some of that inspiration with a strong rigid, bedded chassis, a flat bottomed receiver that looks a lot like a bolt action. A free floated barrel with a handguard beneath it. There was some influence there, but on the inside it was one of the most novel things ever. Although we never put that design into production at the time, we were able to take certain design elements from it and use it in our current rifles. Aside from that, when it comes to firearms design in general, you have to learn to only take the good elements from other designs, and make sure to reject the bad. However, I hate novelty for novelty’s sake; I want to design things for a practical purpose. But moving on, we weren’t and aren’t financially managed. We don’t have a list of share holders to report back to, we essentially do what we think is best for the company. Thus, the Model 98 project was sort of shelved until 2008. We noticed other companies were starting to produce their own single shot .50 caliber rifles, but no one was really getting into the .338 production. So that is where we focused our efforts on production and design. Looking back on it now, the original design we had for the Model 98, was interesting and forward thinking, but it wasn’t designed for production. And that goes back to our Advanced Research Group, a term that I prefer to R&D. Ideally those designers back there should be dreaming, not developing. They should be building up a design library, coming up with concepts such as the Model 98, that although might not be feasible to produce, will all us to come back to them in the future when we might actually see the potential for such products. Separate from this we have a product development team, that does that product development, because that has to happen, in order to keep the company on track.

SAR: So what kicked off development of the single shot Barrett?

CHRIS: We saw all these cheap single shot fifties springing up all over the market, and it really hit us because we established that lead with semi-automatic .50 caliber rifles. We didn’t want to lose that edge we had in the .50 caliber rifle market. We developed the Model 99 immediately. That was entirely new architecture as well. It looks much like a Model 95 on the outside, but it is entirely different. The Model 95 and Model 82 series are all sheet metal, fabricated, and welded. The Model 99 was really the first use of the architecture that became everything that we build now, in the Model 98B and MRAD series. It is made from a single piece of aluminum extrusion that forms the foundation of the receiver, with the barrel rigidly affixed to that. The Model 99 is really the genesis of what I believe has become the new defining architecture for precision rifles. The 98B and the MRAD basically are really different. When they came out, people were still just taking sporting rifle actions and solidly bedding them into fiberglass stocks that mimic wood stocks. We called it “B” because it was a revival of the 98 program, B for bolt action. But it was a head scratcher to people when they first saw it because they would look at it and say, ‘Where’s the action? Where is the stock?’. Well, there isn’t an action or stock in the way that you know it, like a Winchester Model 70, or a Remington Model 700. That doesn’t exist in the Model 98. It is a barrel rigidly affixed into an aluminum chassis that surrounds the barrel, and puts the bore axis really low, and gets the scope up higher. Then a lower receiver that separates from the upper like an AR does. So I think it really set a new course in the industry because after that I started seeing a lot of chassis going around. Another thing that is significant about the Model 99 is the breech mechanism, it has that interrupted thread that has been a significant design feature of the 98B and MRAD series.

SAR: What motivated Barrett’s movement towards the AR15 platform?

CHRIS: It started with the Barrett M468 in around 2003, and prototype production in 2004. What got us into the 6.8 SPC experiment was that the Army Marksmanship Unit, and some other entities at 5th Special Forces Group, specifically Master Sergeant Steve Holland, came to us back then and were showing us all this 6.8 stuff. It wasn’t even SAAMI standardized yet, AMU was hand loading these cartridges out of .30 Remington cases. They also had a .22 SPC, a 6mm SPC, a 6.5mm SPC, and a 7.62mm SPC. People don’t realize just how extensive this testing was. They were shooting all these odd cartridges, and they finally settled on 6.8mm. They came to us with a Mark 12 Designated Marksman’s Rifle, and said, ‘We need this, in 6.8, or a Recce sort of rifle, also in 6.8mm. We had no interest in getting into the AR game at the time, it wasn’t even a blip on our radar. But this whole 6.8 thing piqued my interest, the fact that it goes on a standard 5.56 lower receiver. We shot some of it and realized it was significantly more powerful, and it wasn’t some sort of niche that fills a gap between two cartridges that you can’t tell the difference between. So we started looking at it and that is how the M468 came along. I made some enhancements to it, such as the larger gas block because of the increased bore size. But we made a novel front gas block that had a flip up front sight and a suppressor interface for a suppressor design that would surround the barrel and actually attach to the gas block. If you look at an M468, you will see a ratchet on the gas block that attaches to a suppressor. The idea doesn’t really work nowadays because people are wanting suppressors to be modular and have the ability to be put on different rifles, but it was just something we were experimenting with. We built a good amount of M468s, probably put more into civilian circulation in the U.S. than any other company.

SAR: Development of the M468 then led to the REC7?

CHRIS: We started looking at the viability of a piston operated AR because of that, although the M468 itself was a mid-length direct gas impingement rifle. At the time there wasn’t much of a choice when it came to piston operated ARs. 2007 was the official release date, and we came up with REC through Reliability Enhanced Carbine, and 7 for the year 2007. The piston system on it, in my opinion, is the finest piston operated system on an AR out there today. It is one piece, it comes out the front of the rifle with one other part that holds it in. A lot like an FAL really, but the handguard doesn’t have to come off, and it doesn’t separate into seven different pieces. It is indicative of what we strive for at Barrett, making it well, but not overly complicated in a smart design. Anyone can make something complicated, but a good designer will strive to make something simple.

SAR: What sort of inspiration did that piston design take from?

CHRIS: I would say it is a hybrid of the FAL and the AK. The gas plug is a little like the FAL but doesn’t have this spring loaded mechanism like the FAL does, to retain it or switch it to a grenade position. The piston design takes a little from the AK, but we patented the fluted cylinder that is in there. This is important because a lot of other piston operated AR designs try to trap the gas in there, using gas rings, etc… We wanted the REC 7 to be simple, and hard to break. Ours runs without gas rings, like an AK. We found out a way to let the gas out of the gas block by incorporating a fluted cylinder. Early prototypes weren’t allowing enough of the gas out of the system and the piston was actually getting stuck in there from the carbon build up. We then put four flutes in the back of the gas block cylinder, cut with an end-mill that took away surface area at the rear, but we left it sealed at the front, where it needed the power stroke, then when the piston gets to the rear, it enters an open area, similar to an AK. These flutes allow that gas to blow around the piston and not allow it to clog up. The gas will then flow into the handguard, and this is why on REC7s with thousands of rounds, you’ll see some soot underneath the handguard. One of our earlier prototypes went 22,000 rounds without any sort of cleaning. From there we advanced the design to a Gen 2, with a better handguard system, and built-in steel QD mounts.

Washington, DC, 25 June 1942. This is the first production model Launcher, Rocket, 2.36 in. M1, along with its sharp nosed and long finned M6 high explosive, anti-tank rocket. Distinctive features from front to rear include ladder type front sights on both sides of the launch tube, a swinging rear sight that moves to the left or right side as dictated by gunner preference, two wooden grips and shoulder stock, a SAFE/FIRE Control Box on the top, and rocket retaining clip. This first model rocket has an electricity-conducting copper band around the warhead that, when properly loaded in the launcher, is touched by a spring loaded plunger extending down from the Control Box when the selector lever is moved to the FIRE position, completing the firing circuit. (National Archives)

By Robert Bruce

“In September of 1942 a ship from America docked at Suez with some highly secret cargo – 600 bazookas, the first the men in the theater had seen. Then known only under the code name THE WHIP, the bazooka (so called because of its resemblance to a musical instrument improvised by a popular radio comedian of the time) was a shoulder projector launching an effective 2.36 inch antitank rocket. For the first time in history a foot soldier had a weapon specifically designed to penetrate armor.” (On Beachhead and Battlefront)

While RKIs (reasonably knowledgeable individuals) contend that the WW1 German 13mm/.53 caliber T-Gewehr 1918 antitank rifle likely holds this specific “first time in history” distinction, THE WHIP went far beyond its Prussian predecessor’s tank-punching prowess.

Readily carried and fired by one man and utilizing a demonically effective anti-armor warhead, the American “Bazooka” as it was oddly and colorfully nicknamed, was loved by GIs, feared, hated and copied by enemies, and officially acclaimed as the “only really revolutionary new American weapon that got overseas in time for widespread use…”

The fascinating story of how this shoulder fired stove pipe and its revolutionary rocket came into being in record time is one that includes many worthy men but is centered on the dogged determination of one extraordinary individual.

One Man Rocket Research Bureau

“In 1933 the U.S. Army created a one-man rocket unit by assigning Capt. Leslie A. Skinner to study the possible use of rockets. Skinner was handicapped by limited funds to expend on research and by the indifference of his fellow officers. Hence, before 1940, the project made little headway.” (Planning Munitions for War)

While this type of benign neglect is all too sadly familiar to weapon design visionaries past and present, the turning point for Captain Skinner’s quest came with Germany’s rearmament and subsequent aggression against its European neighbors.

Blitzkrieg – literally “lightning War” – was Hitler’s enormously effective tactic, using large concentrations of tanks to consistently overwhelm and defeat defending armies. This was first proven successful in the invasion of Poland in September 1939 and repeatedly afterward.

Anti-tank artillery was well developed at the time but Germany’s fast-moving armored formations repeatedly defied attempts by defenders to effectively position the heavy guns. Conventionally armed infantry units, too often alone at the point of Blitzkrieg strikes, were essentially defenseless.

Thus necessity, it has been so sagely observed, is the mother of invention of the first man-portable weapon that would enable American foot soldiers to stop Hitler’s tanks when the U.S. was inevitably drawn into the Europe’s war.

Munroe, Mohaupt and Moore

“The principle of the shaped charge was promulgated by physicist C.E. Munroe as early as 1880, when he discovered that shaping high explosive with a hollow cone at its forward end focused the explosive waves on one point and thus gave greater penetration per unit weight of the explosive. The innovation embodied in the bazooka lay in the combination and adaptation of these well-known principles and basic inventions, which imagination and skill converted into a practical new weapon.” (Planning Munitions for War)

Munroe’s shaped charge – also called “hollow charge” – lay dormant for decades before Henri H. Mohaupt, a clever young Swiss engineer, refined Munroe’s 1911 patent and began attempting to sell his anti-armor
explosive concept.

British tests of his offering, handily packaged in the form of a prototype rifle grenade, caught the eye of American Ordnance personnel. The U.S. M10 rifle grenade soon followed in 1941, with Mohaupt’s improved shaped charge warhead proving remarkably effective for armor penetration.

Alas, it was way too heavy at three pounds, with excessive, weapon-mangling recoil resulting from powerful blanks required to launch it to suitable distances doomed it as a practical infantry arm.

Fortunately, Colonel Gregory J. Kessenich, chief of the Ordnance Department’s Patent Section, had been closely following the project and reportedly had a brainstorm. He persuaded Colonel Wiley T. Moore, head engineer of Ordnance’s Small Arms Division, that putting the M10’s warhead on a suitable rocket would solve both recoil and distance problems.

So far so good, but how would this theoretical anti-armor rocket get launched?

Skinner and Uhl

“American designers who meanwhile were developing small-size missiles that, by embodying the shaped-charge principle, would penetrate great thicknesses of steel plate, likewise failed when they tried to launch them. The recoil induced in weapons based on the conventional principle of internal combustion severely damaging the launching device even when it rested on the ground; firing it from the shoulder was obviously out of the question. The search for a practicable means of getting a shaped-charge missile on its way to the target finally ended when recourse to rocket propulsion eliminated recoil altogether. The launching device, the bazooka, was merely a tube, open at both ends, that fired an electrically triggered rocket. While the new weapon has less accuracy and range than a rifle or machine gun, it lent the individual soldier hitting power heretofore possible only with artillery guns.” (Planning Munitions for War).

Colonel Moore gave Kessenich the green light to turn over his preliminary work to Skinner, soon promoted to Major, whose one man rocket research bureau had grown twofold in June of 1941 with fortuitous addition of Lieutenant Edward G. Uhl, quickly proving to be gifted, intelligent, energetic and resourceful.

Skinner and Uhl, working closely with specialists at the Navy’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) and Bell Laboratories, carried out a series of increasingly encouraging tests using crude experimental rockets made by Skinner in his basement workshop.

One of these was configured to use a Springfield rifle’s long bayonet as a launching rail, apparently before Dr. Robert Goddard’s steel pipe “recoilless gun” from 1918 was reinvented as the best way to contain and guide the rocket without stunning or frying the gunner.

In the spring of 1942, Lieutenant Colonel W.T. Moore, another key mentor in the quest, presented the team with the T1 launcher, hastily built at Frankford Arsenal based on Skinner’s sketches and a rough prototype that Uhl, recently awarded the rank of Captain, had made.

The T1 was a slim steel tube with its 54 inch length dictated by the usual ignition-to-burnout time of the experimental rockets, featuring a wooden stock and electrical triggering grip, all closely resembling what was to follow. Along with the launcher came a supply of factory built parts to convert existing supplies of the 2.36 inch diameter M10 shaped charge grenade into a rocket.

The stage was set for what was soon to prove to be a wildly successful debut performance.

Do or Die?

As Skinner tells it in his 1944 article for the professional journal ARMY ORDNANCE and repeated in the Army‘s official history of the Ordnance Dept. in WWII, first firings of the new T1 launcher and its rocket grenade combo took place just one day ahead of a make-or-break demo in May 1942.

We learn from these that no small amount of courage was required on the part of the junior member of the team as premature detonations had no doubt been observed in earlier testing of the various rockets. Horrible injury or even death were very real possibilities.

Wisely, Uhl apparently improvised and donned some necessarily serious but comically appearing safety apparel before touching off the rudimentary rig.

Also, the arsenal-built launcher had everything needed except for a sight…

“Captain Uhl, dressed like ‘The man from Mars,’ fired the first rocket from his shoulder at the test ground of NDRC, and the next day demonstrated launcher and rockets at Aberdeen Proving Ground. He improvised a sight by using a piece of nail found on the ground. The new weapon was christened that day: its resemblance to the comedian Bob Burns’ bazooka led the colonel who fired some of the rockets to dub the device the ’bazooka.’ The name stuck.” (Planning Munitions for War)

Interestingly, Skinner doesn’t name “the colonel” who gave the weapon its colorful, immediately adopted and soon universally known nickname that was based on a zany musical instrument of the time. But our bet is on Colonel W.T. Moore who had facilitated building the T1 that was fired that day.

The ranking attendee at the Aberdeen event was Ordnance Major General G. M. Barnes, who was said to have been understandably impressed by Uhl scoring repeated hits with dummy warhead rockets on a moving tank. It is likely that Barnes’ favorable report quickly led to the newly-christened Bazooka’s next hurdle, a command performance for the U.S. Army‘s Chief of Staff, a four star General.

“A few days later a formal demonstration was held at Camp Sims, D.C., when high-ranking officials of the War and Navy Departments, Allied governments, and NDRC witnessed the real thing in action against a medium tank. British observers now opened negotiations for samples and Russian military staff members present at this trial immediately requested that they be supplied with some of the new launchers even though development was still in progress. General Marshall at once issued verbal orders that 5,000 launchers and 25,000 anti-tank and 5,000 practice rockets be procured.” (Planning Munitions for War)

While this kind of fast tracking is every armaments inventor’s dream, it must have been a nightmare for contract writing bureaucrats and for the “lucky” companies that got the super rush orders to build the damn things.

Fortunately, the very large and fully capable firm General Electric got the nod for launchers to fire freshly standardized M6 rockets being made simultaneously by the E.G. Budd Company. At a frenzied pace dictated by desperate wartime necessity, GE got only 30 days to prototype, test and manufacture the full order, delivering the final batch with just eighty-nine minutes to spare.

GE’s success with the initial M1 model and subsequent M1A1 was rewarded by follow-on contracts totaling more than 450,000 of these by war’s end.

(Editor’s Note: Part 2 will pick up the saga with urgently necessary improvements to the 1st production model Bazookas and how rocket launched shaped charge warheads were cleverly adopted, first by the Germans and then by the Soviets.)

The ubiquitous British Fairbairn-Sykes is a double-edged fighting knife developed by William Fairbairn and Eric Sykes while serving in China prior to World War II. With its 7-inch blade, the weapon is optimized for thrusting but is capable to inflict slashing cuts as well. Overall length is 11.5 inches. The F-S knife was used by British Commandos, airborne forces, the SAS and many other units, especially for the Normandy landing in June 1944. The style was copied and used by the OSS and Marine Raiders and other special forces, clandestine and raiding units.

By Robert G. Segel

Blades of some sort have been part of the soldier’s armament for centuries. From the earliest times of human history, it is the metal blade that enabled combatants to inflict serious or mortal wounds upon an enemy – up close and personal. Whether a spike on the tip of a lance, a short or long sword – either single or double edged, a dagger or stiletto, the battle blade it has many names and configurations.

Hand held bladed weapons tend to serve many uses for which therein lies a problem. The needle-like tip of a Fairbairn-Sykes fighting knife is an excellent piercing weapon but a broken tip is guaranteed if used to open a can of C-rations. A cavalry sword is designed for slashing and not for stealthy raiding parties. Like firearms, battle blades are designed for specific purposes and use. And while firearms allowed conflict to be done at a distance, there always is a need for a final personal defense weapon when certain situations arise.

Hand held battle blades are designed for stabbing, slicing or hacking and the size, shape and configuration of the blade pretty much determined their effectiveness. For instance, triangular blades were originally developed for stabbing and piercing through chainmail with the added benefit of producing a wound that was harder to stop or control the bleeding.

In the melee that is often the fight, a bladed weapon often had multiple usage options incorporated in the design to optimize the final results as manipulated by arm movements. This included a double edged blade to provide a slash cut whether swinging from right or left. The pommel often had a spike or cone shape to the end, called a “skull-crusher” to enable a backhanded injury after swinging through. Many battle blades also incorporated a brass, bronze or steel knuckle guard (aka brass knuckles) that often included spikes or flanges. While officially these “spiked brass knuckle” guards were to prevent an opponent from grabbing the knife-wielder’s hand, the more obvious devastating and terrifying brutal effect of being hit, particularly in the face, is self-evident.

Every army of every country around the world has some sort of combat blade – to this very day – usually in a more utilitarian purpose suitable for a number of purposes that include campsite activities, wire cutting and personal defense. The battle blades shown here are a sampling of some of the types used in World Wars I and II and are nowhere near a complete listing. And the number of commercially made hunting knives by well-known makers that soldiers carried on their own is not covered here. There are entire reference books on the subject whether by type, manufacturer, country or time period. But the battle blades shown here show the range of uses and applications in the first half of the 20th century.

Part II of Battle Blades will look at weapon mounted blades – bayonets – that were used in World War I and II.

The second Boutique Black Rifle. Note the San Tan Tactical lower receiver and the lack of forward assist. The rifle has a Surefire 60-round magazine in place.

By Christopher R. Bartocci

The last time this author checked, there were more than 50 manufacturers, both international and domestic, making various versions of the black rifle. The quality of these rifles range from excellent to embarrassingly poor. The standard seems to be a “Mil-Spec” rifle. This is quite interesting given the fact that Mil-Spec means the minimum standard for the U.S. govt. The Mil-Spec for the M4 is pretty much unchanged since 1995. The U.S. military M16/M4 has been pretty stagnant as far as improvements due mostly to military bureaucracy. Over these intervening years many companies in this industry have made dramatic improvements to the basic military design, making the best even better. This has been done through newer and improved materials, manufacturing processes, finishes and improving ergonomics of certain components. Any serious fan of the AR-15 is quite opinionated and particular on what they believe is the best. With the overabundance of options out there in barrels, rail systems, stocks, pistol grips, receivers, bolt carrier groups and magazines (just to mention a few), the major manufacturers essentially produce a plain generic M4 type rifle with the basic military furniture. The reason being is that whatever configuration they sell the rifle in, somebody will be unhappy with it and will go ahead and change it anyway. It would make no sense for a manufacturer to add kit to the rifles, which would increase the cost to the customer, when the customer will remove it and replace it with the kit of their choice. Good examples of high end rifles sold like this are the LMT Defender, Colt LE6920 and ArmaLite M15 – just some of the rifles sold in basic condition ready for the purchaser to custom kit to their liking.

The focus of this two-part series is to build four custom rifles, or boutique rifles, from hand selected parts this author believes to be some of the finest and most improved in the industry. This does not mean these are the best features and everything else is considered substandard. This just means these are the features this author preferred and an explanation why. Again, this is only in this author’s opinion. Part 1 will show two rifles, the first is based on Mega Arms matched receivers and the second is based on the new ambidextrous San Tan Tactical lower receiver. Part 2 has one rifle based on the AXTS A-DAC lower receiver and the second on the Aero Precision Gen 2 ambidextrous lower receiver.

The first rifle is based on the Mega Arms matched upper and lower receiver. Based on experience, Mega Arms manufactures some of the finest receivers in the industry. The machining is flawless and precision is top notch. The receivers are manufactured from 7075 T6 aluminum billets and have a very distinctive look to them. The magazine well is beveled allowing easier insertion of the magazine especially in low level light. There are gripping grooves on the front of the magazine well. The finish is identically matched on the upper and lower receivers. This receiver can be had with an ambidextrous bolt catch; however the receiver procured did not have this feature.

Starting from the rear of the rifle, the buttstock and receiver extension group are the VLTOR Modstock kit. The receiver extension has 5 positions and the top of the receiver extension is numbered and corresponds with the hole on top of the ModStock, so the user knows which position the stock is set at. This stock assembly is used in 3 of the 4 builds due to the quality and durability of the stock/receiver extension. The stock is manufactured of a very high impact polymer with a rubber butt pad that is completely anti-slip. There are two battery compartments that you do not have to remove the stock to get to. The stock may be configured in different ways; with the battery compartments installed on the stock it has that triangular shape of the LMT SOPMOD stock. The only negative found is for those with a beard – you may lose a few whiskers on the stock. The receiver extension end plate is manufactured by Full Circle Warrior and called the Close Quarter Defense. This is used by the U.S. Navy on all of the MK18 rifles and many other rifles. This is also issued on the M4A1 carbines issued to SOCOM. It offers two sling attachment points on the left side and one on the right side. The recoil assembly used in this rifle is not the standard buffer and action spring but a highly improved performance system designed and sold by JP Enterprises. The Silent Captured Spring is a one piece unit that slides into the receiver extension. The unit consists of a polymer rear bumper, three weights in the front with a smaller diameter recoil spring. There is no contact of the recoil spring with the receiver extension; therefore no noise in the stock. The system can be bought with a spring package, as well for those who want to tune the recoil spring along with the bolt carrier and adjustable gas system to get the lightest recoil by balancing the entire system to the ammunition being fired. More than 1,000 rounds have been fired through this rifle and the assembly has functioned perfectly. It was nice not hearing the noise in the stock.

The lower receiver was customized with several excellent components. Starting with the rear takedown pin and the front pivot pin, this set was manufactured by Yankee Hill Machine and is called the EZ Pull Takedown Pin Set (YHM-7284). These pins have oversized heads to make separating the upper and lower receivers faster and easier and are easy to grab onto without tools. The selector lever is manufactured by Battle Arms Development called the Ambidextrous Safety Selector (BAD ASS). This universal selector allows you to configure the selector in any way you wish by providing different levers that screw on. The configuration chosen was the standard size lever on the left and the half size lever on the right. The profile of the levers makes it easy to manipulate even if you are wearing gloves. The magazine release button is manufactured by Seekins Precision. It is manufactured from billet aluminum and has a sharp checkering on it ensuring the trigger finger will not slip off at an inopportune time; giving a unique look to the rifle. The magazine release is ambidextrous and manufactured by Norgon and is probably the best in the industry. This is easily manipulated by the trigger finger of the left handed shooter or the thumb of the left hand. It has seen significant service worldwide including the Canadian Armed Forces used on all of their C7A2 mid-life upgrade rifles, as well as by the U.S. military as part of the M4 product improvement.

The charging handle is manufactured by Mega Arms and it too is manufactured from billet aluminum and has a no frills standard charging handle latch. The forward assist is the traditional teardrop style, manufactured by Iron Viper. This is a steel forward assist with a checkering pattern that ensures non slippage and the steel ensured it will not break, which is what the early tear drop forward assists were known to do. This was added to two of the four rifles built. The ejection port cover was laser scribed with the Gadsden symbol and marked “Don’t Tread on Me” by Molon Labe Engraving. Just a little political statement but they offer many different customized gun parts and more. The rear back up sight is the A.R.M.S. #40L-P. This is an extremely well made low profile backup sight made out of metal. The sight has a windage knob that has .50 MOA increments at 100 yards as well as a flip down aperture enabling a large low level light aperture. For quick fire, there is a blade cut in the top of the apertures for quick alignment with the front sight.

The bolt carrier group chosen for this rifle is the LWRC International enhanced bolt and bolt carrier. This group was submitted to the U.S. Government for the M4 Product Improvement program. This bolt carrier is very unique. One of the most common issues with a standard bolt carrier is the gas key screws coming loose or break causing gas loss in turn short stroking, where the gas leaks when the key mates with the carrier. The LWRC carrier takes their piston carrier with the “tombstone” machined into it, drills a vertical hole and then a horizontal hole in it. The key is screwed into the face of the tombstone and then pinned in place. There is no point of leakage due to no screws so no place for the gas to leak. This eliminates the main problem associated with this component. Also, the carrier is nickel-boron coated for ease of cleaning and better reliability. The angled surfaces help to displace crud and fouling. The hole for the firing pin retainer has been modified so the cotter pin goes in vertically (strongest position) increasing the service life of the pin. The LWRCI bolt has many improvements over the standard as well. First, the extractor is far more aggressive and grips a significantly larger portion of the rim of the cartridge case. The extractor has the “lobster tail” shape rear and uses two extractor springs. The springs are in a slight angle and have polymer buffers in them. The bolt is made of a stronger material and has an additional improvement in the bolt face, a crud grove around the perimeter of the breech face, which then allows brass chips, primer sealant or crud a place to go rather than rest on the breech face where it could cause trouble.

The barrel chosen for this rifle is a 16 inch cold hammer forged barrel manufactured by FNH USA and finished off at Spikes Tactical. Hammer forging has proven in machine gun barrels to last longer for accuracy and for heavy use. The U.S. military has refused hammer forged barrels for the M16/M4 family of weapons because Rock Island said that hammer forging cannot duplicate the sharp leading edge of the button cut rifling, which means decreased accuracy. Where the hammer forged barrels shine is the less sharp edges; without them the barrel lasts longer. The barrel has a chrome plated bore and chamber, which is another additional characteristic of a longer lasting and more reliable chamber. The other feature of this barrel chosen as a reliability enhancement was a midlength gas system. The carbine has always been known to be less reliable than the 20-inch full rifle. This is primarily due to the closer gas port to the chamber. This virtually doubles the port pressure on the carbine causing higher cyclic rate and more importantly speeds up the extraction process. The residual pressure has not fully dropped when the cartridge case is being extracted so the extractor has to work that much harder to pull the cartridge case out and sometimes will result in a failure to extract. The mid-length gas system finds that sweet spot in-between the rifle and the carbine allowing further dwell time, which allows the cartridge case to be extracted much easier creating a more reliable system. For the front sight, the A.R.M.S. #41-B Silhouette sight was used. For an AR-15 aficionado, the classic look of the triangular front sight is really “tacticool.” The A.R.M.S. sight folds down out of the way and when needed, with only the lift of a finger, engages the front sight and it has the same appearance as the standard front sight post. It also has a bayonet lug. This particular one was installed by Spikes Tactical and was pinned in place. A.R.M.S. does make bolt-on versions of this front sight. This author does not care for bolt-on front sights. After several experiences test firing rifles, particularly running them hard and on automatic fire, it was found that the bolted-on front sight bases will migrate forward first causing short stroke and then completely not cycling due to the gas being completely cut off. This does not happen with the pinned-on front sight base as it is secure and reliable in all conditions. The Smith Enterprises Vortex flash hider was chosen for this build. This flash suppressor is legendary in the industry and well known for being the most effective flash hider in the world. With proper military ammunition (loaded with flash inhibitor in the propellant) this flash hider virtually eliminates any flash signature. Over the years this has been well documented and this author has fired AR-type rifles with this flash suppressor in low level light and complete darkness and it performs as advertised.

The rail system chosen for this rifle is manufactured by Centurion Arms. The C4 Midlength Cutout (P/N 0609MC) is an incredible rail that is designed specifically for a midlength barrel with a front sight base. The front is cut out so the rail extends on the sides just ahead of the front sight base giving more real-estate of rail and protects the front sight base. The machining is first rate. What is really nice about this is that it does not require a special barrel nut or tools to install, just a couple of Allen keys. This rifle was built with just a barrel nut so the rail was placed around the barrel nut and tightened, and then the front two screws were installed and that was it. If you were to have a rifle with the Delta/Slipring on it, you would need to remove that assembly. Easiest way is to cut the ring off with a Dremel tool and pull the spring weld and snap ring off with a pair of pliers. Or to do it the hard way, the gas tube must be removed and then the barrel removed. You can remove the delta ring and spring weld after you remove the snap ring. With this rail, the barrel is fully free floated increasing accuracy and cooling. It takes all the weight of accessories off of the barrel, which is a big advantage. The vertical pistol grip is from Archangel Manufacturing. Their heavy duty aluminum pistol grip is a fine quality machined grip that is strong and robust. It is heavier than most of the ones out there but no doubt stronger. Lastly, Manta Rail Protectors were put on the exposed 3, 6 and 12 o’clock rails. These are the best rail covers in the industry. They are built out of a proprietary material that can withstand incredible temperatures. We had gotten the rail up to 500°F and the grip panels were around 60°F. The rail protector on the 3 o’clock position also hid the wire going to the InsightTech M3X tactical flashlight cord that went from the flashlight into the rail protector down to the pressure pad, which was in a pocket in the Manta vertical grip sleeve placed over the Archangel aluminum grip.

The second rifle was built on a new receiver to the market but one that shows great promise, San Tan Tactical out of Chandler, Arizona. This lower was designed to be completely ambidextrous. The receiver is machined from a 7075 T6 billet and then anodized to a flat black finish. There is an ambidextrous bolt catch on the right side below the rear of the ejection port cover with an aggressive stippling on the lever to ensure the finger does not slip off. The magazine catch on the right has the same external stippling. On the right side the bolt catch is in the same location as any other AR-type rifle but with the stippling on it. The ambidextrous magazine catch is located near the trigger guard so the left handed shooter can use his trigger finger. There are two quick detach ports at the rear of the lower behind the rear takedown pin. The magazine well is generously beveled to make speed magazine changes as well as loading in low level to no light. The front of the magazine well has vertical grooves to stop slippage of the shooter’s hand. The machining is top rate, no machining/tool marks to be found. There is a considerable amount of attention to detail to produce an aesthetically pleasing and precision made receiver.

Starting from the rear of the rifle, the buttstock and receiver extension group are the VLTOR Modstock kit; the same as used and described in the first rifle. Due to the quick detach mounts at the rear of the receiver, a standard receiver extension endplate was used. The takedown and front pivot pins chosen are manufactured by Battle Arms Development and are called the Enhanced Pins Set (EPS). These pins are machined from stock steel bars, case hardened and finished in manganese phosphate. These patent pending pins improve gripping surface and pull strength without the use of oversized heads and are very low profile. The tips of the pins are +0.030 inches over the Mil-Spec pins making them easier to push in and out. There is also a cone shaped recess at both ends for ease of using tools to push the pin out and not slipping. The selector lever is manufactured by Battle Arms Development called the Ambidextrous Safety Selector (BAD ASS). This universal selector allows you to configure the selector in any way you wish by providing different levers that screw on. The configuration chosen was the standard size lever on the left and the half size lever on the right. The profile of the levers makes it easy to manipulate even if you are wearing gloves. The pistol grip chosen is the Magpul MIAD pistol grip. This pistol grip was actually used on all four builds due to it being the most comfortable by a long margin for the author. The grip comes with three different backstraps (small, medium and large) and two front straps (with and without finger groove). This can be customized for the size of the shooter’s hand. Since this author has large size hands, the large backstrap was used and the grip felt excellent. There are multiple cores for the grip as well. They have ones that hold batteries, oil bottle and a spare bolt.

The trigger chosen for this build is the High Performance Firearms HPERFIRE. The “service” trigger model 24 offers several improvements over many of the current designs. These include: faster restroke, fast and steady reset, very clean hammer release, pretravel is flat and smooth, user-adjustable low trigger weights without screws, and a much faster than stock lock-up and heavier hammer fall. This was accomplished in two ways. The trigger weight depends on sear friction. HPERFIRE changed the mechanical advantage to reduce the trigger weight by changing the shape and location of the hammer and trigger sears. They added two over-center toggle springs that further reduce friction while slightly increasing the hammer fall energy with the two toggle springs. The hammer fall energy is significantly increased compared to Mil-Spec hammer/hammer spring. One of the major issues with reduction of trigger weight by reducing the power of the hammer spring is the possibility of misfires due to a light hammer strike on hard primers. The toggle system can prevent this insuring reliable ignition. All in all, faster, higher hammer energy, faster lock up and a smooth light weight trigger is now possible. This gives the shooter several advantages that include an anti-flinch action, constant weight stroke, single stage trigger that the shooter can shoot slow or fast. This has to be one of the finest trigger groups this author has ever tested.

The charging handle chosen is manufactured by Precision Reflex Company and is called the Gas Buster. This patented charging handle is designed with use of a sound suppressor in mind where it directs the over pressure gas to the right side of the rifle and not into the face of the shooter. It also is much larger than the standard making it easier for the operator to grasp not only the charging handle itself but the latch as well. The upper receiver chosen is a custom receiver manufactured by Aero Precision. What is custom about it is it is a standard M4 flat-top upper minus the forward assist. Going back to the inception of this rifle, Stoner was against the use of a forward assist. He felt it would cause way more problems than it would solve. You should never force a round into the chamber. If the bolt will not lock, the rifle is telling you something is wrong and to get that cartridge out of the chamber. This author has fired hundreds of thousands of rounds out of this weapon system and has never encountered a malfunction the forward assist would fix. I was pleased to see this upper put on the market. The rear back up sight is the A.R.M.S #40L. This is an extremely well made low profile backup sight made out of metal. The sight has a windage knob that has .75 MOA increments at 100 yards as well as a flip down aperture enabling a large low level light aperture. For quick fire, there is a blade cut in the top of the apertures for quick alignment with the front sight.

The bolt carrier group chosen for this rifle is a standard Colt bolt carrier group. The carrier does not have forward assist notches but other than that is a standard carrier. The bolt is also just a standard Colt bolt with the only modification being the insertion of the rubber O-ring over the extractor to increase extraction reliability. Colt and LMT bolts are this authors preference as well as any other company that goes the extra mile to proof test and magnetic inspect the bolt to check for early signs of stress fracturing. Is this necessary? No, but it is just a little more insurance on the quality of the bolt when it has left the factory.

The barrel chosen for this build is a Lewis Machine & Tool (LMT) 16-inch barrel. The bore and chamber are chrome plated as per Mil-Specs. The rifling is 1 turn in 7 so it will handle projectile weights from 55 to 80 grains. The barrel has the M4 profile with the step cut for the M203 grenade launcher. The front sight base is a standard front sight base pinned onto the barrel to ensure full life reliability of gas leakage. The LMT barrels are well known for their machinegun-like reliability and durability. These button cut barrels deliver 1 to 2 MOA all day long with good quality ammunition. This particular barrel shot just over an inch from a bench using Black Hills Ammunition MK262 Mod1 77 grain open tip match ammunition as well as with Remington .223 Rem 77 grain open tip match. The muzzle device chosen for this one is rare and not often found in the U.S. It is manufactured by Colt Canada specifically at the request of the Danish Army for a shortened version of the C9 light machine gun. The new muzzle device needed to be compatible with their blank firing attachment and reduce flash with a shorter barrel. Another need was to have cutting grooves on the flash hider that would assist in removal of a sound suppressor. The bottom of the flash suppressor is left solid like that of the A2 compensator.

The free floating rail used on this build is manufactured by Otis Technology. Originally, this rail was entered into the Forward Rail Assembly Kit. The rail is made with the A.R.M.S. Inc. patented barrel nut mounting system and highly refined to meet the U.S. government requirements. The barrel nut is the best way to attach a rail; you must remove the delta ring, spring weld and snap ring. If you were to leave those components on, there would not be enough “bite” to solidly mount the rail. Otis Tech developed a hydraulic cutter that would cut the delta ring off, and then you would use a pair of pliers to remove the snap ring and spring weld. The front of the rail is held on by two mounting screws. This is an incredibly made rail system, extremely durable and aesthetically pleasing. The rails are covered with the Manta rail covers. The Manta Rail protectors were put on the exposed 3, 6 and 12 o’clock rails. These are the best rail covers in the industry. They are built out of a proprietary material that withstands incredible temperatures. We had gotten the rail up to 500°F and the grip panels were around 60°F. The vertical pistol grip attached to the rail is a Barska (AW11173) and is made from high impact polymer. Over the grip is a Manta grip sleeve, which greatly increases holding in any climatic conditions. The sleeve also has a pocket for the pressure pad of any light or laser that one would want to install.

There are some components you will see used multiple times such as the Magpul MIAD grip, A.R.M.S. folding front sight base, A.R.M.S. folding rear backup sight and the VLTOR stock assembly. These components happen to be ones this author preferred over all others. In Part 2 of this series you will see two additional rifles built based on the incredible AXTS lower receiver and the Aero Precision ambidextrous lower.

“Navy Riverines are the Navy’s premier force for patrolling the gaps in the seams of Maritime security. We operate along inland waterways projecting combat force when necessary and providing persistent presence as part of the Navy’s support to Irregular Warfare operations and the Long War on Terror.” Captain Anthony Krueger, Commander, Riverine Group ONE

The “Brown Water Navy” is back in force and elements of Captain Kruger’s command have been conducting operations on Iraq’s waterways without a break since February 2007. Proudly carrying forward the legacy of the U.S. Navy’s famed River Patrol Force of the Vietnam War, today’s hard-charging Riverines are superbly equipped, armed and trained for a wide range of specialized missions.

Their weapons are standard issue but there is little that is ordinary in their operational environment. While extreme temperatures, dust and precipitation are familiar foes to all combatants, Riverines face special challenges in maximizing the effectiveness of their guns while underway and during landside missions.

SAR talked at length with several experienced Riverines about these challenges. Their observations, we believe, will prove useful for a variety of warfighters on land, sea and in the air. This first installment in a two-part series affords a close look into specialized Riverine watercraft, the versatile array of crew-served weapons aboard and the dedicated Sailors who man the guns.

Fast Boats and Machine Guns

SAR’s first encounter with Detachment 1 of Riverine Squadron 3 came on the morning of April 2, 2009, at Mile Hammock Bay on Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, as they were preparing for another long training day. Heavy overcast, fog and driving rain emphasized the challenges of operating in all weather conditions but the hardy Riverines were eager to get underway for long-scheduled live fire maneuvers.

Lieutenant (Junior Grade) William F. Ashley, Det 1’s Officer in Charge, explained that Lejeune’s range safety requirements necessitated a careful visual reconnaissance to make sure no watercraft had strayed into the bay’s designated firing area. Unfortunately, the weather was so bad that Range Control’s small fixed wing aircraft couldn’t fly.

But waiting for a weather change that would allow range clearance afforded a good time for the requested interviews. We climbed up into the back of one of the unit’s heavily armored trucks to meet with two Riverines who had gamely volunteered for the task; Gunners Mate 1st Class (EXW/SW) Adam John Sanchez and Gunners Mate Chief (EXW/SW) Geovarrie “Geo” M. Lopez, both well seasoned Sailors.

The 29 year old Sanchez hails from Eagle River, Alaska, where he spent some time as a fishing guide. His ten years in the Navy included service on USS Spruance Guided Missile Destroyer before volunteering for Riverine two years ago. He soon deployed to Iraq with Det 1 and earned the Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal. He has been a Boat Captain for one year and his additional skills include Range Safety Officer and Crew Served Weapons Instructor.

Lopez, 35 years old, calls Key West, Florida, his hometown. He’s had a number of different assignments during seventeen years in the Navy, notably aboard the USS Gettysburg Guided Missile Cruiser. Volunteering for Riverine, he has two years with Det 1 and its Iraq deployment, earning the Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal. Lopez is a Boat Captain and a qualified Small Arms Instructor.

It worked well to interview them together because each one’s observations tended to bring additional insights from the other.

SAR: Why did you join the Navy and then transition to Riverine?

Sanchez: I considered a career in law enforcement and knew that Navy experience would be a good start. I have military in the family and they recommended the Navy. I asked for assignment to Riverine to ‘ramp up my career’ and get some combat experience.

Lopez: It was in my blood, my father’s also in the Navy. I’d seen my father’s experiences and wanted that part of my life as well. I went from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division to Yeoman in Navy. I volunteered for Riverine, a job with action and combat experience.

SAR: Are you personally interested in firearms and shooting?

Sanchez: Oh yes, I’m a Gunners Mate (GM).

Lopez: I do like shooting, I love guns and it happens to be my job also as a GM.

SAR: What schools and training have prepared you for your current duties?

Sanchez: I have 0814 NEC (Navy Enlisted Code) for CSWI (Crew Served Weapons Instructor) through STS (Navy contractor Special Tactical Services), been through GM ‘A’ school (initial qualification) then ‘C’ school (advanced) as a Vertical Launch System Tech; also Marine Corps 0331 Machine Gunner Course. It’s outstanding training, intensive tests, very detailed. More landside shooting and then in RSO (Range Safety Officer) school we did more of the waterside shooting.

Lopez: GM ‘A’ school, 5 inch cannon, Small Arms Instructor school at Little Creek, landside shooting at Marine Corps 0331 Machine Gunner Course, and waterside starting here during this training cycle preparing for deployment.

SAR: Do you have the opportunity to train using computer simulators?

Lopez: No, we do actual training on the boats. Parked dry runs to get familiar with your stations so when you actually get on the water the only thing you have to get is your ‘sea legs’ to get your balance. No simulation, always reality with blanks then live ammo. We shoot underway against static targets.

Sanchez: Same training cycle. We all went through the 0331 Machine Gunner Course for the Marine Corps, helped a lot. They definitely pound in the information and that helps a lot. I had simulators in the 0814 CSWI school but as far as the rest of the unit, no. A couple others have had the CSWI course as well. STS did a good job in teaching, outstanding training, probably one of the better schools I’ve been to ever.

SAR: Is there enough time allocated for training?

Sanchez: Yes, time has been OK but very condensed. The gunners are learning what they need to learn. Maybe expand the time a bit for a little more proficiency but overall it’s outstanding training.

Lopez: Definitely more training is always better. As of right now its doing the job and I know it’s getting people’s proficiency up on the weapons. New gunners on their first deployment are jumpin’ right in. I know I can rely on those guys on the guns to do their job.

SAR: Night shooting?

Sanchez: Absolutely, night operations are a major mission. NVGs (night vision goggles) PVS-14 monocular we’re using right now. PEQ-15 lasers mounted to each of the crew served weapons. Good gear even in fog and rain. The weather hasn’t been fantastic lately for training and we’ve been doing pretty good.

Lopez: Definitely what we need to be doing, most of our work is at nighttime. That’s really when you find out if the gunners are comfortable with what they’re doing. Anybody can do it in the daytime. The comfort zone for those gunners at nighttime changes when they have that night vision on and one of their eyes can’t see. They start shooting that gun and the flash wipes everything out. You find out their comfort levels and proficiency at nighttime.

SAR: What do you teach to compensate for that — close one eye?

Sanchez: Yeah, that’s one technique. Another is to move the NVG away from your face and look under it. It works because of the tracers once you’re on target. You use your laser to initiate the contact through NVGs and once you’re on target you can look underneath them (using tracers) and that works as well.

SAR: Do you use parachute flares for illumination?

Sanchez: We have the capability but tactically that’s not done. We’re lighting ourselves up enough with the muzzle flashes. We’re kind of in a unique situation because we have one way in and one way out on the river. There’s no sense in illuminating us any more than we need to.

SAR: What recommendations to the chain to improve operator skill with weapons?

Sanchez: It’s already being done. Riverine Group is constantly improving through critiques of training and operations. Our situation as RIVRON 3, we’re able to get the better training product because RIVRON 1 and 2 go through before us.

Lopez: Definitely, we have the best product that has been generated through the training cycle. And because we’re the first detachment in our squadron, we’re able to help the other two dets for their training cycle. Whatever we critique in our after action reports group can make some more improvements and it keeps on evolving and they get better training.

SAR: How about the Riverine Security Teams (RSTs)?

Sanchez: They’re in a different training pipeline; then we meet to do an interoperability where we all work together.

Lopez: Each Detachment has RSTs and their training is specific to the landside. They can’t do their mission without us and we can’t do our mission without them. They’re boat riders but they’re also trained as crew served weapon gunners. If one of our guys takes a hit they know what to do and can take over as well.

(Editor’s Note: Part 2 provides a detailed look at Detachment 1’s Riverine Security Team)

SAR: Your Detachment has three RPBs (Riverine Patrol Boats) with three weapon stations and one RAB (Riverine Assault Boat) with five weapon stations. Comment on each of the Crew Served Weapons on the boats, starting with the M240’s reliability and suitability for most missions.

Sanchez: If you take care of it, it will take care of you. It’s a great weapon you can be as surgical with it as you want with it depending on the proficiency of the gunner. Absolutely reliable.

Lopez: The 240 is very accurate and it’s like a workhorse. You can take it on shore when we have to provide security on ground for our RSTs so it serves two roles on the boat.

SAR: You have experience with the M60, how about a comparison?

Sanchez: The 60 is more of a land based assault weapon but the 240 is a better mounted 7.62mm machine gun.

Lopez: My experience with the M60, I mostly shot it off of ships and on a couple of ranges on shore. I like the 240 better, once I shoot it I’m on target and it’s surgical.

SAR: What needs improvement with the M240?

Sanchez: You’ve gotta take care of the gas regulators…when we’re firing it gets dirty very quickly.

SAR: And the .50 caliber M2HB?

Sanchez: It’s been around forever for a reason. It’s a good gun if you need a hard target taken out, that’s why we have it on board. Longer range, heavier bullet, greater penetration. If you take care of it, it will take care of you. As long as you do those inspections, make sure none of those parts are worn too much – the normal inspection process – it’s a good gun as well.

Lopez: The amount of fifty caliber lead it puts down, it’s definitely something I would want on my boats at all times. Great against hard targets and when it goes off they know you got a fifty cal. – everybody can hear you out there.

SAR: Is headspace and timing tricky for the younger sailors?

Sanchez: With the training we’ve had its been pounded into their heads. We’ve never had any issues. Just part of settin’ up the gun.

Lopez: Just second nature so they get on their gun and know they have to do it.

SAR: Any recommendations for improvements to the M2HB? Maybe a quick-change barrel?

Sanchez: I’ve heard about it but it’s not needed. If you lay enough rounds downrange on target hopefully that target’s down before you need to do a barrel change.

Lopez: It’s been around so long that pretty much all the improvements have been already done on it. I’m happy with it personally; I don’t have any issues with it.

SAR: How about the 40mm Mark 19?

Sanchez: That’s a serious weapon as well. We’ve got the Mod 3 and it’s a good gun. We haven’t used it as much as we would have liked because the ammunition is a little hard to come by. But all the guys have the training needed to use the weapon properly. Some people are kinda skittish about it – it’s a very violent weapon – blowback operated with a very heavy bolt.

Lopez: I love that weapon. Ammo is harder to come by so shooting it – range time – is limited; but like all the other weapons, the guys have had training on it.

SAR: Is the MK 19 not usually mounted on the boats?

Lopez: We can take it out and it just depends on our missions, but 90% of the time we’ve got the 240 and fifty cal.

Sanchez: On our heavy mount (at the stern) we normally use the 50 cal. It’s more accurate and causes less collateral damage.

SAR: What would be the kind of mission you would need the MK 19 for?

Lopez: It depends on the threat assessment for the area of operations.

(The Detachment’s OIC has been silently observing the interview and now speaks up).

Ashley: Like the chief said, its mission dependent. If we were going to do a fire support mission we would take it out. Sometimes at least one of the four boats will have it mounted.

SAR: So your boats would be providing a kind of Naval Gunfire Support?

Ashley: I guess that’s one way of putting it. It all depends on what kind of environment we’re operating in. Unless it’s a “permissive environment” (few civilians, more open space) we tend to scale back on the MK19.

SAR: Tell us about the 7.62mm GAU-17 Minigun.

Sanchez: I’m a believer in it now. Originally not so much – probably because of lack of knowledge. Now that I’ve been through more training it’s definitely one of my favorite weapons.

Lopez: Some experience shooting it from ships but obviously totally different from this type of environment on boats. The only problems I had back then was with the batteries and battery chargers. Here we’re running them right off the electrical circuits (24 volt DC) on the boat. The weapon system itself is impressive – 3,000 rounds per minute. When you engage something or someone with that you’re gonna scare ‘em (smiles). Especially when you have four of them on board, one on each boat, going off at one time.

SAR: Have you been in a situation where you’ve needed that high volume of firepower?

Sanchez: I haven’t been in that situation but that’s what we’re training for right now. It’s one of those things that’s nice to have when you need it.

SAR: What needs improvement?

Lopez: Nothing at all. Very reliable.

Sanchez: The improvements have been made now that we’re using the Dillon Aero feeder-delinker. I guess there were some issues before but we personally haven’t had any. It shoots fine for us and we’ve put plenty of rounds through it.

SAR: What special maintenance needs to be done with them – particularly while operating in a semi-salt water environment?

Lopez: Nothing special at all, just more attention to detail. Not just with the GAU but all of our weapons. Constantly have to be on them cleaning, wiping, making sure when we squeeze that trigger we can get that end result.

SAR: How about ‘tricks of the trade,’ anything that’s not in the maintenance manuals?

Sanchez: We just use CLP (standard issue Cleaner Lubricant Preservative). It works.

Lopez: During deployment in sandy and dusty conditions just a thin coat of CLP. We try to keep it kind of dry. You don’t want too much. That sand builds up, cakes up on the weapon. Use just enough to keep it running. Obviously, when you’re out here in this kind of environment (heavy rain at Camp Lejeune) you’ll apply more CLP.

Sanchez: Probably when it’s raining, to constantly have dry rags on hand. But we bring that stuff out so I don’t have any issues. We keep everything the way it needs to be so it fires.

SAR: Any ‘wish list’ for accessories that you believe will improve the effectiveness of the detachment’s crew served weapons?

Sanchez: ‘Fifteens’ (AN/PVS-15) might be nice as far as NVGs (Night Vision Goggles). The dual viewfinders give better depth perception but we can still do the job fine with that we’ve got (PVS-14).

SAR: How about what’s mounted on the weapon itself? Like a Night Vision Sight?

Lopez: Once you start firing that scope wouldn’t work (because of muzzle flash). Our weapon mounted laser sight is good when used with NVGs.

SAR: In training do you use the 1-in-5 tracer to ball mix?

Lopez: For 7.62 yes, but not for .50 cal. We haven’t had any of that yet.

Sanchez: We adjust on impact.

SAR: How about different types of ammunition like .50 caliber APIT (Armor Piercing Incendiary Tracer)?

Lopez: For training, it’s just standard ball. The demand for APIT is greater in theater (Iraq).

SAR: Lieutenant, is there a problem getting .50 caliber tracer ammo?

Ashley: It would just be more about what the command (authorizes), what these guys get before they go on training operations. It hasn’t been an issue as far as getting it.

SAR: When you deploy in country is tracer and APIT available?

All: Yes.

SAR: The Coast Guard has some special 7.62mm short range ammunition for use in certain congested areas.

Ashley: There’s talk of us going to it because it opens up a lot of ranges that we could use. Right now it’s not in our allowance.

SAR: Any recommendations for changes to mounts? We talked about how the MK 19 really shakes that heavy weapon mount.

Sanchez: The MK 93 mount has buffers underneath the weapon that absorb a lot of it and the coxswains – the drivers of the boat – adjust however they need to while you’re firing the fifty or the MK 19 from the aft heavy weapon mount.

SAR: Both of those weapons (M2 and Mk 19) are recoil operated. Do you have to tweak the recoil buffer so that you don’t have cycling problems?

Lopez: We’ve never experienced that.

SAR: So the guys at NCWC Crane who developed the MK 93 mount must have gotten it right. How about the mounts for the 7.62mm guns?

Sanchez: They’re hard mounts with no recoil buffer. We haven’t had any issues at all with them. Also, all the mounts have adjustable traversing safety stops so you can’t shoot your own boat.

SAR: Would you recommend any changes to how the ammunition is carried on the mounts? Or add a rain shield or splash shield? Anything?

Sanchez: I’m happy with the way we’re running. I like it personally.

Lopez: It just depends on what mission you have and where you’re operating. Is it going to hamper you when you’re going to reload, what happens when the gun gets hot from shooting? It brings up more questions. Keep it simple.

SAR: What’s the next level of maintenance and repair for your weapons when they break down?

Lopez: We’re self-sufficient on a lot of things but we know when we have to send a weapon outside the command because we just can’t fabricate those parts. The knowledge they (specially trained armorers in the detachment) have keeps our weapons going.

SAR: But the turn-around time doesn’t leave you with an empty gun station?

Sanchez: No, we have plenty to fill in with. If we have to we can pull from another detachment but it’s not really an issue, ever.

SAR: Describe your most recent foreign deployment.

Sanchez: We did a seven month deployment (to Iraq) out of Lake Thar Thar and the Thar Thar River. Support missions for just about every unit out there. Inserting and extracting RSTs, sweeping villages and gathering intel. Stopping boats, looking for contraband, any illegal activities.

Ashley: We were focused a lot on ‘atmospheric collection,’ census type data to get a feel for who was operating on the water, living on the water, kind of the cultural aspects of it. Less intrusive and more to let the Iraqi people know we’re here to provide security. ‘Help us help you.’

SAR: Any firefights?

Sanchez: We were nearby a few of them but we didn’t actually have any direct support to those.

SAR: What lessons did you learn about yourself as a result of your deployment?

Sanchez: I can withstand mass amounts of heat (laughs). You’d think it was 200 degrees on some of those days.

Lopez: We weren’t really prepared for 120 degree plus heat but once we got there we knew what to do; hydration, how to take care of your body, hygiene. All those things that people take for granted when they’re stateside come into play when your resources are limited. With adequate training you can overcome anything. Then there’s patience, dealing with people, language barriers, plus you have to deal with civilians, the Iraqi Army and Police Forces. You have to have patience for that, taking your time in dealing with them.

SAR: How about your boatmates?

Sanchez: Same thing for them; I’m sure I can speak for them. They did an outstanding job over there. Got the job done.

SAR: Your body armor is heavy, hot and bulky and more so at 120 degrees. Do you wear it at all times on missions?

Sanchez: All the time. When you’re underway there’s a little bit of breeze (but) only when you’re moving and then it’s like a hair dryer blowin’ in your face.

SAR: Spend the night on the boats?

Lopez: When you go out on a mission and you get caught out there however long you stayed out there. We operated out in the field close to where our base was.

SAR: How cold does it get in the wintertime over there?

Lopez: Rainy and cold about like this (Camp Lejeune).

SAR: Where’s the next deployment?

Sanchez: They’re telling us anywhere at this point.

Ashley: Right now it’s up in the air. The way the rotation works there are successive squadrons in Iraq (1, 2 and 3). The mission in Iraq is ramping down so we could be possibly sent anywhere there are rivers.

SAR: Afghanistan have rivers?

Ashley: They do. I believe it’s one river that floods pretty regularly, with rapids and rocks (smiles). I’d be really surprised if they sent us up there

SAR: What advice do you have for Riverines, GMs in particular, preparing for their first deployment?

Lopez: Project what you need, supply-wise. We could be going somewhere way out of the supply system. Take what you think you’ll need and that way you’ll have a stockpile; oils, rags, cleaning materials, solvents. Everything you need for your weapons. Prepare yourself to an excess and you’ll be good to go.

SAR: How about mental preparation?

Sanchez: A pretty standard thing. In the military you do what you gotta do and get the job done.

SAR: Is there much turnover in personnel? How many new guys since last deployment?

Sanchez: We’ve got about three guys (laughs). They catch on fast and they’re caught up now. No issues, a very smooth process.

SAR: What’s the hardest thing for the younger sailors, the ones on their first deployment?

Lopez: I guess they get frustrated. Not having that contact with family.

Sanchez: I think they’ve got it good (laughs), real good.

Lopez: You take what you need. You can get ‘care packages’, stuff like that. You bring your snacks and basically take care of your own comforts.

SAR: How about the brotherhood of a boat crew, do you tend to stay together or do they mix and match?

Lopez: Initially that’s how it was but now we’re starting to operate by mixing the boat crews and I think that’s better. You get to know other people but the training is more standardized. That way it’s not ‘this is how my boat crew does it’ (but) there’s a standard format. For example if someone was gone, taken out, injured, I can take another person from another crew. He’s got to know exactly what to do. I know he can operate exactly like the previous member.

SAR: Help us understand this from an Army or Marine Corps perspective. If you’re in a combat arms unit it’s your squad, fire team, tank or gun crew. It’s going to be pretty much the same men the whole time.

Lopez: Yes, but people transfer, people get injured or go on leave. So you have to supplement your crew sometimes with other personnel. Also, now that we have the RAB (Riverine Assault Boat) in our detachment there are two more gunner stations. An RPB crew is generally five people but on the RAB you have five weapon stations so you have more people on that one boat crew. You have to supplement them from other boat crews. It’s generally a mixture of boat teams. Instances like that happen regularly.

SAR: But for the most part individual boat crews stay together?

Both: Yes.

Sanchez: We’ve already been on deployment with the majority of these guys – everybody’s pretty tight.

SAR: Have you had to throw anybody overboard?

Lopez: (laughs) No, not yet.

SAR: What would you like to say to young men about joining the Navy and why they should choose Riverine Forces? Fast boats and guns?

Sanchez: If you’re dedicated and you’ve got good motivation and you want to get into a combat environment I recommend Riverine to anybody who has all those three things.

Lopez: A young man coming into this environment fresh out of Boot Camp; it’s a totally different environment than ‘Big Blue Navy.’ You’re going to have to be – first thing – self sufficient, a lot of initiative, someone to rely on, dependable. This is a small unit, we do things by ourselves; we’re away from headquarters, away from ‘Big Navy.’ Wherever we’re deployed we’re always operating by ourselves.

SAR: What have we missed?

Lopez: You’ve covered it. The training is even better than when we initially started this command, the squadron. On the crew served weapons, everything. It’s evolving and I think it’s going in the right direction.

Coming Soon

Join the Riverines of Detachment 1 as they maneuver their boats in the tight confines of a brown water range, then lay down a torrent of suppressive fire to support a “hot extraction” of their Riverine Security Teams.

Find Out More:

Navy Expeditionary Combat Command: www.necc.navy.mil.

(SAR extends special thanks to Captain Anthony Krueger, Commander, Riverine Group One, and Lieutenant (JG) William Ashley, Officer-in-Charge of Detachment 1, Riverine Squadron Three, for giving us the opportunity to observe and report on the intensive weapons training being conducted in preparation for RIVRON THREE’s second operational deployment.)

SAR is pleased to present the first of the series in the HK ID Guide. We kept this one to the pistol caliber machine guns imported by HK. This Guide is intended to give the reader a photographic look at each of the HK variants, with the general information on each item. In-depth analysis of these firearms will be covered in future issues of SAR. The future ID Guides of the HK products are as follows: HK Rifle Caliber Machine Guns and Destructive Devices, HK Semi-Automatic Rifles, HK Aftermarket Machineguns – Pistol Caliber, HK Aftermarket Machineguns – Rifle Caliber, HK Aftermarket Semi-Automatic Rifles.

We will be covering both the imported and the US modified HK products in the Aftermarket categories. SAR readers who have unusual HK products are encouraged to contact us and help us complete this series. SAR would like to thank Jim Shatz from HK for help in this series.

HK VP70-M

9mm machine pistol

The VP70-M is a select fire machine pistol. Safe, Semi, and 3 round burst. Pistol is blowback operated with an inertia bolt, stationary barrel, and firing pin ignition. The pistol itself is a semi-automatic, the addition of the buttstock allows the 3 shot mechanism. Calibers may be 9x19mm or 9x21mm. Markings are on the slide and the bolt.

Pistol, no mag: 29oz
Holster Stock: 16oz
Length w/stock: 21.46”
ROF: 2200 rpm

MP5K

The MP5K is one of the most compact SMG’s ever made.

Length: 12.8”
BBL: 4.5”
Wt.: 4.4lbs
ROF: 900rpm
SEF lower
15/30 rd mag

MP5KN

The “Navy” model has a safe-semi-full, ambidextrous lower and longer barrel that has 3 lug adapter capability and is also threaded for a suppressor.

Length: 13.75”
BBL: 5.5”
Wt.: 4.4lbs
ROF: 900rpm
Navy Lower
15/30 rd mag

MP5K-PDW

The PDW is the “Personal Defense Weapon” variant of the MP5K-N submachinegun. With its side folding stock, it is compact, yet offers a very stable shooting platform.

Length: 14.5”
Length, Stock folded: 23.75”
Weight: 6.14 lbs.
BBL length: 5.5”
ROF: 900rpm
Navy Lower
15/30 rd mag

MP5 with receiver cap

One of the original variants of the 9mm HK MP5 util ized a buttcap, not a stock. The sling base allowed for an underarm carry for concealment. Sample shown has a forearm guard and 3-shot burst lower.

ROF: 800 rpm
Length: 17.5”
BBL Length: 8.85”
Weight: 5.2lbs.

MP5A2 9mm.

The basic MP5 is the A2 variant with fixed buttstock. This one has a tactical light forearm, flash suppressor, and the winter trigger is at the arrow.

Length: 26.77”
Barrel: 8.85”
Weight: 5.59 lbs.
ROF: 800rpm.

MP5A3 9mm

The retracting stock variant of the MP5 carries teh “A3” designation. Thi sexample has a slimline forearm.

Length with the stock extended in 27.25”. Retracted langth is 21”. BBL Length: 8.85”
Weight: 5.61 lbs
ROF 800 rpm.

MP5SFA2 9mm

This is the semi-auto only variant. The receiver is still a “Swing-down” type, so these are classified as machine guns even though they use the semi-safe trigger group. All other specifications are the same as for the MP5A2. This example has the standard forearm. Early MP5SF’s were assembled with the semi-auto only HK94 bolt carriers. Developed for the FBI in 1987.

MP5PT w/fixed stock

The need for a “trainer” was evident, and HK fielded the MP5PT. This is identical to a standard gun, and is indeed a machine gun. The cocking handle is made from bright blue plastic. Note the brace for floating chamber at the front of the magazine well. Regular ammunition can not be fired from this model, only special training ammunition. Specs are the same as for the MP5A2.

MP5-N

This is the configuration of the official MP5 Navy model. It features a 3 lug barrel ehich is also threaded for the Navy suppressor which is manufactured by Knigt’s Armament Company. The lower is ambidextrous, safe-semi-full auto, tactical forearm light is offset for the suppressor. Original Navy suppressors were made by HK under license from Qual-A-Tec.

Length, stock ext
no suppressor: 27.25”
Length, stock retr.
no suppressor: 21”
BBL Length: 8.85”
Weight, no supp:
6.47lbs.

MP5SDA2

The integrally suppressed version of the MP5 is called the “SD”. These have long been cnsidered to be one of the quietest, most efficient submachine guns on the market. Proted barrels bring the velocity of the supersonic 9mm ammunition to a subsonic level.

Length: 30.42”
BBL Length: 5.73”
Weight: 6.83lbs.
ROF: 800 rpm

MP5SD-N

The “Navy” version of the MP5SD utilizes an HK manufactured suppressor that was originally designed by Qual-A-Tec. It has a Navy lower ambidextrous, safe-semi-full.

Length: 31.69:/25.68”
BBL Length: 5.73:
Weight: 7.83 lbs
ROF: 800rpm

MP5/40A2

The market dictated that HK offer their submachine guns in some of the newer calibers that the law enforcement agencies had moved to. The .40 caliber MP5 has a high degree of parts interchangeability with the 9mm. The arrow indicates the new bolt hold open device. Uses polymer magazines.

Length: 26.77”
BBL Length: 8.85”
Weight: 5.88 lbs
ROF: 800 rpm

MP5/10A3

In 1994 the FBI adopted the MP5/10 as their new submachine gun. This 10mm SMG will use either high or low impulse 10 mm with a change of locking pieces. At the arrow is the bolt hold open device.

Length: 21/27.25”
BBL Length: 8.85”
Weight: 6.41 lbs.
ROF: 800 rpm.

UMP 45

The serial number is on metal that is embedded in the polymer of the receiver side. UMP’s sidefolding buttstock is similar to the stock on the new G36 rifles.

Cal: 45ACP
Length: 17.71 / 27.17 “
BBL Length: 7.87”
Weight no mag: 4.63 lbs.
ROF: 580/700 +p

SMG

30 mfg’d in 1982 for testing, never fielded. Blowback select fire 500rpm.

Length: 29.76”
BBL: 5.75”
Wt. w/ supp.: 8.35lbs.

SMG II

SMG II was actually manufactured and 60 were shipped for operational uses that are still classified.As in the SMG, the suppresor is removable. There is a gas release valve for subsonic firing. 30 mfg’d in 1984 testing, 60 operational mfg’d. SMG II is select fire, adding a 3 rd. burst – Blowback select fire 500rpm. MP2000 (Not Shown) was the predecessor to the UMP. SAR was unable to obtain good photos of this unit before press time.

Length: 29.76”
BBL Length: 5.75”
wt. w/supp.: 7.90 lbs.

MP5-PIP

The PIP was never manufactured, but was seen in model form. The model is still at the HK Sterling, VA location, and pictures occasionally show up. Blowback, select fire, ROF – Never Mfg’d.

From the window of my plane in the commercial flight en-route to Lima, the sight of the dark blue waters of Lago Titicaca (the world’s highest navigable lake, right on the border between Bolivia and Peru) was one more breathtaking scene of the equally majestic Andes Mountains that I tried to record in my mind. Photographs alone could hardly match the sensation of actually being there, and I couldn’t help imagining how it would have been in the time of the native pre-Columbian civilizations which existed for over 5,000 years. Their Apogee was reached by the Incas in what is now Peru around the year 1500, only to be drastically brought to a bloodstained end, following the arrival of Spanish “Conquistador” Francisco Pizarro in 1532.

Although a great portion of the passengers on my flight from Brazil were clearly foreigners eager to visit such traditional places as the ruins of Machu Picchu, the cities of Arequipa and Cusco, and the intriguing Nasca Lines (colossal figures of animals and constellations traced on the ground and only clearly perceptible when you fly above them!), the purpose of my visit was not so touristic and/or esoteric. Pretty much on the contrary, my objective was to test fire and learn about submachine guns of indigenous design and manufacture. Yes sir, the Peruvians do have a local small arms production capability!

For the record, domestic firearms construction in that South American nation had already been tried in the early 1950s, when American designer Gordon B. Ingram (better known by his compact, fast-firing M-10/M-11 series SMGs) established the local “Fábrica de Armas Los Andes”. The aim was to series-produce his .45 ACP caliber Model 6 submachine gun under license from Los Angeles-based Police Ordnance Company. It’s not clear how many examples were actually assembled in Peru.

It would take about twenty more years for the Peruvians to think about making guns again, and that time they decided to go ahead and contrive a national product. Oddly enough, incentive for this effort came in the mid-1970s at what was then the “Departamento de Armas del Arsenal Naval” (Weapons Department of the Navy Arsenal), at the Callao Naval Base, adjacent to the capital city of Lima.

That establishment was primarily in charge of maintaining and repairing Peruvian Navy armament of all types. Its CO at the time, one Captain Benvenuto, boldly decided they should contemplate actual manufacture of small arms. A project group was put together, and this allegedly also included an Italian and an Argentine designer. As it has frequently happened in countries deciding to establish a domestic firearm production capability, a subgun was chose as the initial product. This comes from the fact that this type of weapon is intrinsically simpler to design and cheaper to make than, say a good revolver or rifle.

A prototype was ready for testing by 1979, and later showed to be good enough to justify series manufacture. At about the same time, the SIMA-CEFAR organization was established, SIMA standing for “Servicios Industriales de la Marina” (Navy Industrial Services), and CEFAR for “Centro de Fabricaciones de Armas” (Weapons Manufacturing Center), whose responsibility would be making and marketing the guns.

As it should be expected, moving from a couple of working prototypes into series production status is no simple task, much more so in a country with very limited financial and industrial resources. Skilled technicians had to be trained and adequate tooling procured from different sources, and all this resulted in the production of the first domestic Peruvian submachine gun, the MGP-79, starting around 1983. Something like 16,000 guns were made through about 1985, all being supplied to the local Police and Armed Forces.

The MGP-79

MGP stands for “Marina de Guerra del Peru” (Peruvian Navy), and this first model is a stockless weapon which operates by conventional blowback action and, like all subsequent members of the family, is chambered to fire the popular 9 x 19 mm cartridge. The receiver is a conventional tubular structure, to the fore end of which is fastened the 240 mm-long barrel (12 micro-grooves, RH twist) by the collar of a perforated jacket. The similarly-cylindrical bolt with a fixed firing pin and its corresponding recoil spring assembly (guide rod and buffer) are inserted into the receiver from the rear end, which features a screw-on cap.

Following a configuration common to many of the so-called second-generation SMGs, pioneered by the German MP38/MP40 series of WWII fame, the long magazine housing is well forward under the receiver, and doubles as a vertical fore grip. Wooden panels, with a marked protuberance at the rear, were originally employed here, but later examples featured straight synthetic panels. The magazine catch, found on the lower left side of the housing, is a square button fashioned after the one used in the Uzi family of SMGs. The 20- and 32-round box magazines also come from the Israeli design, being of the staggered-row, two position feed type.

The firing mechanism proper is contained within a stamped, rectangular lower body affixed to the receiver. The pistol grip is an integral part of this assembly, and may also be encountered with wooden or plastic panels, both types with conspicuous finger grooves.

Shooting Impressions

The most cooperative staff of SIMA-CEFAR was kind enough to allow me to carry out a hands-on evaluation of the MGP-79, an event which took place at one of the many combat training ranges at the Callao Naval Base. My host for the occasion was Captain Daniel Quiróz, then Marketing Officer of that organization. On our way to the test site he drove past several training areas where I could see a number of “Marina de Guerra” (Navy) and “Infanteria de Marina” (Marine Corps) combat teams hard at work. Instructors and trainees alike displayed an outstanding degree of professionalism, which should come as no surprise to anybody in view of the fact that both the local Military and the Police share responsibilities in anti-terrorist and anti-drug operations. The guys I saw there were not merely following a course schedule, but rather, learning or drilling how to survive in real-life combat and assure their opponents … don’t!

At 3.3 kg with a loaded 32-round magazine in place, the MGP-79 is well within the weight range of typical second-generation SMGs. My individual taste does not favor inserting the magazine into a housing too far forward in the gun, I favor those just ahead of the trigger guard (H&K MP5-style) or, even more, within the main grip (Uzi-style). As usual, tapping the bottom of the magazine after insertion makes sure that it is in place and held by its catch.

Applied safety and fire control are performed by two distinct levers on the left side of the gun body, which leaves a lot to be desired in terms of ergonomics. A single lever is certainly preferred, mainly under the usual stress of combat. Just above the main grip and within satisfactory reach of the right hand’s thumb lies the fire selector. In a 90-degree arc, settings are semi-auto (curiously marked “1×1”), to the rear, and full-auto (marked “RAF” for “Ráfaga”, or Burst). The applied safety lever, which blocks the bolt either in the closed or open position, is located on the left side, near the magazine housing. It can be flawlessly manipulated with the thumb of the left hand, and settings are “F” (“Fuego”, or Fire), forward, and “S” (“Securo”, or Safe), down.

The cocking piece is a knob protruding 90 degrees to the right side of the weapon, so if you are right-handed and don’t want to lose your grip when actuating it, just turn the gun slightly towards its left side, and use the supporting (left) hand, instead. As an additional precaution against accidental discharges, the retracting handle can be pulled to the rear and hooked up into a vertical notch in the receiver, a simple and long-established method.

As mentioned earlier, the design parameters for the MGP-79 surprisingly did not call for any kind of buttstock, which might well be an indication that its intended operational use was only CQC (close-quarters combat) or any other actions (I wonder what) not requiring too-accurate fire. In contrast, however, decent adjustable sights are provided. The rear unit is a flip-type, two-position (100 and 200 meters) V-notch, while the front sight is a hooded blade, radius being a reasonable 260 mm.

The example I used in my test was in excellent condition and was marked with serial number “383” (definitely an early production weapon) and “FAP” (“Fuerza Aérea del Perú”, or Peruvian Air Force). Although it came with sling swivels at the rear and forward ends, regretfully the sling itself was missing, as it would have made a good additional support for more precise shooting. Anyway, the “opposition forces” at hand were simply empty plastic bottles, soda cans, and broken wooden crates spread around the sand bank I was shooting at … and, most fortunately, they didn’t return fire!

Range was in the region of 50 meters, more than realistic for submachine gun use, and the stockless MGP-79 still allowed me to concentrate most of my semi-automatic and automatic fire on the “enemy” in such a way that heavy casualties among them would have been expected. Firing from the waist, assault-style, shot convergence both with short and long bursts was pretty much satisfactory.

The supporting hand was alternately used to hold the vertical fore grip (magazine housing) and to grasp the barrel sleeve well near the muzzle end, the latter proving more effective for speedier turn-around movements, like would have been required for the engagement of multiple targets. The insulation provided by the perforated jacket was barely enough to protect my hand from the moderate barrel heating generated by my brief scuffle with the bottles.

But there’s a trick with the MGP-79: its ejection port is located right on top of the receiver. Although the “formal” ejection path should take the empty cartridge cases up and forward, I had the annoying experience of seeing (and feeling!) some of them hitting my shooting glasses a number of times, mainly when I fired the gun from a lower position. Were it shouldered (had it a stock!), the brass would probably fly inoffensively over the shooter’s head. That is one design snag.

Cyclic rate of fire averages about 700 rounds per minute, a reasonable figure, and proper trigger manipulation allows one to squeeze out two- and three-round bursts (and even single shots, with a little more familiarization time) in full-auto setting. I tried some single-handed firing, as this may eventually be required in an emergency, but found it not practical, mainly as a result of the main grip being too far back from the gun’s center of gravity. For my small build, it was far from effective beyond short ranges, but maybe Rambo and others of his species would find it a piece of cake…

Design improvement

The shortcomings I noticed during my relatively brief shooting session at Callao obviously also called the attention of the MGP-79 users as time passed and operational experience accumulated. Although the weapon’s reliability as a whole was generally praised, there were complaints regarding the barrel’s limited resistance to high volumes of fire. What would in our days be called a PIP (Product Improvement Program) was eventually carried out by SIMA-CEFAR, the result being the MGP79A/MGP-87 series of buzzguns, which entered production in 1987.

MGP-79 Technical Specification:

Cartridge: 9 x 19 mm
Operation: Blowback, selective fire
Feed: 20- or 32-round detachable box magazine
Weight: no magazine: 2.65 kg, 32-rd magazine: 3.25 kg
Overall length: 526 mm
Barrel length: 240 mm
Cyclic rate of fire: 700 rounds/min

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Mr. Jim Schatz of Heckler & Koch, Inc., without whose assistance this
article would not have been possible.

Heckler and Koch’s Universal Self-Loading Pistol, better known as the USP, is a true firearms success story in what has become a highly competitive worldwide handgun market. In order to succeed in this arena, a handgun must not only meet the criteria for which it was designed, but must actually exceed most of them. In essence, a good firearm is synergistic – it is greater than the sum of its parts. The USP is such a pistol. It combines the best of traditional firearms with the best of state of the art firearms technology. While not as widespread in police use as Glock pistols, the USP is nonetheless just as reliable, while being much more flexible in its ability to be modified to meet specific user requirements. Moreover, the USP is a traditional pistol in the American idiom, while at the same time taking full advantage of the most modern materials to achieve levels of reliability and longevity that would have been unimaginable just 25 years ago.

The genesis of the USP can be traced to the “Miami Shoot-out” which caused the Federal Bureau of Investigation to change from 9mm Parabellum to 10mm. H&K wanted to compete for the FBI 10mm pistol contract, but had no pistols in 10mm caliber, nor any conventional double action/single action (DA/SA) pistol as required by the FBI specifications. In fact, H&K had no pistols other than in 9mm caliber and the company came to realize that if it was to maintain its viability in an increasingly competitive handgun market, it would have to expand and diversify its product line. Moreover, management realized that as good as their pistols were, several, such as the P7 were unconventional, although most people who purchase handguns are essentially conservative, preferring more conventional designs. Further, Heckler & Koch realized that P7 pistols for the most part had become so expensive that they could not effectively compete against companies such as Glock and Smith & Wesson in the US market.

The company decided to begin with a clean slate and gather input from the shooters themselves to influence the design of the new pistol. H&K also decided that their next pistol should be developed primarily for the US market. Accordingly, H&K conducted a market survey to determine the preferences of American handgun shooters of all types, including military, law enforcement and civilian. This study was completed in July 1989.

The H&K study revealed a number of facts regarding the American handgun market which many firearms manufacturers would do well to heed. Perhaps most important was the fact that people who were serious about handguns were conservative. Whether they were professionals or simply serious enthusiasts, they preferred a handgun of conventional design. This is not to say that the American market is hostile to innovation – far from it. Americans have traditionally been enamored with innovation and technology, but technology alone cannot replace that which is of proven efficacy unless it improves upon it. Heckler & Koch concluded that a conventional pistol incorporating as many high-tech innovations as possible would be most attractive to the American market. Affordability was another major concern. While many people might well have purchased an innovative H&K P7, its high price made that pistol a non-starter for most individuals and law-enforcement agencies. Other major considerations were high quality, durability and reliability, safety, accuracy, magazine capacity and low recoil. And finally, the science of ergonomics would play a large part in design of the new pistol. After their market study, Heckler & Koch compiled and prioritized the characteristics of what would eventually become the Universal Self-loading Pistol, now simply known as the USP. In addition to the characteristics already noted, it was decided early in the design process that the pistol would be a double-action/single-action (DA/SA) with the capability for straightforward conversion to a number of different configurations to satisfy the requirements of as many users as possible. H&K also decided that the pistol would be initially chambered for the .40 S&W cartridge with other calibers to follow. This decision was based on the increasing popularity of the .40 S&W, which delivers ballistics nearly on a par with those of the venerable .45 ACP, although with less recoil. Also, a pistol designed from the outset for .40 S&W would have no problem accommodating the less powerful 9x19mm cartridge. H&K had noted that some .40 S&W pistols that were modified from 9x19mm designs had durability problems and they wanted to ensure that there were no such problems with their new pistol. In fact, the USP was the first pistol specifically designed for the .40 S&W cartridge. Design development began in September 1989 and took nearly two years. The head of the design team was Helmut Weldle, designer of the P7 pistols.

By May 1991, basic USP design work was nearly completed and the desired characteristics agreed upon. Shortly thereafter, in August, H&K began design work on the Offensive Handgun Weapons System (OHWS) for the United States Special Operations Command. This design was later type-classified as the Mark 23 Mod 0 USSOCOM Pistol, hereafter referred to as the Mark 23. While development of the Mark 23 pistol was concurrent with that of the USP and the final products shared many similar characteristics, they were developed independently within H&K.

The fact that the USP went into production after the Mark 23 prototypes were delivered to the US Government for testing is not indicative that the USP design was derived from the USSOCOM handgun. On the contrary, if anything, many of the Mark 23’s features were derived from the USP, which was already under development when the US Government’s request for proposal (RFP) for the OHWS was announced in December 1990. At the same time, development of the USP was influenced by the Mark 23’s development process. The development of the Mark 23 will be covered separately. While the Mark 23 is not a member of the immediate USP family, it is a first cousin and must be included in any discussion of the USP’s development.

By late 1991, the first prototype of the USP had been constructed and the USP name assigned to the new pistol. Two further prototypes were produced and tested during 1992. Testing was successful and the basic design was “frozen” in December of that year. Reliability testing on the USP prototypes was unfinished at the time of the design “freeze,” but since both pistols had fired 10,000 rounds of their 20,000 round reliability test without incident, it was decided to freeze the design and proceed with production planning and formal introduction of the USP at the January 1993 Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trades (SHOT) Show. Actual production of the USP40 was undertaken in February 1993.

At this point, it is worth noting the testing process that the USP underwent in the final stages of its development. The fact that the pistol passed a 20,000 round reliability test without meaningful wear on any component or any effect on accuracy has little meaning until one considers that the tried and true M1911A1 pistols which still serve in some military special operations units (not all have purchased the Mark 23 at the timeof this writing) require a depot-level rebuild after approximately 12,000 rounds to ensure accuracy and reliability. Another measure of the rugged design of the USP is the fact that unmodified USP45s have presently fired over 6,000 rounds of the new .45 super ammunition without incident. M1911-type pistols must be modified to reliably fire the .45 Super cartridge. Both USP45s and the Mark 23 are being tested with this new cartridge with a view towards certifying both pistols for its unlimited use. .45 Super testing should be complete by mid-1998 and results made pubic shortly thereafter.

USP testing was heavily influenced by the development of the Mark 23, which had to meet stringent military durability and reliability standards. The tests of the USP paralleled the NATO military test protocols of the Mark 23, which are much more stringent than commercial standards. The USP pistols were subjected to test firing in various attitudes and were checked every 1,000 rounds for damaged or broken parts and for accuracy. After each 10,000 rounds, the slide was manually cycled 1,000 times. A bullet was driven into the forcing cone of the USP barrel, a live round chambered and the pistol fired. There was no damage to the pistol and accuracy was unaffected. Another bullet was driven 30mm into the muzzle of the pistol and the pistol fired, again with no damage or degradation in performance. The pistols were dropped onto rubber on all sides and at a 45 degree angle onto the muzzle from a height of four feet with a primed case in the chamber, 13 dummy rounds in the magazine and the safety/decocking lever set in the “fire” position without incident. The pistols were then dropped six times onto a cocked hammer from a height of three and nearly seven feet onto a steel/concrete surface. There were no primer indentations in any of these tests. For ammunition compliance testing, USPs were tested using every type of commercially available ammunition.

Environmental testing of the USP was virtually identical to that of the Mark 23. The USP had to function in temperatures as low as -51O Fahrenheit and as high as +145O Fahrenheit. It functioned after a ten minute mud bath, after a ten minute exposure to blowing sand, freezing rain (water spray on the pistol to a thickness of 1 to 3mm). After these torture tests, the parts of four different pistols of different caliber were interchanged, except for barrel, slide and magazine. The USP passed or exceeded all tests and the .40 caliber pistols were placed on the market in the United States in April 1993. The 9mm USP followed in September.

The USP is, as we have stated, largely a traditional pistol design executed in nontraditional ways. It is a short recoil, modified Browning system similar to that used in the Browning M1935. This system is simple, very reliable, inexpensive to produce and makes barrel replacement easy. Unlike the system used in the M1935, the H&K locks on the front and rear edges of the ejection port, rather than using locking grooves machined into the slide and barrel.

The safety/decocking lever, called a “control lever” by H&K, is positioned at the same relative location on the frame as that in both the M1935 and M1911 pistols, and functions in the same fashion – up is “safe,” down is “fire.” There is one difference, however. Pressing the lever down past the “fire” position usually decocks the USP when the hammer is cocked. The lever then automatically returns to the “fire” position, enabling the USP to be operated in the double action mode for the first shot. This feature also allows the USP to be safely carried in “Condition One” – cocked and locked, which is favored by many armed professionals who are intimately familiar with the M1911 Colt Government Model and its many copies. Unlike the M1911, however, setting the USP to the “safe” position does not lock the slide. The control lever can easily be set up for left hand, right hand, or ambidextrous use. It should also be noted that besides having controls which are very similar in function to those of the M1911, the grip angle of the USP is identical to that of the venerable Browning design. Thus, an individual familiar with the M1911 or M1935 can pick up a USP and become familiar with it with very little familiarization training. Not all USPs, however, incorporate this system. The versatility of the USP allows it to be configured without a safety or decocking position in some versions. The different versions into which the USP can be configured are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: USP & Mark 23 Specifications

The slide release of the USP is also located similarly to that of the M1911 and M1935 and like the earlier designs is used to disassemble the pistol. The ambidextrous magazine release, however, is a real improvement over the traditional M1911 “push button.” The magazine release of the USP is located in essentially the same position as the older pistols, but instead of having to push in to release the magazine, the release button is pressed down to drop the magazine. To the author, at least, this is a much more natural movement than pressing in. The release is actually shielded by the trigger guard to prevent inadvertent actuation. We should also note that the magazines of the USP drop free when the release is pressed, an important tactical consideration. Despite this, there are “tearaway grooves” on the sides of the grip just in case….

The USP incorporates three or four separate safety mechanisms, depending on variant. Two of these safeties, the disconnector and the firing pin block, are passive. All USP pistols incorporate these two passive mechanisms. Six of the nine USP variants have a manual safety/decocker. Variant Seven has the double action safety with no manual control lever at all. Variants Three and Four do not have a manual safety, but have a decocking lever. The reader can determine the specific features of USP variants by referring to the chart accompanying this article. While Variant Eight is listed in the chart matrix, it was never produced except in very small numbers for US Immigration and Naturalization Border Patrol testing. Variant eight was essentially a Variant Seven USP with European tritium sights.

The barrel of the USP is cold hammer forged. Early pistols had six lands and grooves with a right hand twist. .40 S&W USPs were rifled with 1 turn in 14.96 inches, while 9mm Parabellum pistols had rifling at a rate of 1 turn in 9.84 inches. In November 1994 the rifling was changed from conventional lands and grooves to polygonal rifling, an H&K innovation. Twist rates remained the same as in earlier guns, but the cold hammer forged polygonal rifling has several benefits. Muzzle velocity is increased versus standard rifling due to a tighter gas seal. Because there are no sharp edges, bore wear and erosion are reduced, thus providing longer service life. Barrels with polygonal rifling are easier to clean and maintain because there are no grooves, per se, in which fouling and metal deposits can accumulate. Finally, polygonal rifling increases accuracy. The USP45 was never manufactured with conventional rifling.

The polymer frame of the USP continues a Heckler & Koch tradition that dates back to the mid-1960’s VP70, P9S and other H&K firearms. The precise makeup of the polymer frame is proprietary, but it is glass-fiber reinforced with metal guide rails on which the slide runs. As previously mentioned, the grip has “tear away” grooves to enable the shooter easy access to the magazine floorplate in case the magazine does not drop free when the release is pressed. The trigger guard is oversize to allow use of gloves and is shaped so as to help prevent the magazine release from being inadvertently pressed, which could prove highly embarrassing, not to mention fatal! The entire surface of the frame is textured for a positive grip, even with wet hands. The USP’s texturing is very similar to that of the Mark 23 and incorporates stippling on the grip side panels and deeply embossed grooves on the grip front and backstraps. A lanyard loop is molded into the heel of the grip as part of the insert that retains the hammer spring. The magazine well is beveled and stepped to facilitate reloading.

Another feature of the USP frame is the molded in grooves for mounting accessories such as laser, tactical lights, optical sights, or muzzle compensators. The grooves are parallel with the bore of the pistol, so any accessory mounted is boresighted when mounted. H&K claims that the grooves are more secure and resistant to recoil forces than trigger guard mounts in addition to providing automatic bore alignment for attached accessories.

H&K makes a full range of accessories for all versions of the USP, including a tactical light, designated the Universal Tactical Light (UTL), a UTL carrying pouch which allows the UTL to be attached to long guns, tools, bicycles, etc. H&K once manufactured the “Quik-Comp” muzzle brake/compensator which attached to the mounting grooves. This may still occasionally be found as a used component. Finally, H&K has an Optical Sight/Scope Mount available for the USP. This mount incorporates a Weaver mounting rail, can be used either with or without the “Quik-Comp,” and does not interfere with the pistol’s iron sights. The popularity of the USP has caused after-market manufacturers to begin producing similar accessories for the USP pistol family.

Magazines of the .40 S&W and 9x19mm pistols are of polymer with a stainless steel insert, while that of the USP45 is steel. Magazine capacity is 13 rounds in .40 S&W, 15 rounds in 9x19mm and 12 rounds in .45 ACP, except for civilian use pistols, which are all equipped with the silly federally-mandated “politically correct” ten-round magazines. The reader should be aware that there are no unmarked “pre-ban” .45 magazines for the USP. Any “pre-ban” magazines for the USP45 are in fact stolen Mark 23 magazines. Caveat emptor! The .45 caliber magazine was made from steel to keep grip circumference down while maximizing magazine capacity. The .45 magazine design is virtually identical to that of the Mark 23 USSOCOM Pistol. All magazines drop free when the release is pressed, contain “round count” holes with numbers and can be disassembled for cleaning and maintenance by the owner, even the “politically correct” ten-round civilian-use magazines.

A unique feature of the USP is its recoil reduction system, again virtually identical to that used on the Mark 23 USSOCOM Pistol. Essentially, the recoil reduction system consists of two concentric springs held in place by a guide rod. The outer recoil spring is a lower rate than the inner buffer spring, which slows the slide at the end of its recoil movement, prevents the slide from impinging against the frame of the pistol and buffers the unlocking of the barrel from the slide during the first three to four millimeters of movement. The buffer system reduces recoil forces by approximately 30 per cent and provides a number of benefits. First is reduced felt recoil to the shooter, resulting in reduced muzzle “flip” quicker recovery time after each shot and increased accuracy. Another benefit is reduced stress on components, which is one of the reasons for the extremely long service life of all USPs. The USP recoil reduction system is “transparent” to the shooter; it is insensitive to ammunition, requires no maintenance and has an indefinite service life. On early USPs, the recoil spring could be removed from the guide rod, but in September 1994, a “captured spring” design was incorporated, which makes USP disassembly and reassembly easier and safer. The new recoil reduction system can be retrofitted into earlier USPs without modification.

USP Compact pistols have a different recoil reduction system than the larger pistols because there is insufficient space for a dual-spring system and because the compact designs use a flat recoil spring to save space and facilitate shortening the barrel and frame. The buffer in the H&K USP Compacts is therefore a high strength polymer bushing that surrounds the recoil spring and cushions the blow of the slide against the frame as the slide recoils. Life of this polymer buffer is stated to be over 20,000 rounds.

The polymer frame of the USP is virtually impervious to wear or corrosion, but the USP, like all firearms, also incorporates metal components, which are subject to corrosion and wear unless protected. Heckler & Koch applies a proprietary Hostile Environment (HE) nitrogen/carbon finish to the USP slide. This finish is not only extremely hard (732 HV1 Vickers), but highly corrosion resistant, as well. The non-reflective HE finish has been used on the G3SG1 sniper rifle since the 1970’s and has proven itself in service. A stainless steel slide is available for all USP models. All other USP components, both external and internal, are finished with Dow-Corning’s “Molykote,” a very tough corrosion-resistant finish which also incorporates low-friction qualities.

Two versions of the USP which are not available in the United States are H&K’s German military P8 and P10 pistols. The P8 replaces the Walther P1 (modernized P.38) in Bundeswehr service, while the P10 is being issued to German police. Both are versions of the USP9 and USP9 Compact, respectively, but with two differences in comparison to other USP versions. Indeed, these pistols could be considered a new USP variant, were they commercially available. One difference is the functioning of the control lever, which reverses the “safe” and “fire” positions of the Variant 1 USP. The uppermost position of the lever on both German pistols is “fire,” rather than “safe.” The mid position is “safe,” and fully down decocks the pistol, as with other USP variants. The second difference is that when the trigger is released on the P8 and P10, the control lever automatically returns to the “safe” position. Some 20,000 USP “P8” variants have been issued to the German military.

Table 2: Mark 23 & USP45 Tactical Pistol Comparison

(Only items where specifications differ are listed)

*Fixed sights. Weight with adjustable sights is 32 ounces.
** Fixed sights. Height with adjustable sights is 5.78 inches.
*** Five shots, 25 meters, service ammunition.

The USP45 was a follow-on to the original USP40 and USP9 pistols and was introduced in January 1995 at the SHOT Show. The pistol became available for sale in May of that year. The change to .45 ACP caliber was not as simple as changing barrel, slide and recoil spring. As mentioned earlier, the USP45 steel magazine was essentially carried over from the Mark 23 USSOCOM Pistol because use of polymer magazines would have caused the grip circumference to be too large. The recoil reduction system was lengthened to accommodate the longer .45 ACP cartridge while providing an identical 30 per cent reduction in recoil forces. The USP45 was the first pistol to incorporate an improved trigger system which is not only smoother and lighter than the original, but also virtually eliminates “stacking,” or increased resistance as the trigger is pulled back in double action. In the USP45, the double action trigger take-up does not begin until the trigger reaches the “half-cock position. This enhanced trigger feature was incorporated into all USPs in early 1995. As stated, the USP45 is different than its smaller caliber sisters. While the USP9 and USP40 share virtually 100 per cent parts interchangability, only 78 per cent of USP45 parts will interchange with the earlier guns. The USP45 was subjected to and passed all the tests of the earlier firearms, including a durability test of 24,000 rounds of +P ammunition.

As we have seen, the USP pistols were designed with the American market in mind and the success of the pistol in the US market and overseas clearly indicates that Heckler & Koch was “on target” with its design. One of the major trends in the US firearms market has been engendered by the spread of “shall issue” concealed carry laws in the majority of the states. As of this writing in early 1998, 32 states have “shall issue” concealed laws which mandate that any citizen of good character who applies must be issued a license to carry a concealed weapon, usually a pistol. This has engendered a demand for compact pistols and many manufacturers have begun producing pistols designed for concealed carry. Compact versions of the USP for concealed carry were therefore virtually inevitable. .40 S&W and 9x19mm USP Compact pistols were introduced in early 1997 and a USP Compact .45 followed that autumn. Aside from the shorter length and height, there are minimal differences between the compact USPs and their full-size sisters, most of which have already been discussed. First, of course is the fact that the pistols are smaller both in height and in length for concealment. Grip circumference and trigger reach are also reduced for improved handling. Dimensional differences may be found in the specifications tables.

Unlike many “scaled down” pistols, the grips of the USP Compacts accommodate the entire hand of most shooters, even without using the extended floorplate magazine. (The USP Compact is shipped with two magazines – one with a flat, flush-fitting floor plate for maximum concealability and another with an extended floorplate to provide maximum comfort for those with large hands.) In terms of overall size, the USP Compacts are very close dimensionally to the Colt Officer’s ACP except for the slide, which is slightly thicker. Other changes in the compact pistols were the previously discussed recoil spring and buffer mechanism. The author had the opportunity to test one of the USP45 Compact pistols in October 1997 and shortly thereafter purchased one for personal use. It has since had several thousand rounds fired through it without a single stoppage.

The next iteration of USP is the USP45 Tactical Model, shown at the 1998 SHOT Show and officially put on sale in April, although the USP45 Tactical Model will not be available in quantity until May 1998. The Tactical Model USP is essentially a “cross” between the Mark 23 and the USP, incorporating the best features of both. The USP45 Tactical Model uses the barrel developed for the Mark 23, which is threaded for attachment of a suppressor. USP45 Tactical threads, however, are left handed to prevent installation of the Mark 23’s suppressor, which was designed for a heavier slide. At the time of this writing, a Knight’s Armament Company stainless suppressor and a Brugger & Thomet aluminum suppressor are available for the USP45 Tactical. The sights on the USP45 Tactical are fully adjustable and are designed to look above an installed suppressor. Trigger pull is greatly improved over earlier USPs and an adjustable trigger top is incorporated as a standard feature. Magazines are of an improved design with an extended floor plate to improve retention. All USP45 Tactical pistols are provided with a cleaning kit, spare barrel “O” rings, and tools for sight and trigger stop adjustment.

It is clear that the USP45 Tactical was designed for military and law enforcement use, but this requires some explanation. Several US military special operations forces did not purchase the Mark 23 and continue to use modified M1911A1 pistols, which are reaching the end of their service lives, despite having been rebuilt by military special operations armorers time after time. Moreover, while the M1911A1 will continue to function beyond 20,000 rounds, it begins to lose its accuracy after approximately 12,000 rounds and must be depot rebuilt. The failure of all special operations organizations to purchase the Mark 23 was not engendered by any specific fault of the Mark 23 itself; the pistol was built to the specifications determined by USSOCOM and surpassed all of them. In the words of one special operations requirements officer, “The Mark 23 isn’t a bad pistol; it simply doesn’t meet our requirements.” The fact is that USSOCOM does not directly speak for all special operations forces, nor can it require them to purchase a pistol that does not meet their individual service requirements. This will be further discussed in the section on the Mark 23 which follows. Nonetheless, a military requirement exists for a .45 caliber pistol that is different than the Mark 23, while improving on the venerable M1911A1 and at the same time maintaining the operational characteristics virtually identical to those of the Mark 23. Although Heckler & Koch has made no official comment regarding the intended market for the USP45 Tactical Pistol other than the statement, “…the Heckler & Koch USP45 Tactical Pistol is designed for users who require the features of the H&K MK 23/Mark 23 pistol for tactical, combat, or CQB use in a smaller and more affordable package.” (boldface in original), it is clear that the Tactical Pistol is aimed (no pun intended) at this market, and if the basic characteristics of the USP45 Tactical Pistol are any indication, it can be expected to be seen in the hands of many military and police special units in the coming years.

What does the future hold for the USP? The immediate future for the US market will see the USP product line expanded to include .357 SIG caliber. This addition to the USP product line will appear in the second half of 1998. In Germany, Heckler & Koch is entering into IPSC Competition and has developed a “full-race” version of the USP for use by its IPSC team. The IPSC pistol, called the “Expert Model” goes on sale in Europe in late June and if it achieves success in European IPSC circles, it may well be added to the American USP product line. The proven excellence of the USP design means not only that the pistol will be available for many years to come, but that the variety of USPs available to the shooter will continue to grow as well.