Part II  – Harrington and Richardson

During the early days of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, U.S. advisors were issued M1 and M2 carbines. When the first Marines arrived in 1965, they were armed with M14 rifles, as were most U.S. Army personnel. It was soon realized the 7.62mm M14 rifles were too powerful and unwieldy for the type of hit and run engagements being encountered with the enemy. The enemy was often equipped with AK rifles with 30-round magazines, a select-fire capability, and mid-range 7.62x39mm cartridges that allowed them to carry a larger ammunition load than U.S. troops. The M14 rifles had 20-round magazines, long-range 7.62x51mm ammunition, and most of the rifles were fitted with selector locks limiting their operation to semi-automatic-only. A lighter weapon with controllable automatic fire was needed to match the enemy’s AK rifles; enter the M16. Despite the M16 rifle’s controversial early problems with malfunctions, most of the shortcomings were addressed with the M16A1 model.

After the introduction of the M16A1 rifle, the conflict in Vietnam continued to escalate. The Army needed more rifles for both U.S. troops and to replace the World War II weapons being used by the South Vietnamese and Korean allies. During this period Colt was the only company producing the M16A1 rifle. The Department of Defense wanted to have a second source to manufacture the rifle. Unlike the M1 Garand and M14 rifles that were developed at the U.S. Springfield Armory and manufactured by several commercial companies, Colt owned the exclusive rights to the AR15/M16 design and were reluctant to release them to the government. Finally, in June of 1967, after years of negotiations an agreement was reached allowing the government to seek bids for second source production. The two manufacturers awarded contracts were the Hydra-Matic Division of General Motors and Harrington and Richardson (H&R). Estimated ceiling prices with non-reoccurring startup costs were: first year production of 60,000 rifles at $250.00 each, second-year production 180,000 rifles at $150.00 each. The 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. The establishment of second source for M16 production was not considered to be economically justified unless H&R was at least 33% below the established ceiling price. Colt’s 1963 M16 contract was priced at $126.37 per rifle, the price was reduced to $104.39, each, by September 1967.

H&R’s contract was DAF03-68-C-0045 dated 19 April 1968 for 240,000 rifles at a cost of $170.43 each. The first delivery was made in December of 1968, the final delivery was made March 1971. All H&R M16A1 rifles were assigned serial numbers in the 2,000,000 range.

Harrington & Richardson Inc. was a well-established U.S. firearms manufacturer. It had previously manufactured weapons under contract for the U.S. Government, that included the M1 Garand during the Korean War and M14 rifles during the 1960s, as well as the Reising submachine gun that saw limited use in World War II. Harrington and Richardson operated three factories located in Gardner, Worcester, and Rochdale, Massachusetts, and a fourth plant in Elm Grove, West Virginia. After H&R’s 1968 M16A1 contract ended in 1971, all the facilities were closed except the Gardner factory at 60 Industrial Rowe. Phillips Metallurgical, Inc. was a subsidiary of Harrington and Richardson, located in Swanton, Vermont. The company was a foundry which supplied H&R and other companies.    

“Is that a handle?”

Today, the AR15 type rifles are unrecognizable from those made in the 1960-80 era. Gone from the rifles are the carry handle upper receivers, fixed buttstocks, and triangle handguards; replaced by multiple rails for attaching optics, lasers, red-dot optics and flashlights. Many younger AR enthusiasts are not familiar with the rifles in the original configuration. Often when seeing an early manufacture AR15/M16 they will ask “What is that a handle?” referring to the upper receiver. The AR15/M16 was designed to keep the recoiling parts in-line with the buttstock to reduce muzzle rise in full-automatic fire. As a result, the sights of the rifle had to be elevated. The original carry handle of the M16’s upper receiver was used to mount the rear sight, keeping it in line with the raised front sight. Today’s AR15/M16 rifle has come a long way since it first appeared in the jungles of Vietnam.

After a controversial and dubious start, the AR type rifle is now one of the most popular semi-automatic civilian firearms in the U.S. With the widespread use of modern optics, the carry handle was removed from the design and replaced with a rail. There was a period where no commercial manufacturer offered an AR model with a carry handle, and soon the existence of the handle was forgotten or unknown.

The upper receivers on most H&R M16A1 rifles have forging flash seams on both the front and rear of the carry handle.

Retro M16A1 Rifles

Despite the modernization of the AR15/M16 rifles since its introduction more than 60 years ago, there is a growing interest in the original “old school” configuration. Many retro aficionados are building clones, albeit semi-automatic, of the Vietnam era M16 rifles. Many purists seek original parts to assemble their guns, although most must settle for a modern lower receiver. Original style receiver markings are available from several companies that offer laser engraving, yet another offers markings applied by the original roll-marking method. Most available lower receivers offered today are the reinforced M16A2 pattern, introduced during the 1980s, while all the Vietnam era receivers were the M16 or M16A1 type. Since M16A1 forgings aren’t produced any longer, reinforced A2 style forgings must be carefully machined to the original A1 specs.

Identifying Harrington and Richardson Parts

Note: There are certain features that are common to most H&R manufactured M16A1 rifles; with the small fraction of the weapons available for examination, it is not possible to make definitive statements regarding component identification. Arsenal rebuilding and repair of weapons in the field by armorers, and the large number of subcontractors supplying parts make positive identification impossible.

It is quite likely that many subcontractors were used by H&R during the production of their M16A1 rifles, for example H&R in their M14 production subcontracted out 89 of the 110 parts used in an M14 rifle using 37 different companies.

There are several ways to ID most H&R parts from those from GM / Hydra-Matic and the far more common Colt parts. Many H&R parts were marked with a number, most likely to identify the subcontractor. It’s quite possible they may have used a few of the same subcontractors as GM/Hydra-Matic for some M16A1 parts, as similar markings have been noted on parts on rifles from both manufacturers.

Lower Receiver

The color of the anodizing on H&R contract M16A1 rifles varies; many are darker in color than Colt’s 1960s era gray. The left side of the magazine well is roll marked with H&R’s Lion trademark enclosed in a circle and Property of U.S. Gov’t markings. The right side of the magazine well has a full “fence” around the magazine release. Often the right side was marked with a white Department of Defense eagle acceptance stamp. The acceptance stamp most often seen on H&R rifles is 0.5-inch and similar to those found on Colt rifles of the same era.

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. Post 1970 Colt contract upper receivers will have two letters in that area. H&R upper receivers will generally have a forging flash, or “seam” on the front or rear of the carry handle. GM/Hydra-Matic upper receivers typically have the forging flash on the rear portion of the handle. The forward assist may or may not have a number on the back side of the teardrop handle. The ejection port door had a small pad with rounded corners.

Charging Handle

The profile is usually thicker than those fitted on GM and Colt M16A1 rifles, but there have been no distinguishing marks noted.

Fire Control Group

The fire control components, hammer, trigger, and the fire selector lever will have a number and/or a letter H on them. The disconnector was not marked. The mode of fire selector lever will have a number on the back surface. Keep in mind that using M16A1 fire control group parts in a semi-automatic AR rifle can cause legal problems. It is strongly suggested that any M16 internal parts be altered to a semi-automatic configuration.

Barrel

H&R barrels will generally have the letters MP upside down on the left side between the legs of the front sight base. There will be a letter C on the top of their barrels, just aft of the muzzle, indicating a chrome chamber. Barrels are the 0.625-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, as many M16 rifles had to be re-barreled due to excessive use, and / or corrosion of the non-chromed bores. Colt and other contractors made thousands of replacement barrels during the Vietnam War.  

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 letter or number on the sides.  

Furniture

Most were fitted with type D buttstocks with a rubber buttplate without a trapdoor, and have an articulating sling swivel. The furniture will often have an aged, mottled appearance. The pistol grips were slightly larger in circumference than those on Colt M16A1 rifles.

H&R pistol grips, handguards and buttstocks will be marked with letters and/or numbers observed in various locations.  

Bolt Carrier and Bolt

H&R bolt carriers do not have any manufacturer’s markings; the finish machining appears rougher than on Colt carriers. H&R bolts were marked MP to indicate that they were magnetic particle inspected. The marking placement is different than Colt/GM and runs front to back.  

Bolt Stop

H&R bolt stops have a subcontractor ID number on the bottom. Numbers 1 through 7 have been noted.

On December 3, 1984, Harrington and Richardson of Gardner Massachusetts filed for Chapter 11 reorganization under federal bankruptcy laws. In a press release, C. Edward Rowe Jr., the company president, said the company was forced to seek reorganization because of declining business and a major product liability claim in Pennsylvania. In addition to the Pennsylvania claim, Mr. Rowe estimated there were 12 additional product liability cases pending against the company. In November 1985, it was revealed that there were several parties interested in purchasing Harrington and Richardson and its subsidiary Philips Metallurgical Inc.

During December Harrington and Richardson was granted permission by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Worcester, Mass. to continue operating under a current plan of asset reduction until a new hearing was scheduled. The asset reduction plan was estimated to generate one-million dollars. H&R’s attorney John Sigel said the asset reduction plan generated more funds than the company had expected.

Despite the smaller numbers produced, H&R M16A1 rifles are more commonly encountered than those made by GM / Hydra-Matic. There were a number of small arms sold during H&R’s asset reduction sale (despite popular belief, there was not a bankruptcy auction). A large lot of the weapons, which included 29 M14s, 65 H&R M16A1 rifles and 1 Colt M16A1, were purchased by “John K” a somewhat mysterious individual from eastern Pennsylvania. The M14 and M16 rifles were transferable and sold at, what seems like today, bargain basement prices.   

By the fall of 1986, a new buyer was found for the Harrington and Richardson company, Vincent Sheil Incorporated. Paul A. Senecal, an investor in Vincent Sheil Inc, and former Director of sales and marketing at Harrington and Richardson, said the new company would continue to manufacture firearms. A $1.5 million offer was made for H&R’s assets including equipment and machinery, and the assets of the Phillips Metallurgical Inc. foundry. The new company was to operate under the name New England Arms. The agreement allowed the new firm to lease the 60 Industrial Rowe property. On December 20, 1986, the sale was approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The sale of Harrington and Richardson to Vincent Sheil Inc. saved jobs, kept the company’s assets from being liquidated at auction, and the factory sitting vacant.

H&R M16A1 Rifles examined

• 2243700
• 2074531
• 2339159
• 2081621
• 2080362
• 2122678

Resources

• AR-15.com
• 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 AMSWE-PPE-72-01 (printed 2 August 1971)
• M16A1 Initial Production and Comparison Test; GM. H&R, Colt. (9 Jan 69)

Books

• The Black Rifle-M16 Retrospective R. Blake Stevens and Edward C. Ezell
• The Great Rifle Controversy Edward Clinton Ezell
• The Last Steel Warrior, the U.S. M14 Rifle F. Iannamico

Special thanks to: Eve Eisenbise, Anthony Ciravolo, and Jeff Bodell. (ATF FATD), John Scott, David Gilmore, Alex McKenzie, Springfield Armory Historical Site

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V25N10 (December 2021)

(This is the second of a two-part series.)

In Part One of this series (see “Legally Armed,” Small Arms Review, Vol. 23, No. 4 (April 2019)), we walked through the U.S. anti-discrimination laws that prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of national origin or disability and identified where these laws intersect with controls on technology transfer and firearm possession restrictions that apply to the manufacture of firearms and other munitions. In this article we discuss how to reconcile the seemingly conflicting requirements of anti-discrimination laws and the technology controls of the Arms Export Control Act, Title 22, U.S. Code, Chapter 39 (AECA), its implementing regulations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, Title 22 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 120-130 (ITAR) and the restrictions on transfers to and possession by certain persons under the Gun Control Act of 1968, Title 18 U.S. Code, Chapter 44 (GCA).

As we touched on previously, the laws and regulations governing the manufacture, possession and transfer of firearms and other defense articles protect our national security and public safety and are no less important than those that protect us from discrimination in certain areas of our life. Navigating the overlap among these laws can be challenging but is a must for any company seeking to maintain a robust compliance program. As with violations of anti-discrimination laws, violations of technology control and firearm possession requirements are serious. Penalties for violations can come with hefty fines, potential prison sentences and debarment from federal contracting.

I.       Protecting Controlled Technology

For firearm and ammunition manufacturers, questions often arise as to how to protect against unauthorized export of controlled technology, including manufacturing know how. In navigating the intersecting U.S. export laws and anti-discrimination laws, the questions could include:

• As a manufacturer of firearms, can I require all my employees to be U.S. citizens because we work with controlled technology or technical data?
• Can I have a blanket corporate policy not to assign non-U.S. citizens to certain job functions?
• If an employee was born in an embargoed country and I am not able to obtain authorization to share technical data with that employee, do I have to offer accommodations to that employee because he or she is not able to perform his or her job?

Because of the breadth of U.S. export controls over technology, especially ITAR restrictions on disclosing “technical data” to “foreign persons,” it is not uncommon for businesses to conclude that a prudent policy is to restrict employment to U.S. citizens. However, such blanket policy may violate the federal laws on discrimination.

At the time of this writing, firearms and associated parts, components, attachments and accessories are controlled for export as “defense articles” under the AECA. Consequently, this article focuses on its implementation regulations, the ITAR. Readers may recall that last May 2018, the Departments of State and Commerce published proposed rules to transition certain firearms, ammunition, parts, components, accessories and attachments away from the ITAR controls and over to the Commerce export controls known as the Export Administration Regulations, 15 C.F.R. §730 et seq. (EAR). See also the two-part “Legally Armed” columns reviewing the proposed transition rules in Small Arms Review, Vol. 22, Nos. 8 and 9 (October and November 2018). However, as we entered 2019, the agencies had not yet published these rules as final. Rest assured, when the agencies do publish the final transition rules, we will explore the impact on technology transfers.

The ITAR places restrictions on the transfer of controlled technical data to non-U.S. persons. A license or other authorization (e.g., ITAR exemption or agreement) is required prior to transferring ITAR-controlled technical data to a non-U.S. person. Under the ITAR, a person’s nationality takes into account where the individual was born and all countries in which he/she has or had citizenship or permanent resident status. In order for an employer to know this information and be able to make a licensing determination, it must inquire as to that individual’s country of birth and country(ies) of citizenship. Requesting this information from an applicant or current employee, or shaping a job posting around this requirement, if done improperly, can violate U.S. anti-discrimination laws. Before we delve further into this intersection, it is important that we cover some basic ITAR definitions that will help guide our discussion.

It is important to note that the EAR also places restrictions on the transfer of technology to non-U.S. persons. Even though this article focuses on the ITAR requirements, please be aware that the anti-discrimination considerations discussed are equally applicable to the technology transfer controls under the EAR.

A.     Defense Article

The ITAR defines the term “defense article” (22 C.F.R. §120.6) as any item or technical data designated on the U.S. Munitions List (USML). This term includes technical data recorded or stored in any physical form, models, mockups or other items that reveal technical data directly relating to items designated in the USML. Defense articles also include forgings, castings and other unfinished products, such as extrusions and machined bodies, that have reached a stage in manufacturing where they are clearly identifiable by mechanical properties, material composition, geometry or function as defense articles. The term does not, however, include basic marketing information on function or purpose or general system descriptions of USML items.

USML Category I controls firearms, close assault weapons, combat shotguns, silencers, as well as components, parts, accessories and attachments for these items. Guns over .50 caliber are controlled in USML Category II, as well as components, parts, accessories and attachments for these items. Ammunition for those firearms controlled in USML Categories I and II is classified under USML Category III. Components, parts, accessories and attachments for ammunition are also controlled in USML Category III.

B.     Technical Data

The ITAR defines “technical data” in §120.10 as “information, other than software as defined in §120.10(a)(4), which is required for the design, development, production, manufacture, assembly, operation, repair, testing, maintenance or modification of defense articles. This includes information in the form of blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation.” The definition also includes classified information relating to defense articles and defense services on the USML and 600-series items controlled by the Commerce Control List; information covered by an invention secrecy order; and software directly related to defense articles. There is a technical data control paragraph in all USML categories.

As important as it is to know what constitutes technical data, it is equally important to understand what is not considered technical data. The definition does not include “information concerning general scientific, mathematical or engineering principles commonly taught in schools, colleges and universities, or information in the public domain as defined in §120.11 or telemetry data as defined in note 3 to Category XV(f). It also does not include basic marketing information on function or purpose or general system descriptions of defense articles.”

C.     Export

The term “export” is defined in 22 C.F.R. §120.17, in relevant part, as an actual shipment or transmission out of the United States, including the sending or taking of a defense article out of the United States in any manner or releasing or otherwise transferring technical data to a foreign person in the United States (a “deemed export”). Any release in the United States of technical data to a foreign person is deemed to be an export to all countries in which the foreign person has held or holds citizenship or holds permanent residency. The ITAR defines “foreign person” to mean any natural person who is not a lawful permanent resident of the United States or who is not a protected individual (as defined in the Immigration Reform and Control Act, discussed in Part One of this series), as well as a foreign corporation, business association, partnership, trust, society or any other entity or group that is not incorporated or organized to do business in the United States and any international organization, foreign government and any agency or subdivision of a foreign government. It is important to note that the EAR makes it clear that the term “foreign person” is synonymous with the term “foreign national” as used in the EAR.

As you likely have already surmised, the “deemed export” concept is where companies find the direct intersection of anti-discrimination laws and U.S. export controls. How can a company walk the line between requesting relevant information on an employee’s (or potential employee’s) nationality without violating anti-discrimination laws that prohibit discrimination based on nationality?

D.    Navigating the Intersection with Anti-Discrimination Laws

The U.S. Government has provided some guidance for industry with respect to the intersection between the various laws controlling technology transfer, firearm possession and anti-discrimination laws. First, with respect to technology transfer, the licensing requirements of the ITAR are not prohibitions against hiring non-U.S. persons. In fact, nowhere in the regulation is there a prohibition against the hiring of non-U.S. persons to perform license-required tasks. The only requirement is that the employer seek the proper authorization before the person is allowed access to the controlled technical data.

An employer may consider citizenship status if it is required in order to comply with a law, regulation or executive order, or the terms of a Federal, State or local government contract (8 U.S.C. §1324b(a)(2)(C)). However, this must be done in a non-discriminatory way. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has published letters it has issued to companies seeking guidance on how to comply with anti-discrimination laws when verifying an employee’s citizenship status under U.S. export control laws. In DOJ’s February 25, 2013 letter, it advises that “if the information is sought for compliance with export licensing requirements, and not for employment eligibility verification or any discriminatory purposes, inquiring about an applicant’s citizenship or country of origin for this purpose would not appear to violate the [Immigration and Nationality Act] anti-discrimination provision as long as such inquiries are made uniformly and without the intent to discriminate on the basis of national origin or citizenship status.” The full text of this letter is available at: justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2013/02/28/163.pdf. Additional DOJ letters addressing anti-discrimination laws and U.S. export controls are available at: justice.gov/crt/file/837281/download (March 31, 2016 letter), and justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/06/07/134.pdf (October 6, 2010 letter).

However, DOJ advises that “to the extent an employer screens out all applicants from particular countries or rescinds job offers for certain applicants based on the assumption that the employer would need to obtain an export license for those individuals at some point during the employment relationship, the applicants may allege national origin discrimination in a charge filed with [the appropriate agency].” This guidance applies equally to current employees. Having to obtain an export license to employ an individual cannot be used as the sole reason for refusing to hire or promote non-U.S. persons.

II.     Gun Control Act Restrictions on Transfer and Possession

Another potentially tricky area of compliance is the GCA prohibition on certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive or possess firearms or ammunition. One type of prohibited person is an individual who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. §802). To add a layer of complexity to this, many states have passed laws legalizing marijuana use in some form. So it is not uncommon for a business licensed under the GCA to ask:

• Can I screen potential employees against the prohibited persons provisions of the GCA without violating the Americans with Disabilities Act?

From a federal law perspective, the use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside. This means that any person who currently uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether it is legal in your state, is “an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance and is prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.” ATF issued an open letter in 2011 directly addressing the use of marijuana for medical purposes and federal firearms laws (available at: atf.gov/file/60211/download).

As with the question of an individual’s nationality, the question becomes how may a company inquire about an individual’s current drug use without violating the anti-discrimination laws surrounding addiction disabilities?

With respect to GCA prohibitions on the transfer of firearms to a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance, the EEOC provides guidance on its website (eeoc.gov) to assist employers on making a determination as to current drug use. Remember, past drug addiction and recovery may be considered a disability—the ADA does not allow questions about disabilities before making a conditional job offer. However, because current drug users are not protected under the ADA, an employer may ask about current illegal use of drugs. Indeed, the EEOC advises, “questions may involve illegal drugs (cocaine, crack, heroin) and the illegal use of prescription drugs. An employer also may require an applicant to take a drug test. (If the drug test is positive, the employer may validate the test results by asking about lawful drug use or other possible explanations for the positive result, other than the illegal use of drugs.)”

III. Summary

It can be challenging to navigate the thorny intersection of anti-discrimination prohibitions with technology transfer controls and GCA transfer and possession restrictions. As we have seen, employers must be aware of the potential for anti-discrimination claims when verifying citizenship status for purpose of export controls. Contrary to what some believe, the ITAR does not contain outright prohibitions related to employment of non-U.S. persons. Inquiries related to citizenship status must be made uniformly (i.e., of all employees or potential hires) and be solely for the purpose of determining whether an export license is required. These inquiries should be separate and distinct from those made to determine employment eligibility generally. On the GCA side, questions surrounding current illegal drug use are permissible, but those related to past use or recovery are not.

To avoid running afoul of federal non-discrimination laws, it is important that businesses recognize the intersection of these laws with export controls over technology and GCA restrictions. Companies should put in place comprehensive processes and procedures, including training, to guide the various functions within a company when making hiring, firing and advancement decisions.

The author extends her appreciation to the generous contributions of Katherine Heubert, Esq., at Reeves & Dola, LLP.

***The information contained in this article is for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended to be construed or used as legal advice or as legal opinion. You should not rely or act on any information contained in this article without first seeking the advice of an attorney. Receipt of this article does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

About the Author

Johanna Reeves is the founding partner of the law firm Reeves & Dola, LLP in Washington, DC (reevesdola.com). For more than 15 years she has dedicated her practice to advising and representing U.S. companies on compliance matters arising under the federal firearms laws and U.S. export controls. Since 2011, Johanna has served as Executive Director for the Firearms and Ammunition Import/Export Roundtable (F.A.I.R.) Trade Group (fairtradegroup.org). She has also served as a member of the Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG) since 2016. Johanna can be reached at jreeves@reevesdola.com or 202-715-9941.

In part I of the Interview In SAR Volume 20 Number 9 SAR gathers the background on Barrett Firearms and Chris Barrett’s participation in the growth of the company. We take up the story at that point…

SAR: What is Barrett’s recent interest in creating a medium machine gun?

Chris: A while back a solicitation come out in the Commerce Business Daily. It was part of the network that people used for Government Contract announcements. Nowadays it is called Fed Biz Ops. The solicitation was for a lightweight version of the M240 series. Primarily replacing the Bravo version. Eventually this turned into what the M240 Lima is today. What we thought was really the case was that the solicitation was written so one particular contractor could quickly win it, written between the lines, and a Commercial Off the Shelf product would be available.

Apparently they were looking into a lightweight M240 at the same time the solicitation came out as well. We were very disappointed at that after we had invested so much energy into our design. Regardless, we saw the solicitation and we put the Barrett brain to it. We looked at the M240 and saw all these different rivets and small parts and thought to ourselves, “With a modern CNC machine can’t we make all of this one piece? Can we turn sixty some pieces into one part?”. And the answer is “Yes, you can.” The riveted design has a lot of short comings. One, it is built like the Titanic, old school, steam power, this is how we built things in the industrial revolution. It has laminations between metal. This is where corrosion and rust like to start. Anytime two pieces of metal are touching together, what happens between them? Oxidation. Any fastener eventually comes loose, a simple principle of firearms design. Anything designed to come loose, does. And rivets are a kind of fastener. So we designed a hardened 4140 steel receiver, that alone was four pounds lighter than the standard 240. It is simple, and proven. So we feel that the solution that the Army received in the Lima was not particularly creative at all. It is not wise to say, “Let’s take a great design and just make every part out of titanium.” That’s not how you select material as an engineer, by just selecting material based on one attribute. Titanium isn’t the ideal application for what that machine gun is used for. I would call it a misunderstanding of design intent. We just have a simple and elegant solution to a problem. We’ve really been paying attention to the design recently as well. We started with the receiver, the heart of the gun, and now we are moving out from there, on to many different parts of the machine gun. We will have several patents on components of that machine gun by the time we are production ready. As an example, the original handguard design with the tri-Picatinny rails clamps onto the gas tube. It tends to heat up very quickly during a course of fire. So the handguard has to be a huge block to keep your hand way from it, with heat insulators to further keep the rails from getting hot. We decided to say, “We’re not touching it”. Ours doesn’t even touch the gas tube, it bolts to the front of the receiver and free floats as you will along the gas tube. We removed the bipods which also used to be mounted to the gas tube, and that is connected to the barrel. I know that a machine gun is not a sniper rifle, but I want my machine gun to hit where I’m aiming. And even on that gun, with that heavy of a barrel, as that gun gets warm and I’m putting pressure from my head on the butt stock, that deflects a barrel and could have detrimental effects downrange. So we moved the bipods to the handguard, which is already free floated, so you are not affecting the point of impact. Your handguard and your bipods are still getting some heat radiated off of them but it is nothing compared to the previous design. Then you have the ability to quickly remove the bipods. If you damage them or need to get them out of the way in a hurry, then you can easily remove them with ours, but with a conventional M240, you have to take some time to take them off, time you might not have. We also redesigned the butt stock, feed tray cover, even some of the internals. Then we did the 240 LWS, the Lightweight Short. It is four inches shorter, but with the same system. It is a machine gun, the size of the Mk.48 in overall length, almost the same weight, but it is a 240. And the 240 is an undeniably reliable machine gun. The Mk48 is not what the 240 is, when it comes to reliability. What we think we have done, is that we have created a machine gun that is the same package size of the Mk48, but has the unwavering reliability of a 240.

SAR: Has there been any further input on the 240 LW outside of the U.S. and have there been any sales?

Chris: Yes, we’ve actually sold some 240 LWs to two countries now, one of them in northern Europe. They are very discerning customers, and they love our design so far. We’ve worked with them a lot on the design and throughout the experimentation process. We’ve got some interest from more, but this kind of thing takes time.

SAR: The Model 82 has made Barrett unique in that since its inception, the company doesn’t have any direct competition when it comes to a .50 caliber, long range, anti-material rifle.

Chris: There is an enormous value to being first in a field, and not only being first but also having a quality product. You almost have to be negligent to be caught off guard in that case, to get caught by competitors. We’re persistent with our platform, we have a rifle that is 30 years into maturity, and they are only getting better. We’ve got a tremendous amount of field testing from militaries all over the world as well. Things you cannot duplicate in a laboratory or design shop have resulted in the M82A1, with the enhancements to the bolt carrier group, are really at the heart of why that rifle works so well. But then the rifle became the M107. So dad built the rifle and it had some limited military usage, and I believe it was Sweden’s military EOD teams that were the first to pick it up. A huge misconception we have is that this rifle was developed for military usage and in reality, it wasn’t, there wasn’t a requirement out there that it would fill. People thought it was a bad idea to begin with. Ronnie Barrett, a photographer, who played with subguns and belt feds, wanted to shoot a .50 caliber firearm, but didn’t want to own an M2. But the military started seeing a use for it, and it just took off from there. We modernized it even further with the M107A1, which made it a lot lighter, more precise, and it takes a suppressor. It was a block of enhancements, some from feedback, some from things we knew we had to change from experience of building the rifle. Well the U.S. Military has not adopted the M107A1 because like a lot of things in Government procurement, things can take a while to happen. So the U.S. has not adopted it, but several other countries have adopted it as their first anti material rifle. Norway, Denmark, to name a few. We also offer an A1 upgrade to militaries that have the M107, in which we cut the rear of the buttstock off and put a polymer piece in it, with adjustable length of pull, and an integrated monopod socket with a Picatinny rail. This also allows for the fitting of a spade grip to the rear of it from which you could fire the weapon from inside a vehicle more easily than the traditional grip. We changed many of the little features as well, when it comes to tolerances and fits. In the beginning the M82s were 3 or 4 MOA rifles, we have multiple M107A1s that are shooting 1 MOA today. However one of the biggest downfalls of the rifle is the ammunition. Throughout its history it has mostly been employed with machine gun ball ammunition and it needs precision rounds for long range work. We handload our own rounds here for that purpose.

SAR: What are some of the recent changes that have influenced the company?

Chris: When it comes to employees, as we have become more efficient, our employee to rifle ratio has not grown. Our peak employee count was during the M107 fulfillment because we had to surge our production. But what has happened in the last three to five years is that we’ve gotten better leadership which has led to better efficiency. Now we are back down to around 110 employees, but are making more than we ever have before. It’s processes, and technology. We are getting better via technology but are keeping that Barrett “DNA” of the people that make it happen. We still have craftsmen, but we are leveraging technology as much as we can. In essence, to get to the ragged edge of performance, it costs a lot. The difference between a rifle that can shoot 1 MOA and one that can shoot .5 MOA, well that last .5 MOA is going to cost you a higher percentage than getting to 1 MOA. But the people we’ve added, the executive leadership team has been instrumental in changing the way the company operates, through the efficiency, the quality, and the customer satisfaction level. Especially our Vice President of Operations, is one of our unsung heroes. He isn’t from the gun industry at all, he’s from the automotive industry. Our sales head, he’s from this industry, and you have to have that. The sales guy has to know who to call, how things work within it, etc… But at the operations level, I didn’t want that. The gun industry compared to other industries is largely immature. As an example many companies have still been building guns gunsmithing style, fitting them together. He has changed the way we work in that he brought in a hospital like mentality of keeping everything clean, having quality control checks. He is the reason why we build more products today than ever, with more quality, more efficiency, with less defects, and with fewer people. I like to think we follow the Thomas Edison model. Edison was a brilliant designer on his own accord, but he didn’t design everything he came out with. He was the creative director of a group of people that he pushed to get what he knew he wanted. That’ is why he created so many industries and that is more or less where I want to see Barrett go. It is fantastic to have a Ronnie Barrett that put together the M82, but we are trying to get a whole group of equally talented designers, who are pushing the envelope. That is where I see us going. He is still here with us though, out on the floors, still very involved in everything that is going on. But for the future, we are looking into getting the right gun design team to be able to free him up and keep our products going. We are trying to stay above the trenches and see out as far out as we can, predict trends and so on. Sometimes the world’s greatest products were not from necessity but from someone saying, “Hey, this is where we need to go”.

SAR- So where does that put the company in the future? Where will Barrett be in 3-5 years?

Chris: I want to really broaden the Barrett brand so that it is accessible to more people in more markets. For example we’re pushing into the smaller calibers, the AR market. Because we started with the super niche, the M82. We’ve also got the .416 Barrett, which everyone thinks of as a California legal round, but it is so much more than that in that it is an exceptional cartridge of its own accord when it comes to long range precision. It should change what people consider to be long range. Long range used to be a thousand yards, it used to be three hundred yards a long time ago. Well I’m going to say that long range is now over two thousand yards. We want to be optimizing platforms for that cartridge. We want to offer the Barrett name to customers who might not have a need for a .50 caliber rifle. That’s why you see us with the REC7, and the MRAD. We have also launched a sub-brand of high end shotguns. We like hunting, we like traditional sporting guns too, but that doesn’t fit under the traditional Barrett brand though. We’ve got our Barrett Sovereign line of over and under shotguns, that we just introduced at SHOT show. A lot of people love the Barrett brand but they aren’t going to buy an anti-material rifle. Take for instance the Safari Club International folks. As another example we’ve acquired the assets of Forbes rifle company, a hunting rifle manufacturer, which makes some really light hunting rifles. I would like to see us as the Beretta of the United States, in that their product line up is very extensive. We’re not going to quadruple the amount of M107A1s we make, it is just not going to happen. So as a company that started at the highest echelon of performance, you can only go so far with that. You have to make products that appeal to a broader market if you want to grow. Back to us, the more products we make, the better we get, and the better our flagship products are. You just learn things from making that many more products that you wouldn’t have found out by just making just a few. That technology trickles up and down.

New Caledonia, South Pacific, 24 September 1945. An Army bazooka team demonstrates loading the improved M6A1 rocket in the M1A1 launcher, easily identified by the absence of a SAFE/FIRE box on the top. Following safety guidelines in field and technical manuals, the “rocketeers” are wearing gas masks for eye protection, steel helmets, and gloves on the gunner. Credit: U.S. National Archives

By Robert Bruce

“Battlefield reports dictated a number of design changes, starting with deflectors to protect the gunner against backblast of slow-burning rockets in cold weather. This was followed by wrapping the rear section of the barrel with piano wire to reinforce it against detonation of rocket motors within the launcher, substituting a generator for batteries in the firing mechanism, eliminating the forward hand grip, and, in the fall of 1943, the most radical change of all, the take-apart launcher M9. Each design change posed its own problems, but, as the bazooka enjoyed such a high priority, nothing was allowed to stand in its way for very long. In fact, production schedules were met more consistently on the bazooka than on any other item of small arms manufacture.” [Procurement and Supply, see Ref. 2]

In the first installment of this two-parter, we closely examined the genesis of the “Bazooka,” a revolutionary addition to the infantryman’s arsenal. Now, let’s move ahead with a look at how combat experience exposed some flaws in the first production model launchers and rockets, forcing both life-saving and death-dealing modifications at a breakneck pace.

New and Improved

A brief note of characteristics and improvements to the M1 launchers and M6 rockets:

M1 (fires M6 Rockets), fielded in June 1942: Closely resembling the T1 prototype, this first production model is a 54 inch long thin steel tube characterized by two handgrips and a rectangular SAFE/FIRE “control box” on top. To accommodate right- or left-handed gunners, it has ladder type front sights on both sides of the barrel and a notched bar rear sight on an arm that swings to either side. Electrical ignition of the rocket motor is accomplished by a firing circuit powered by a dry battery housed in a wooden stock. Electrical contacts on the M6 rocket are an unpainted conducting band around the warhead and a taped down wire running along its length to the fins.

M1A1 (fires M6A1 and A3 Rockets), fielded in July 1943: Simplified version of the M1, modified to launch the new M6A1 rocket with improved propellant, strengthened motor tubing and internal electrical wires that are less prone to damage and resultant malfunction. Retains battery ignition but eliminates control box in favor of twin wire contacts at the rear. Single handgrip/trigger as well as fixed front and rear sights for right-handed gunners only. Adds flash deflector screen on the muzzle and steel wire wrapping to reinforce the rear of the launch tube against rocket motor detonation. Mount points for a carrying sling.

M9 and M9A1 (fires M6A1 and A3 Rockets), fielded October 1943: Much-improved version, readily identified by its two-piece launch tube with quick coupling collar. Integral muzzle flash deflector and a single handgrip housing a squeeze-operated magneto electrical generator. Significantly better accuracy due to the T90 optical reflex sight. Wood stock replaced with a sheet metal ribbon type with two shoulder rest positions that allow more comfortable firing in all positions.

M6A3 Rocket: Essentially the same internally as the M6A1, the new A3 features a rounded nose to improve warhead detonation when striking targets at more extreme angles and drum-style fins for greater accuracy in flight. Interestingly, the “new and improved” nose shape and fin configuration were taken from combat-proven M9 rifle grenades that had long been used side by side with bazookas. Armor penetration increased some 30% (from 3 to 4 inches) by changing the steel cone in the shaped charge to copper.

Bazookas on Beachhead and Battlefront

These improvements were driven by battlefield experience, received with utmost seriousness and implemented with astonishing speed.

First combat use of the bazooka came in the North African campaign that began in November 1942. GIs, who first saw the new contraptions while en route aboard troop ships, were severely handicapped by the absence of instruction materials and no opportunity for live fire training prior to the actual assault landings.

Three months later (presuming that this interval allowed the training deficit to be overcome) it was unfortunate, but not inexplicable, that bazookas weren’t notable in stopping German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel’s armored forces in the disastrous rout of US II Corps at Kasserine Pass.

Likely contributing to this was poor reliability from an unfortunate combination of inherent flaws with hastily manufactured launchers and rockets coupled with mishandling by the rookie “rocketeer” teams. And when the rockets did launch and hit, the frontal and side armor on Rommel’s tough Tiger and Mark IV tanks was too thick to be penetrated.

It’s understandable that the radical new weapon’s performance as an effective anti-armor weapon was a disappointment to its Ordnance proponents, not to mention the unlucky GIs faced with latest-generation German tanks. This set in motion a determined and widespread effort to fix the chain of problems from factory to fighter that paid off in the next big Allied push.

“The work of the bazooka in the landings [Gila, Sicily, July 1943] and throughout the campaign was watched with great interest. One Ordnance observer claimed that bazookas accounted for Pzkw IV tanks on four occasions; another claimed a Pzkw VI Tiger, though admittedly the Tiger was knocked out by a lucky hit through the driver’s vision slot. On the other hand, many officers preferred the rifle grenade to the bazooka as a close-range antitank weapon. An interesting discovery made in Sicily was that the bazooka was effective as a morale weapon against enemy soldiers in strongpoints and machine gun nests.“ [On Beachhead and Battlefront, see Ref. 2]

While the bazooka got better and better as GIs pushed German and Italian enemy forces back into Europe, it was also showing both potential and problems in the Pacific Theater.

For Army and Marine infantrymen facing off relatively few and lightly armored Japanese tanks, the bazooka proved a particularly deadly weapon against far more numerous enemy bunkers and caves…when it worked. But failures to fire, as noted in North Africa, were even more common in the torrential tropical rains and steaming jungles of island-hopping warfare.

Corroded electrical contacts, battery problems and moisture-damaged rocket propellant were most often cited in battlefield reports, rapidly leading to improvements to the M1A1 and then the completely redesigned M9, best of the series. Most notable for replacing batteries with magneto ignition and separating the tube into two parts with a quick coupler, the M9 and M9A1 launchers with M6A3 rockets were highly effective in crippling the heavier model tanks and blasting bunkers and caves.

Damn good, but not nearly good enough.

The Bazooka’s German Babies

“On the performance of the bazooka, opinions varied. The general feeling was that it was good but ought to be better. One assistant division commander complained that ‘we’re still using the same model we started with’ while the Germans have ‘taken our bazooka idea and improved upon it.’ The Germans had produced more deadly antitank weapons of this type in the Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust, both of which, however, were extremely dangerous to the user. The Panzerfaust, a recoilless weapon firing a hollow-charge grenade, would pierce seven or eight inches of armor plate. Some U.S. combat officers collected all they could get their hands on for their troops; one tank officer considered the Panzerfaust ‘the most concentrated mass of destruction in the war.‘” [On Beachhead and Battlefront, see Ref. 2]

As previously noted in Part 1, our British and Russian allies had urgently requested bazookas and both got some from the earliest production run in 1942. The Brits thought about it and then inexplicably clung to the woefully inferior PIAT.

The Soviets, while favoring marginally effective anti-tank rifles of native design, apparently tried bazookas in battle and therein lies another fascinating tale, necessarily abbreviated here.

American M1 launchers and M6 rockets in use by the Red Army were soon captured by the Germans, quickly evaluated and greatly improved, resulting in the Raketenpanzerbusche 54, better known as the Panzerschreck, which is literally translated as “tank terror.”

This was a bigger and better bazooka; a shoulder-fired launcher for a much larger and more powerful 88mm (3.5 inch) diameter rocket. Capable of defeating 100mm/4 inches of armor, it was first encountered by U.S. forces in 1943.

The ingenious Panzerfaust (tank fist) followed, changing the bazooka concept of a rocket, to a cheaply manufactured single shot recoilless rifle, firing a series of increasingly powerful shaped charge warhead tipped grenades from a skinny, throwaway launch tube. (See back issues of SAR online to understand the difference between rockets and recoilless launchers).

Bazooka Epilogue

While the American GI’s spunky little 2.36-inch bazooka was effective in many situations, its armor penetration was inadequate from the beginning and only marginally improved during WWII. The fact that examination of the much more powerful German 3.5-inch Panzerschreck didn’t result in a crash program that was successful in fielding beefed-up bazookas any time in the next two years of the war borders on criminal negligence.

Not to say that Ordnance didn’t try.

Bringing necessarily pragmatic “capture and copy” full circle, the enemy’s Panzerschreck birthed the U.S. 3.5-inch M20 “Super Bazooka,” beginning development in October 1944 but not completed before war’s end with the surrender of Japan eleven months later.

Worse, few M20s were available to luckless GIs in South Korea in June 1950, who were facing heavily armored Russian T34 tanks supplied to
the invaders.

Although the Panzerfaust didn’t seem to inspire U.S. ordnance personnel to pursue development, it certainly found favor with the Soviets, who refined and fielded it as the RPG-2 recoilless launcher, first encountered by American troops in Vietnam, and going on in various forms as the RPG-7 recoilless rifle using a rocket assisted grenade. The famous “RPG” has become almost as famous and recognizable worldwide as the AK-47 family.

Anti-Tank Rocket Launchers M1A1 and M9

Characteristics: “The 2.36-inch AT Rocket Launcher M1A1 is an electrically operated weapon of the open tube type. It is fired from the shoulder in the standing, kneeling, sitting, or prone positions. It is used to launch high-explosive rockets against tanks, armored vehicles, pill boxes, and emplacements. The rockets weigh approximately 3 ½ pounds and are capable of penetrating heavy armor at angles of impact up to 30 degrees. The weapon can be aimed up to distances of 300 yards. Greater ranges may be obtained by estimating the angle of elevation. The maximum range is 700 yards.” [FM23-30 and TM 9-294, see Ref. 3 and 4]

Length: M1A1.…54.5 inches; M9.…61 inches, disassembled 31.5 inches
Weight: M1A1.…13.26 pounds; M9.…15 pounds
Internal diameter: 2.36 inches (2.37 in. actual)
Ignition: M1A1.…Electric power supplied by dry cell batteries; M9.…Electric power supplied by trigger actuated magneto
Range: Point targets 50 to 300 yards; Area targets 300 to 650 yards
Elevation for maximum range: 40 degrees
Rate of fire: Approximately 10 rounds per minute
Sights: M1A1.…fixed aperture rear and ladder front (100, 200, 300 yards); M9. …Optical reflex sight T90
Ammunition: High Explosive Anti Tank Rockets M6A1 and A3, Practice Rockets M7A1 and A3, Smoke Rocket M10.
Accessories: Rocket carrying Bag M6, sling
Notes: M1 model fielded 1942, M1A1 fielded 1943, M9 fielded 1943. Approximately 490,000 of all models were manufactured by end of WWII. Primary contractor General Electric Corp for M1 and M1A1, with Cheney Bigelow Wire Works making the M9s.

Anti-Tank Rocket M6A1

Length: 21.6 inches
Weight: 3.4 pounds
Muzzle velocity: 265 feet per second
Penetration: 3 inches of homogenous steel armor to 30 degrees off perpendicular. 1 inch entry hole.

Primary References:

1. The author acknowledges with great appreciation the cooperation and assistance given by the director and staff of the US Army Ordnance Museum, recently relocated to Fort Lee, Virginia. Most notably some of the rare photos accompanying this feature as well as the September-October 1944 issue of ARMY ORDNANCE magazine with by-then Colonel L.A. Skinner’s article “Birth of the Bazooka: The Genesis of a Powerful Portable Antitank Weapon.“

2. Three volumes from the United States Army in World War II series, The Technical Services, Office of the Chief of Military History, US Government
Printing Office:

Ordnance Department: Planning munitions for War
Ordnance Department: Procurement and Supply
Ordnance Department: On Beachhead and Battlefront

(Many large municipal and university libraries in the U.S. are likely to have these and others in the United States Army in World War II series in their Reference sections. It is well worth the time and effort to find and examine them.)

3. War Department Basic Field Manual FM 23-30, HAND AND RIFLE GRENADES, ROCKET, AT, HE, 2.36-INCH, 1944

4. Ordnance Department Technical Manual TM 9-294, 2.36-inch AT ROCKET LAUNCHER M1A1, 1944

5. War Department Training Film T.F. 18 1166 “The Antitank Rocket M6”
(see YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRPsxgOozqk or search “Bazooka Rocket Launcher”)

6. U.S. Infantry Weapons of World War II, by Bruce N. Canfield, Mowbray Pub. 1994-96

By Robert G. Segel

For centuries prior to the advent of firearms, a metal blade of some sort was the primary weapon of warfare. It took many forms, in many lengths, in many metals and were known by many names: pikes, spears, lances, bayonets, swords, daggers, knives, dirks, and stilettos to name just a few. The brutal encounters of ancient armies in hand to hand combat armed with metallic blades of any sort was a gruesome act and required fortitude of the highest degree.

Firearms pulled the combatants apart allowing the encounter to be done at a distance and, to some degree, depersonalized the combat. But, warfare being what it is, when ammunition ran out, or the firearm became disabled, and face to face combat was imminent, then one’s life depended on the blade.

Blades have the advantage of being used for centuries and thus the research and development in their use in different circumstances is well documented. It was recognized early on that a distance between the combatants played an important part in the survivability of the warrior. Thus, lances, pikes, long swords, etc., evolved in the fighting arsenal.

In the early years of firearms development, when matchlock and flintlock rifles afforded single shots and a slow reloading time, spikes were affixed to the rifles. These early socket bayonets gave the added benefit of a stabbing spike at the end of the rifle allowing extra distance to the enemy like a lance.

While smaller hand held battle blades serve a useful and generally specific purpose, the blade attached to the end of a rifle during an advance allowed a secondary means of combat in the offense. Attacking a trench line or emplacement with a 16 or 17 inch bayonet attached to the end of a rifle is more appropriate than with a dagger or stiletto. Conversely, sneaking up on and dispatching a sentry with a bayonet is not the weapon of choice when a stealthy dagger is the appropriate weapon for the job.

Interestingly, as the battlefield changed, so did the fundamental use of the bayonet change. In World War I with the type of warfare being fought then, the military thinking continued that a long 16-inch bayonet blade at the end of a long rifle was appropriate. But the battlefield changed in World War II and the long bayonet gave way to a shortened 7 to 10 inch blade that continues to this day.

Every army in every country has some sort of battle blade and/or bayonet. There is a multitude of styles, makers, and variants that authors and collectors spend a lifetime researching. The bayonets shown here are just a sampling of the types used in World War I and II and hopefully give you an insight to their military usage of that time period.

British Pattern 1907 (P07) bayonet for the British .303 Enfield SMLE (Short Magazine, Lee Enfield) No. I Mk III rifle. This pattern of bayonet was used in World War I and World War II and was the standard British small arms bayonet. This bayonet was made in England, Australia and India. As shown here, this P07 was made in England by Wilkinson in WWI and is fitted to the WWII British .303 SMLE rifle and the British Lanchester 9mm machine carbine (submachine gun) as used by the British Royal Navy. Blade length is 17 inches with an overall length of 21.75 inches. The leather scabbard has a metal tip and throat and a round frog stud that was adopted in 1915.

British Pattern 1913 (P13) bayonet as produced in the United States for the British by Winchester and Remington. In 1913, England began designing a new rifle in .276 caliber to be called the Pattern 1913. When war broke out in 1914 production had not begun and existing facilities were busy producing the .303 cal. SMLE (Short Magazine, Lee Enfield), which was in critically short supply. It was then decided that the new rifle, to be in the standard British .303 caliber, would be made under contract in the U.S. by Remington in Bridgeport, Conn., Winchester and the new Remington plant at Eddystone, Penn. called the Pattern 14 (P14). The bayonet for the P14 remained as the Pattern 1913 (P13) as it was not modified. Because it was very similar to the Pattern 1907 (P07) bayonet for the SMLE, the grips were given two vertical grooves to differentiate the P13 from the P07 as the P07 and the P13 bayonets were not interchangeable. Remington produced about 1.24 million of the P13 bayonets and Winchester made about 225,000 bayonets for the U.S. made British contract P14 rifles. The blade is 16.5 inches long with an overall length of 21.75 inches. The leather scabbard has a metal tip and throat with a round frog stud. As shown here, a U.S. Winchester made Pattern 1913 bayonet (made in March, 1917) with English acceptance marks is mounted on a British Pattern 14 rifle made by Winchester.

The U.S. Model of 1905 bayonet was designed specifically for the Model of 1903 Springfield rifle. The ’03 Springfield originally had a rod bayonet but it did not have the durability that was desired. It was believed that a longer knife bayonet was needed since the ’03 Springfield was shorter than the previously used Krag rifle. After adoption in 1905, the bayonet was made at Springfield Armory (who produced over 1 million between 1905 and 1922) and Rock Island Arsenal (who produced just under 500,000 bayonets in runs between 1906-1914 and then again between 1917-1919). After WWI, the M1905 bayonet was made by commercial contractors and is not nearly as well made as the arsenal made bayonets. The blade is 16 inches in length and 20 inches overall. The M1910 scabbard has a wooden body with a rawhide cover with a metal throat and an M1910 wire belt hook at the throat end. It is then covered with a canvas sheath with a leather tip. It is interesting to note that unlike most previous U.S. bayonet scabbards, the M1910 scabbard was not meant to be worn on the belt but instead was to be officially carried on the left side of the soldier’s backpack. It could be worn on the belt when conditions called for it and typically in combat situations soldiers carried it wherever they felt it would be most accessible. The M1905 bayonet will also fit the M1 Garand rifle. As shown here, this Springfield Armory made (in 1919) 16-inch M1905 bayonet is fitted on a Smith-Corona M1903A3 .30-06 Springfield rifle.

The U.S. M1917 Bayonet for the U.S. M1917 Enfield rifle. Winchester and Remington were producing the .303 cal. P14 Enfield Rifle for England during World War I and when the U.S. entered the war production shifted to producing the same weapon for the U.S. army in .30-06 cal. and was designated the M1917. Winchester and Remington were also producing the Pattern 1913 (P13) bayonet for the P14 rifle and when they started producing the weapon for the U.S. army, the bayonet was designated the M1917. Except for the markings, the P13 and the M1917 bayonets are identical. The M1917 bayonet was also used extensively with seven different U.S. trench shotguns. As shown here, an M1917 bayonet manufactured by Remington is fitted on a Winchester M1917 Enfield rifle and an M1917 bayonet manufactured by Winchester is attached to a ventilated bayonet adapter for the Winchester Model 1897 trench shotgun. The bayonet blade is 16.5 inches long with a single-sided cutting edge of almost 15 inches and an overall length of 21.75 inches. The Americanized leather scabbard has a metal tip and throat like the British scabbard but instead of a frog stud mounted on the metal throat, an M1910 metal pistol belt bent wire hanger was affixed.

The U.S. World War II M4 bayonet knife was designed specifically to fit the M1 carbine and was officially issued in 1944. Early production M1 carbines had no bayonet attachment point. It wasn’t until 1944 that M1s were produced, and earlier guns retrofitted, with a bayonet attachment point. The handle is made of leather with a series of ridges for improved gripping. The 6.25 inch blade is of a single edge for about one half its length to the top and the rest of it is double edged. The overall length is 11.5 inches. The metal pommel contains the latching mechanism. The M4 knife/bayonet was used in World War II, Korea and into the early days of the Vietnam War. It continued in production to 1956 and was made by as many as 22 different manufacturers during its life span with 7 primary manufacturers during WWII. The scabbard is marked M8A1 denoting that this scabbard comes with a belt loop and a bent wire M1910 belt hook. The body of the scabbard is made of fiberglass with a canvas flap with snap loop and a metal throat. As shown here, the M4, manufactured by Camillus Cutlery Company, is mounted on a 1944 Winchester manufactured M1 carbine.

The U.S. M1 bayonet was a shortened version of the M1905 bayonet. With the onset of World War II and the adoption of the M1 Garand rifle replacing the Springfield M1903 as the primary battle rifle of the U.S. Army, there was a shortage of M1905 bayonets. Nevertheless, early in the war, military brass still believed that a long bladed bayonet was an important piece in the soldier’s personal arsenal as demonstrated in WWI and a number of commercial contractors were enlisted to put the long-bladed M1905 bayonet back into production except with a fiberglass scabbard with a metal throat with M1910 belt wire hooks designated as the M3 scabbard. The tactics of WWI were found to be invalid as the war progressed and the 16-inch blade was no longer considered to be a viable tool. Thus, the 16 inch WWI era bayonets and the early WWII made 16 inch bayonets were cut down and shortened to a blade length of 10 inches with an overall length of 14 inches. As the war wore on, the need for bayonets continued and the contractors actually started making the M1 bayonet in the new 10 inch design with plastic grips rather than wood. Since the M1905 and the M1 bayonets are of the same lineage, they both will fit the 1903 Springfield rifle and the M1 Garand rifle. The scabbard for the 10 inch M1 bayonet is an olive-drab fiberglass body with a metal throat with M1910 belt hanger wires and is designated as the M7 scabbard. As shown here, the World War II made 10-inch M1 bayonet, manufactured by U.F.H. (Union Fork & Hoe Company of Columbus, Ohio), is affixed to a Winchester M1 Garand.

U.S. World War II triangular bayonet for the M1941 Johnson self-loading rifle. The rifle was developed by Capt. Melvin M. Johnson as an alternative to the M1 Garand rifle. Because of the barrel’s movement due to its recoil-operated action, it required a lightweight bayonet that accounts for its skeletonized appearance. It is essentially a socket bayonet without a socket that affixes to the gun by an ingenious flat spring. The M1941 Johnson rifle was used in small numbers by the U.S. Marines early in the war. The blade is 7.75 inches in length with an overall length of 11.75 inches. The scabbard, which has a simple belt loop, is made of leather and has a brass stud to secure the hilt strap. As shown here, it is correctly mounted on a Johnson M1941 rifle. A serial number is individually hand stamped on the left side of the mounting bar.

SG 84/98 III (third pattern), AKA the K98 bayonet Adopted in 1934, the standard German military rifle in World War II was the bolt-action Karabiner 98k (K98), a shortened version of the World War I Gewehr 98 rifle based on the Mauser M98 system. The standard World War II German bayonet was the SG 84/98 III (third pattern), also simply known as the K98 bayonet, and was widely produced by as many as 22 makers from 1934 to 1945. Mass production started in 1936 and the K98 bayonet was issued with a bayonet frog worn on the reverse left side of the load carrying waist belt. The K98 bayonet remained the standard issue bayonet throughout the war with minor manufacturing variations. There were some versions made with a sawback. An interesting side note is the absence of production records so the actual number produced from 1934-1945 is unknown. Researchers and collector organizations have been attempting to reconstruct maker’s codes, production years, and serial numbers. On a statistical analysis basis, otherwise known as a wild guess, it is estimated that just over 14 million SG 84/98 III bayonets were produced. The SG 84/98 III had a blade length of 9.9 inches and an overall length of 15.2 inches. As shown here, it is mounted on a K98 rifle. With matching serial numbered metal scabbard, it was manufactured by Dürkopp Werke, Bielefeld in 1937.

World War II British socket bayonet for the 9mm Sten Mk. II Machine Carbine (submachine gun). The Sten Mk. I bayonet was made of sheet steel and utilized a rod/spike blade copied from the No. 4 Mk II* socket bayonet that had a usable blade length of 7.5 inches. It is a fairly crude spike with a tubular mount that fit over the barrel and had an external spring catch that engaged one of the cooling holes at the muzzle end in the barrel shroud. Overall length is 11.5 inches. The Sten Mk. I bayonet used the existing No. 4 scabbard. Though initially believing there was a need for this type of bayonet, it is alleged that 75,280 were produced during 1943-1944; but they were apparently never issued or used and ultimately were destroyed. As shown here, the Mk. I Sten bayonet is mounted on a Sten Mk. II machine carbine.

The World War II Japanese Type 30 bayonet (also known as the Pattern 1897 bayonet) was the standard bayonet of the Imperial Japanese Army during the war and was utilized with the Arisaka Type 30 rifle and later the Type 38 and Type 99 rifles as well as the Type 100 submachine gun and Type 96 and 99 light machine guns. Over 8 million were produced and remained in use from the Russo-Japanese war to the end of World War II. It was manufactured in Japan and in occupied territories. The Type 30 Bayonet is a single-edged sword/bayonet with a blade length of 15.75 inches and an overall length of 20.25 inches. Early Type 30 bayonets had a hooked quillion guard and fullered blade giving it a distinctive appearance. The scabbard is an all metal affair with a metal loop at the throat for attaching a leather strap from a belt attaching frog. As shown here, the Type 30 Bayonet fits on the Japanese Type 100 submachine gun and the Type 99 light machine gun indicating its universal usage among Japanese small arms. This particular bayonet shows the manufacturer marking of the Hoten (aka Mukden) Arsenal in Japan-occupied Manchuria (period of occupation 1931-1945). Their production began in August, 1939 and produced about 270,000 units. It is an early production model due to the early hooked quillion and sculptured birdshead pommel.

An assembled prototype fitted with a 7-inch barrel. This PDW is so compact and balanced; the magazine is at the physical center of the gun. Handling and operating a weapon of this level can only be described as instinctive.

By David Lake

By now, Battle Arms Development should be on your radar and in your gun-related vocabulary. If you’re not familiar, then take note right now, Battle Arms Development (BAD) is one of the most forward thinking and capable manufacturers in America’s gun market today. Battle Arms always seems to bring new and improved items to market without much ado – they don’t celebrate every advance in function or ergonomics or performance and they don’t ever seem content to rest on their past achievements; they hold claim on many “firsts” and “bests” in the industry. BAD just continues to hand us really good products on a regular basis and their products never seem to disappoint.

BAD’s latest groundbreaking ideas are focused on the PDW (Personal Defensive Weapon). The PDW, by basic definition, is a carbine but made lighter, smaller, more adaptable and more capable than a standard rifle or carbine. The PDWs from different companies all seem to boast varied advantages. Some are indeed very small in their collapsed state; maybe only slightly larger than a pistol. Some feature calibers that are better suited to short barrels to optimize efficiency and power from a compact weapon. Some PDWs are feather-light and might maintain more common dimension and caliber and capability, but come at a significant weight savings over a typical battle-rifle. Whatever the genesis behind any particular PDW offering, they all seem to come at an inevitable compromise. Something is always given up in order to fulfill the requirements of the end user or target market: be that military, law enforcement, private security, or even the discerning consumer.

Now for some broad and general assertions: The AR-15 is the most widely used small arm (rifle or carbine) by America’s professionals and hobby shooters. Every agency and department has the AR-15. Every soldier and police-officer knows how to use the AR-15. Every citizen that would call himself an enthusiast has at least one AR-15. And every respectable armorer or gunsmith knows this rifle’s function and nuance inside and out. These are irrefutable arguments in favor of the AR-15. Any astute maker of small arms would be unwise to try at changing this trend. Yet, in the race to develop and exploit the growing demand for the PDW, many small arms firms choose to build their PDWs on a new and unfamiliar platform or utilize unproven technology or materials or even introduce new obscure calibers. These specialized calibers can range from the totally ineffective to the economically impossible. Some PDWs utilize pistol calibers, which are just pistols with a buttstock (not a demonstrable improvement). Some PDWs only wear the name as it is assigned and feature none of the qualifying criteria to be considered a proper PDW. Some are even heavier than the basic battle rifle upon which they’re based. The PDW should be an appropriate replacement for both carbine and sidearm without much compromise to the strengths of either. This asks much in the way of power and accuracy. This also demands that the weapon be as light and compact as possible, that the operation is fast and familiar and the construction is rugged and strong. A PDW in the hands of agency or security personnel may never be called upon to fulfill its lethal role. It may live its life and do its duty in total concealment under a vest or coat and must execute this role without becoming an impediment to the agent’s mobility and comfort. But if and when the PDW is taken to task, that weapon must become a decisive and crushing force.

If you have ever tried to decide between the capability of a carbine and the convenience of a sidearm, the PDW solves the problem.

We can believe that when Battle Arms Development steps up to a challenge, they will succeed as the images seen in this article well demonstrate: this is how BAD does the Personal Defensive Weapon. The basic AR-15 has been abbreviated to make it light, compact and concealable while the manual of arms of the ubiquitous AR is maintained. Parts interchangeability and serviceability remains common. Diagnosis and repair of malfunctions can come right from the old manuals. BAD has made improvements wherever possible, yet has not hobbled or otherwise handicapped the AR-15. The PDW presented here represents a collaboration between Battle Arms Development and Cross Machine. The lines that would divide concept, engineering and execution have been blurred over the many months of design, revision and prototyping. Suffice to say, Battle Arms and Cross Machine have been synergistic partners in this project. Herein, we will not discuss the specifics of the upper half, nor the caliber of the BAD PDW. It will be enough to recognize that the upper is short and powerful. The lower and the stock are on parade here today.

At first glance, the obvious “new” on this rifle is the stock’s design. It appears similar to the other PDW style stocks that are becoming increasingly common but, be assured; the only similarity is the purpose of that stock. The design of other PDWs tends to leave a gap under the users cheek when the stock is deployed. These also tend to require a special bolt group that either uses an integral buffer, or a buffer configuration that prevents normal service and disassembly of the rifle. The BAD PDW allows for a solid and proper cheek weld as it features an integral comb of molded textile carbon fiber that bridges that gap. The BAD PDW does require its own unique buffer; but this buffer interfaces with any standard AR-15 or M16 style bolt carrier, and does not alter normal function or operation. The tool steel shafts actually ride on ball bearings and Teflon, so the stock moves and feels like it is, well, on ball bearings and Teflon. And totally new to the market is that this PDW stock is actually part of the receiver. The receiver is created with the stock’s mounting structure machined right in. This saves weight, makes for a stronger and more compact design, and ultimately saves on cost. This is truly unique in the market.

To cater to the needs of the accessory market, BAD has also created an add-on PDW stock with all the advancements and beneficial features of the PDW receiver, but the stock can be attached to any AR-15 lower receiver. The add-on PDW stock assembly is, however, slightly heavier and larger than the integral unit. Both stocks, when collapsed, are the same compact length of 6 inches from the buffer’s face and both use the same specially designed buffer. When fully extended, the add-on stock is 10 inches long and the integral PDW lower will extend to 9.5 inches. The add-on stock, when joined to a receiver, weighs a little over 3 ounces more than the integral receiver.

The fit and finish of both units is perfect. The type 3 hardcoat anodizing is a durable and attractive protective finish. The rods are hardened tool steel that rides in Teflon bushings and are locked into any of 5 positions by steel ball bearings. The stock, when moving, encounters very solid and satisfying “clicks” as the ball bearings snap positively into the detent locations. The hardened locking button is cut on a wire-EDM machine. This locking button can be actuated by the knuckle at the base of the thumb of the “gun hand” while the shooter’s free hand can reach across and position the stock where it may be required. The butt plate is larger and smoother than most other DW stock applications. The most impressive feature of the BAD PDW and accessory stock is both are as solid as any fixed stock on the market. There is no perceptible wobble, shake or rattle in the system. They are expertly designed and crafted with an artist’s pride. Suffice to say that it is an over-achieving piece of engineering and is peerless in execution. Battle Arms assures us that the price of these units will be very competitive with the current offerings for items claiming similar capabilities.

Here at Small Arms Review, we know and recognize the trends in small arms design and development. We have seen them all come and go. We have seen established companies flounder as they refuse to keep up with the times. We have seen promising new startups fail only by their own misplaced enthusiasm. We can authoritatively say that the future will demand unconventional design and the use of advanced materials and a degree of risk taking in small arms design. The consumer is becoming increasingly well-informed and demands that his new gun be something special – and genuinely new. Numbered are the days of cookie cutters and rubber stamps churning out the basic black rifle in a new box with a new name. The new consumer won’t be fooled by yet another “AR.” Battle Arms Development does it right.

This build is based on the AXTS A-DAC lower receiver. Notice the Hera Arms magazine, Tangodown vertical pistol grip with Manta grip sleeve and rail covers, VLTOR MUR-1 upper receiver and Aimpoint Comp4s and 3x magnifier on A.R.M.S. mounts.

By Christopher R. Bartocci

In Part 1, we examined two custom built AR-type rifles that were built from hand selected parts to build rifles that would exceed Mil-Specs and make a truly more reliable and durable rifle. The first was built off of a Mega Arms lower receiver and the second one was built on a new San Tan Tactical lower receiver. The third rifle is built on one of the finest lower receivers in the industry, the AXTS A-DAC fully ambidextrous lower receiver manufactured from an aluminum billet. The fourth rifle is built on the Aero Precision ambidextrous lower receiver with also Aero Precision upper and scope mount. Like the first two, all of the components are hand selected to build the ideal rifle for reliability and longevity plus ease of operation. The parts chosen were based on this author’s opinion of what are the better component and by no means is to be taken as these are the best and all others not. Any AR aficionado will have their own opinion on what feels best and looks best.

The third rifle is built on the AXTS lower receiver. This is a fully ambidextrous lower receiver that has an additional capability not found in any other. The receiver was designed to be as fully ambidextrous as possible. There is a good size bolt release on the right side of the rifle above the magazine release button. On the left side, the ambidextrous magazine release is right below the bolt catch and easily manipulated with the trigger finger of a left handed shooter. The bolt catch on the left side has a large oversized lever making for easy manipulation even with heavy gloves. The unique feature in this rifle is if it were to malfunction, the shooter would drop the magazine via depressing the magazine release button but hold the magazine catch button inward and pull back the charging handle to retract the bolt while never altering your grip. The bolt will lock open to the rear. This saves valuable time clearing a malfunction when you normally would have to switch hands to push in the lower portion of the bolt catch inward with your left thumb, and pull the charging handle to the rear with your right hand. Your firing hand never leaves the pistol grip. As received, this lower receiver came with the Battle Arms Development Ambidextrous Safety System safety lever. The receiver has a very distinctive look to it and is brilliantly machined. The magazine well has a larger bevel to it making insertion of the magazine faster, especially in low level to no light conditions. The front of the magazine well has grooves cut for better grip.

Starting at the stock, the VLTOR Modstock was again selected for its durability and comfort. The receiver extension with its 6-stock positions has numbering of all 5 positions visible through the hole in the top of the stock. The receiver extension end plate is also manufactured by VLTOR. This has a reversible design (SASE-2) that will accept a single point sling. The standard “H” buffer is used. The standard rear takedown pin was used and the front is a proprietary one to this lower receiver, slightly longer. The Magpul MIAD pistol grip was again used due to its comfort. The removable back straps make the grip custom fit to the size of the shooter’s hand. This author has very large hands so the largest insert was used making the grip as comfortable as can be 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 24E 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. He changed 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 spring set up, but increasing hammer fall energy over the Mil-Spec 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 ensuring 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, which include: an anti-flinch action, constant weight stroke, and single stage trigger that allows the shooter to shoot slow or fast. This trigger with the yellow springs (medium) the trigger broke at the advertised 3 1/2 pounds. This has to be one of the finest trigger groups this author has ever tested.

The upper receiver chosen is the VLTOR MUR-1. The receiver is one of the finest in the industry and quite popular with many high end original equipment manufacturers (OEM). The forward assist chosen is again the extremely high quality Iron Viper steel teardrop forward assist with a checkered pattern on the pad of it. The larger surface area of the forward assist makes it easier to use and the checkering makes for a no slip grip. The forward assist/fired cartridge case deflector is removable. You can have a forward assist/fired cartridge case deflector combination or just a fired cartridge case deflector.

The barrel chosen for this rifle is a 16-inch cold hammer forged barrel manufactured by FN USA and finished off at Spikes Tactical. Hammer forged barrels are known to last longer for accuracy and 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 7-inch carbine gas system has always been known to be less reliable than the 12-inch full rifle gas system. This is primarily due to the closer gas port to the chamber. This virtually doubles the port pressure on the carbine causing higher cycle rate and more importantly speeds up the extraction process. The residual pressures have not fully dropped during extraction, so the extractor has to work that much harder to pull that cartridge case out of the chamber and sometimes will result in a failure to extract. The midlength gas system finds that sweet spot in-between the 12 inch rifle and the 7 inch 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 desirable. 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. 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 it 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 hard and on automatic fire, it was found that bolted-on front sight bases will migrate forward first causing short stroke and then completely not cycle due to the gas being completely cut off. This does not happen with the pinned on front sight base; it is secure and reliable in all conditions. The VLTOR compensator was used for the muzzle device. This is a very high quality and effective muzzle brake/flash hider.

The trigger chosen for this rifle is the HPERFIRE 24E single stage trigger. The two toggle springs increase hammer spring force. The author found this to be one of the finest triggers he has ever used.

The rail system chosen for this rifle is manufactured by Centurion Arms. Centurion Arms President LaMonte LeClair is an active duty SEAL out of Crane, Indiana so this is a veteran owned business. This company is a good example of someone who designs the kind of gear he, as a Navy SEAL, wants to carry. His experiences throughout his career are benefitting his customers by producing military grade systems. The C4 Midlength (9-inch) (P/N 06099) is an incredible rail that is designed specifically for a midlength barrel. 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 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. With this rail system, 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 Tangodown. Their heavy duty polymer pistol grip is a fine quality grip that is strong and robust. 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 withstands incredible temperatures. We had gotten the rail up to 500°F and the grip panels were around 60°F. Also, they were heated with a lighter and did not burn.

The charging handle chosen is the AXTS Raptor charging handle. This new charging handle is ambidextrous and allows the shooter to disengage the charging handle latch from either side of the charging handle. The handles are large enough to actuate even with heavy gloves on.
The bolt carrier group chosen is a completely chrome plated group manufactured by Ron Smith and Smith Enterprises. They have made these carriers for many years. Chrome plated carriers go back to the initial design of the AR-10 by Gene Stoner. Chrome is an extremely durable finish, easy to clean, self lubricious and corrosion resistant. The basic reason for it being replaced with manganese phosphate is cost. Sometimes old is new. Many manufacturers have gone back to chrome carriers including Knights Armament and Lewis Machine and Tool. Smith does not believe in staking the carrier key screws. He believes that if they are properly torqued to 58 inch pounds plus some blue Loctite is plenty to do the job. Staking offers little benefit unless it is going out to the masses whom there may be a concern with taking off the carrier key and not knowing how to put a new one on properly. This particular Smith Enterprises carrier has already had over 1,000 rounds through it without a hitch. Smith claims the key to preventing hydrogen embrittlement is heat treating after the carrier is chrome plated.

The fourth rifle built for this series was build off of an Aero Precision Gen II lower receiver. This is an ambidextrous lower receiver. The right side bolt catch utilizes the PDG ambidextrous bolt release, which the receiver is cut to accept this feature. This lever sits above the magazine catch and is pushed downward to disengage the bolt release and push upward to engage. The receiver came with the Norgon ambidextrous magazine release lever. Moreover, this new generation lower came with the markings for the 45° Battle Arms Development Ambidextrous Safety System lever.

Starting at the stock, the Magpul ACS-L stock was chosen. This triangular shaped stock has two battery compartments and a lock for the latch. There is also another compartment in the rear of the right side of the stock for storage. For the receiver extension, the VLTOR A5 assembly was used. This 7 position receiver extension is longer than a standard carbine designed to convert 20 inch M16A2 and M16A4 rifles with fixed stocks into telescopic stocks. This uses a longer buffer as well. When used on a shorter barrel, this system will slightly decrease cycle rate. This is a good enhancement for any carbine. The receiver extension end plate is also manufactured by VLTOR. This has a reversible design (SASE-2) that will accept a single point sling. The rear takedown pin and the front pivot pin are the Battle Arms Development Enhanced Pin Set. This improved the gripping surface and pull strength without using oversized heads, lower profile and will not obstruct an ambidextrous safety, slightly extended (+0.030 in) over mil-spec pins and has a bullet tip guide to prevent damage to the receiver from a tool slipping off the pin and damaging the receivers. The Magpul MIAD pistol grip was again used due to its comfort. There removable backstraps making the grip custom fit to the size of the shooter’s hand. This author has very large hands so the largest insert was used making the grip as comfortable as can be. They have grip cores that hold batteries, oil bottle and a spare bolt. The Magpul Enhanced trigger guard was used as well.

The trigger chosen for this rifle is the JP Enterprises (JPFCP-1EZ) trigger set. This is a single stage match trigger that comes with two hammer springs. The yellow is for competition and the red for mil-spec harder primers. Also in the kit are oversized anti-walk pins and an adjustable/convertible selector/safety lever. The trigger breaks at 4 3/4 pounds. The trigger is fully adjustable with two screws.
The bolt carrier group chosen for this rifle is the JP Enterprises Full Mass Operating System selective fire bolt carrier. This bolt carrier is manufactured from 416 Stainless Steel and has a roller burnished finish for frictionless operation. When properly lubricated, the bolt carrier group is extremely smooth. The carrier has 100% increased bearing surface for smoother operation and improved alignment and lower wear in the upper receiver. The JP Enhanced Bolt has much greater life expectancy over the standard GI Mil-Spec bolt. The Mil-Spec standards manufactured from Carpenter 158 steel. This material is considered not the best by 2014 standards. JP makes their bolt out of SAE9310 steel, which is an extremely high grade steel and makes for an extremely hard surface with a tough, ductile core resistant to structural failure and life expectance far exceeding Carpenter-158.

The barrel on this rifle is a 16 inch cold hammer forged chrome lined barrel manufactured by Daniel Defense. Daniel Defense manufactures their own hammer forged barrels in-house. These are barrels that are military grade and manufactured to the highest standards. The barrel has been proof tested and then magnetic particle inspected to ensure against stress fractures. The rifling is the NATO 1 turn in 7 inches, which means this barrel will stabilize projectiles from 55 up to 80 grains. This barrel uses the midlength gas system which has been previously explained in detail. The gas block is a Daniel Defense low profile gas block that is pinned in place. This is far more durable than the bolt on front sight bases. Pinned on front sight bases will not migrate forward with heavy use. The flash suppressor chosen for this rifle is the Yankee Hill Machine Phantom Compensator with aggressive end cuts (YHM-28-5C2). This is a very effective and popular compensator whether sold individually or put on by an OEM.

The handguard used on this rifle is the Daniel Defense Omega X 9-inch quad Mil-Std 1913 rail mid-length free floating rail. The Omega X is really a hybrid version of the standard Omega rail. The largest difference is the way it mounts to the rifle. The X version has a smooth transition from the upper receiver to the rail. There are no external bolts. This is a 2 piece rail system that offers a continuous top rail along with 2 quick detachment ports for a sling. The barrel nut is proprietary to the Omega X and is assembled with a provided wrench. The rail stops right behind the front sight base or gas block on the barrel. This particular mid-length model can be used with a low profile gas bock on a 7 inch carbine gas system and will cover the gas block giving a longer handguard for the carbine length gas system operator. The barrel is fully free floated increasing accuracy, better dissipation of heat, as well as protects the barrel from having the weight of the accessories and force of a vertical pistol grip right on it. The rail is manufactured from 6061 T-6 aluminum and finished to Military Specification Type III hard coat anodized. The handguard weighs just 11.7 ounces with a width of 1.90 inches. Attached to the handguard is the Yankee Hill Machine folding vertical pistol grip (YHM-9640), which is covered with a Manta grip sleeve. The rails at 9, 3 and 6 o’clock are protected by Manta rail protectors, which have been previously discussed with the third rifle.

The iron sights on this rifle are a little out of the ordinary but very well thought out and very practical. Most combat rifles today have some sort of an optic on them. Some are unmagnified red dot and holographic sights. Others are 4x combat sights that are adjustable or fixed power and others use more of a long range sniper-type scope. Any magnified optic can cause some degree of difficulty with quick target acquisition at low power at best (under 4x) but when higher power scopes are involved, without proper cheek weld, acquisition is very difficult and the target may be very blurry. The Dueck Defense Rapid Transition Sight or RTS are front and rear sights (A-2 style) that mount to the front and rear of the top rail of the rifle. They sit at a 45-degree angle so when a close up target appears, with a slight 45 degree angle tilt, the shooter has iron sights to engage. The rear sight has both standard A2 long and short range apertures as well as elevation. With these being angled they do not interfere with the primary optic on the rifle. These were found to be extremely convenient and easy to use.

The optic tested on this rifle is the Bushnell AR Optics Rifle Scope 30mm tube 1-4x 24mm Drop Zone-223 BDC Reticle. Bushnell has brought to market an entire line of optics dedicated to the AR platform of rifles, everything from: precision optics, midrange optics, red dot optics and more, and all brought out at very reasonable prices. This particular optic was chosen because the role of this rifle is to be a basic combat rifle intended for close range (under 300 meters) but may be called upon for close quarters as well. For close quarter battle the scope can but put down to 1x and used effectively, but if a target appears at 50 to 300 yards the scope can be adjusted to make it effective out to those distances. The optic does have a drop zone reticle as well for adjustment at known distances. This is a lot of scope for an MSRP of $253.99 and will do all the necessary tasks asked of it. The optic was mounted to an Aero Precision lightweight 30mm scope mount. This mount cantilevers slightly making it the perfect dimensions to mount this optic putting the rear of the scope flush with the rear of the upper receiver. There is no interference with the charging handle.

Through part 1 and part 2, four “Boutique Black Rifles” have been built using numerous manufacturers’ parts throughout the industry. This is a tiny drop in the bucket as to what is all out there. The author’s prejudices did come out with a few products. Everyone has specific products they are die-hard on and I am no exception. However there are many manufacturers that specialize in specific components that will really increase the reliability and longevity of your weapon system. Many of them will make you more comfortable and much faster at manipulation of the rifle. Major reliability enhancements such as hammer forged barrels and midlength gas systems will greatly increase your reliability and longevity. But if precision accuracy is what you want, putting all your bullets through the same hole, a button cut match barrel is what you want. By knowing exactly what you want to do with your rifle, you will be able to pick out the parts that will get you to where you want to be. SAR would like to thank the multitude of manufacturers who supplied the parts to make this two part series possible. As journalists, we cannot properly do our job without all of their support.

Right side of the Phase I SPIW from Springfield Armory with the full complement of equipment for firing 60 rounds of point-target XM144 flechettes plus 3 rounds of area-fire 40mm grenades, with biped and bayonet. The ingenious double box magazine, featuring two 30-round stacks one behind the other, is described in the text.

By R. Blake Stevens

The APHHW Becomes the SPIW: Point and Area Fire Now Specified

By January of 1962, a set of formal military specifications for a flechette-firing weapon had been prepared and submitted to the Office, Chief of Ordnance (OCO) for approval. The specifications superseded the short-lived APHHW nomenclature with a new name for the project: the Special Purpose Individual Weapon; the SPIW.

In these specifications one important main addition was made to the original burst-fire flechette weapon concept: the new SPIW was to combine the point-fire characteristics of the flechette-firing APHHW with the area-fire potential of a weapon like the recently introduced M79 grenade launcher.

On March 22, 1962, the OCO approved the detailed forecast for the development of the SPIW. The object was to, “provide the individual soldier with a weapon system possessing the capability to engage point and area targets to a range of 400 meters.” The forecast ended by confidently predicting that the SPIW would be type classified “Standard A” by June of 1966.

Terminating the M14 Program: An “Acceptable” Risk

Scant months later all M14 rifle production was abruptly halted, and contracts with the three hapless civilian M14 producers, Winchester, H&R and TRW, were brusquely abrogated. As stated in U.S. Rifle M14,

… [M14] Production at Springfield Armory was scheduled to be phased out first, by September, 1963. All three commercial producers wound down in the first quarter of 1964, amid very bitter and acrimonious comment to the effect that the immense amount of time, energy and money invested in good faith in the M14-manufacturing “learning curve” had all been wasted.

Meanwhile, as America’s military involvement in Vietnam escalated dramatically in the middle sixties, a worried U.S. Senate Subcommittee again queried the Secretary of the Army, Cyrus Vance, about America’s shoulder rifle policy for the immediate future. With implicit reliance in the forecasts of his systems analysts and theoreticians, Mr. Vance testified: “Termination of production of the M14 prior to the availability of SPIW involved certain risks which, after consideration by the Army, are deemed acceptable.”

All the tests by all the agencies over the preceding two years had concurred that the SPIW concept was technically feasible, and that the approach to its development was logistically sound. Heartened by this response, the Army confidently accelerated the SPIW’s adoption date by a full year, to June of 1965.

Choosing the Four Contractors

By December 1962, ten formal written SPIW development proposals had been received from industry. Each posited a completely different design, but all ten promised an on-time and reliable hand-held point-and-area-target weapon which would meet the specifications. In February, 1963, contracts were awarded to two soon-to-be former M14 rifle producers, the Harrington & Richardson Arms Co., and Olin’s Winchester-Western Division. The third and fourth designs that were chosen already had head starts at both the soon-to-be-renamed AAI Corporation (formerly Aircraft Armaments Inc.), and at Springfield Armory.

What the “SPIW Must Do”
Some salient characteristics excerpted from the carefully prepared SPIW Technical Data Package (TDP), which was supplied to each potential contractor to govern their manufacture, read as follows:

The weapon shall:
… Be of minimum weight… the loaded weight including a minimum of three (3) area type rounds and sixty (60) point type cartridges excluding other accessories shall not exceed ten pounds.
… Be capable of shoulder firing without undue discomfort from recoil or blast.
… [Produce] no hazard from ejected particles to personnel…

Reading over just the few characteristics quoted above, one can begin to understand the enormity of the gulf that has historically separated weapons designers from those who think up the specifications. Those searching for the SPIW project’s Achilles’ heel need look no further: the mutually-exclusive requirements of great complexity within stringent weight and size limits effectively locked each competing contractor into an arcane series of trade-offs and compromises, virtually insuring the ultimate failure of the program right from the outset.

In an interview with the author, retired Springfield Armory engineer Fred Reed summed this up bluntly as follows: “The SPIW was the first of the programs to be doomed from the start by ridiculous specifications.”

The Four First-Generation Firing Models

Difficulties notwithstanding, firing models of each of the four competitors’ first-generation SPIWs were duly delivered for examination and trial in March of 1964, only one month behind schedule. Three of the four were subjected to a variety of tests throughout the summer. The fourth design never even made it to the firing trials; it was rejected almost immediately as being far too heavy, and unsafe.

The H&R SPIW and the Dardick Triple-Bore Tround

The H&R SPIW earned the dubious distinction of being the only contender of the four to be rejected out of hand as “dangerous to shoot.. It was built around an exceedingly ill-conceived refinement of the revolving open chamber principle, which had previously been unsuccessfully offered on the commercial market in pistol form by its inventor, Mr. David A. Dardick. Working for H&R on the initial phases of that firm’s SPIW project, Mr. Dardick adapted the special triangular plastic cartridges his pistol had utilized, called Trounds, to contain three of the standardized AAI flechette-and-sabot projectiles, grouped around a central primer and powder charge. The result was called the “5.6x57mm triple-bore Tround.”

In the Dardick/H&R SPIW, the only reciprocating part was a top-mounted gas piston, which cammed a revolving cylinder 1200 (a third of a turn) with each fired shot. The three open-sided chambers in the cylinder thus successively picked up the leading round of a belt of the taped-together Trounds from a drum magazine suspended below the standing breech, positioned it for firing, and then released the spent case, still in its plastic belt, down the other side of the weapon. When the chamber containing a live Tround was in the firing position, all three of its flechettes were automatically lined up with a triangular cluster of three smooth bores, which had been drilled in the weapon’s ponderously front-heavy steel barrel.

In the open chamber concept, the body of each plastic Tround itself plays a much more crucial part in containing the forces of the explosion than does a conventional cartridge case, completely supported in a normal chamber. Initial function firings of the H&R SPIW had produced excess bulging and splitting in the Trounds due to variations of only a few thousandths of an inch in the plastic tape which surrounded each Tround.

Another immediate and fundamental problem concerned the three-shots-at-once theory. The three “barrels” were in fact one common space: every time the H&R was fired, gas leakage began as soon as the flechettes left their Tround. The first flechette exiting the muzzle triggered a further dramatic drop in pressure. At best, this reduced the muzzle velocity and consequently the range and accuracy of the other two flechettes. At worst, the pressure drop just might leave one or both of the remaining flechettes stuck in their respective bores, waiting to act as a serious obstruction when the next shot was fired.

In any event, the H&R SPIW package weighed in loaded at a ludicrous 23.9 pounds: the specification, it will be remembered, read a maximum of ten. Examining officers at Aberdeen’s Development & Proof Services promptly turned thumbs down on any further testing of any part of the H&R SPIW design.

The Olin (Winchester) Soft Recoil SPIW

Firing the conventionally-primed Springfield XM144 5.6x44mm flechette cartridge, the recorded muzzle velocity from the Winchester’s 20-inch, non-chromed smoothbore barrel was 4,585 fps. The weapon weighed twelve-and-a-half pounds fully loaded. The rate of fire was around 700 rpm for both full-auto and burst modes of fire.

The innovative blow-forward grenade launcher was the only feature of the Winchester design to survive the phase 1 selection process. The point fire portion of the weapon was judged unsatisfactory. Indeed, it was discovered that the very advantages claimed for the “soft recoil” concept were difficult if not impossible to obtain when teamed with the Winchester’s low rate of fire: a recoil housing many times longer than that provided would have been necessary in order that a three-shot burst could be fired at 700 rpm before the recoiling parts abutted the rear of their housing and transmitted the recoil impulse to the shooter.

The Olin (Winchester) SPIW was consequently abandoned, but the blow-forward launcher was developed further under contract for the Springfield SPIW team, in favor of the Armory’s own initial launcher design.

The Springfield Armory Bullpup SPIW

If the first two candidates mentioned above were quick disappointments, the remaining two were not. Indeed, it is ironic in the extreme to consider that the Phase I weapons fielded by AAI and especially Springfield were prototype designs, which sprang in their complexity virtually from nowhere in terms of predecessors, and yet in some ways their performance was never surpassed or even matched in the following six, expensive years.

Aberdeen described the 1964 Springfield bullpup SPIW as “a conventional gas operated system which fires the XM144 cartridge. Main portions of the mechanism are housed in the butt stock.” The rifle fired from a 60-round double-box magazine and was gas-operated (conventional gas piston), with a front-locking, rotary bolt.

The Springfield point target magazine serves very well to illustrate the ingenuity of design born of sheer desperation that was to become the rule rather than the exception during the SPIW program. Springfield’s solution to the 60-round capacity specification combined two thirty-round, double-column stacks, one behind the other. (It was here that the bullpup concept came to the rescue, providing the least awkward place to mount such a box-like device.. In firing, the reciprocating bolt stripped rounds off the leading stack until it was empty and the follower appeared. This freed a device that had been depressing the rear stack of cartridges, allowing them to rise into the path of the bolt. The rear magazine had no feed lips as such: the bolt first slid the top round from the rear magazine forward onto the follower of the empty front one, and then fed it up into the chamber.

The designer in charge of development of the 1964 Springfield bullpup SPIW was Mr. Richard Colby. He had not chosen the unique double magazine design frivolously. Feeding sixty rounds of even the small, lightweight XM144 flechette cartridges from a single double-column stack had proven to be an impossible task: no magazine spring that could be reloaded by hand would provide enough lift fast enough to have the next round of a full magazine ready for feeding during 1,700 rpm burst fire. This is not to mention the fact that calculations for such a magazine revealed that it would be so long and unwieldy as to make shooting from the prone position impossible.

Both Winchester and, as we shall see, AAI answered the first-generation 60-round point target capacity requirement by using drum-type magazines, but in so doing both firms encountered many new and serious frictional forces inherent in a rotary feed system. This led to chronic feeding problems and consequent unreliability, which in Olin’s case contributed to the demise of the whole Winchester SPIW program. It is noteworthy that the point target ammunition capacity specification was eventually relaxed to a more realistic fifty rounds, but not until the perfection of the sixty-round magazine had eluded a further two years’ expensive development.

The AAI Corporation Primer-Actuated SPIW

The 1964 AAI SPIW was 39.9 inches long overall and weighed eleven pounds unloaded, or 13.3 pounds fully loaded with the required sixty XM110 flechettes and three 40mm grenades. Muzzle velocity from the AAI’s 18-inch barrel-and-stripper was 4,820 fps, with an actual measured cyclic rate of 2,400 rpm on three-round burst fire.

A Note on Rates of Fire

It is worth commenting that both the Springfield and AAI SPIWs had answered the “salvo” requirement by featuring blisteringly high rates of burst fire. The rate of fire for the Winchester, which was by far the slowest of the first-generation SPIW submissions, was 700 rpm, which is just over eleven rounds a second. Burst and full-auto fire from the 1964 Springfield SPIW was measured at 1,700 rpm, which translates to over 28 rounds a second; while the AAI burst fire rate was 2,400 rounds per minute, or an astonishing 40 rounds per second.

Phase I Results

The results of the phase I Aberdeen D&PS examinations and that summer’s firing trials, which had taken place at Fort Benning from April to the middle of August, 1964, led to a curiously mixed reaction. Army Weapons Command remained solidly behind the SPIW as a concept, and the SPIW designers themselves had long since recognized and accepted most of the erratic, not to say startling, behavior of their brainchildren as necessary trade-offs in the desperate attempt to meet the specifications. Nevertheless, a bewildering array of problems in almost every conceivable area of the endeavor was documented by the test teams.

By November of 1964, when all the results were in, one thing was certain: the carefully-planned scenario leading to the adoption of a successful SPIW by the following June was out the window completely. Even phase II of the initial TDP, which had confidently envisaged a short period of full-scale engineering development for the successful phase I candidate followed by its limited manufacture for final troop trials, was itself now out of the question.

Regarding the summer’s simulated mass production runs of XM110 and XM144 cartridges, no economical way had been devised to fabricate a satisfactory flechette round in quantity. The contractors complained that every component required extraordinary care in manufacture and assembly in order to ensure a reliable round. This meant a great deal of costly and difficult-to-inspect hand-work on each cartridge.

In general, reported user dissatisfaction with the two finalist SPIW designs (Springfield and AAI) as weapons was lumped into three basic categories: poor reliability, poor durability, and excessive weight.

As for system durability, the exasperated designers grew weary of trying to explain to adamant AWC test officers that every conceivable ounce had been shaved from these complex weapons in an attempt to meet the weight requirement.

As it turned out, no SPIW ever came within the ten-pound-loaded, point- and area-fire weight limit. As the program continued, this official weight requirement was ignored as much as possible, with weights for the two halves of the SPIW system thenceforth discussed separately.

The Second Generation SPIW Plan

Many of the SPIW’s initially startling idiosyncrasies, which had been abruptly user discovered in the first generation trials, were already the subject of much AAI research. The AAI engineers felt strongly that effective remedies were not only feasible but just a matter of a little more time and R&D money. This attitude was at length adopted by AWC.

In a move that coincided with the March, 1965 deployment of American troops into the combat zones of South Vietnam, AWC approved a re-orchestrated, 35-month, two-phase SPIW development plan under which AAI and Springfield were both to develop and fabricate ten complete second generation weapon systems. There was one difference: “Standard A” status for the successful second-generation SPIW was rescheduled for March of 1968, a postponement of almost three full years.

Another interesting difference in the new plan was that the Army had turned thumbs down on any further development of the bullpup concept, which Springfield had emulated in 1964, or even a rifle with a separate pistol grip like the early AAI models. From now on, all SPIWs submitted were to feature what AWC considered to be the increased pointability of conventional rifles, like the M14, or, to give it its due, the 1964 Winchester SPIW.

The busy program at AAI contrasted sharply with the mood at Springfield, where following the 1964 trials the Armory engineers had received virtually no feedback regarding their first generation design. Reasons for this brusque treatment were not long in surfacing: in a further reorganization disguised as cost cutting, Defense Secretary McNamara had already announced the termination of Springfield Armory as an official agency, to be effective by April of 1968.

Improvements in Flechette Cartridges The Fatter Springfield / Frankford XM216

Springfield in particular had experienced difficulty meeting the velocity requirement with their XM144 cartridge; in fact the unofficial word is that they never quite did. Be that as it may, both contenders redesigned their cartridge cases for more powder capacity before entering the second generation competition. Thus, Springfield’s XM144 was presently superseded by a completely new round, the somewhat fatter XM216. Both the XM144 and the XM216 were fitted with the “Primer, Miniature, FA T186E1.”

The AAI XM645, with One-Piece “Anvilless” Piston Primer

AAI’s XM110 had already left its dimples behind, to become the slightly longer XM645. Both new rounds were loaded with AAI’s still-standard flechette-and-sabot package for the upcoming second generation trials.

AAI had in the meantime also developed an ingenious one-piece piston primer to replace the more complex and prohibitively expensive first-generation multi-piece design. The AAI one-piece piston primer was yet another remarkable product of the SPIW program, in that it was designed to function without an anvil. In other primers, whether Boxer, Bloehm or Berdan, it is the action of crushing the priming compound against the anvil that causes ignition. No such anvil was present in the new one-piece AAI primer design.

Interestingly enough, no one was really sure just how the AAI anvilless primer worked. Some thought the priming pellet, which contained about three times more primer mix than usual, slid a bit when the piston was pushed in, thereby striking itself alight like a kitchen match. (As part of the manufacturing process the priming mix was very heavily compressed: a note on the drawing reads “Primer mix is to be compressed within a compaction pressure range of 129,000 psi to 172,000 psi. Piston-primer size must not be altered as a result of the compaction operation.”)

Others felt that the restricting front collar acted like an anvil. Still others pointed to the roughened, or finely threaded, internal sides of the primer cup itself, positing that the specially-compounded priming pellet set itself alight as contact here was abruptly broken by the firing pin blow.

In addition to remodeling their SPIW along more conventional lines, AAI was to set up a simulated mass-production assembly line to produce 130,000 rounds of its new improved XM645 piston-primed cartridge. Production contracts for AAI’s second generation cartridge case, and for new one-piece piston primers, were first let at this time to the Canadian government ammunition facility Dominion Arsenals in Quebec (initial headstamp DA 65).

The Last SPIW from Springfield Armory

The 1966 Springfield SPIW was exactly 40” long and was chambered for Frankford’s new, fatter XM216 cartridge. The 60-round point target ammunition capacity specification was still in effect, and due to the conventional nature of the new rifle the longish, front-and-rear double magazine of 1964 had been reconfigured. It was now made of clear Lexan plastic and, in a further burst of desperate ingenuity, featured two thirty-round stacks side-by-side. Springfield’s Preliminary Operating and Maintenance Manual (POMM 1005-251-12) for their 1966 SPIW described the functioning of this novel magazine as follows:

The left cartridge stack is depressed by the stack release mechanism when the magazine is seated in the magazine well, while the right stack remains elevated in the stripping position. When the last round is stripped from the right stack, its spring actuated follower raises the cartridge retainer actuator into the path of the operating rod. After the operating rod moves rearward after [the chambered] round is fired, it cams the actuator and retainer to [the] left side, releasing the left cartridge stack to stripping position.

All in all it appeared that, although the Armory SPIW team had taken the project to heart and made it a labor of love, the very tight timing and funding constraints of Secretary McNamara’s termination order were very evident in this second generation Springfield design.

The AAI Second Generation SPIW

AAI’s SPIW program had by far the longest pedigree of any of the four original contenders, due to that company having originated the flechette concept in the first place. The mood at AAI was therefore one of determination and conviction: while a number of features on Springfield’s second generation gun were brand new and born of desperation, AAI’s were mostly refinements of early ideas, which already had a comparatively lengthy firing record.

A parallel program of redesign had resulted in a very well-conceived new plastic-stocked AAI SPIW prototype, which soon emerged fully engineered for second-generation production. The drum magazine and action stroke were both slightly longer in AAI’s 1966 model SPIW, due to the extra 4mm in the length of the new XM645 cartridge case.

Results of the Second Generation SPIW Trials

A second generation engineering design test was conducted by the Infantry Board at Fort Benning from August 26 to October 31, 1966. These trials, or more accurately, comparative evaluations, were in a word disastrous.

The one supreme flaw in the SPIW program still, which AWC had steadfastly refused to face or even consider right from the outset, was the gulf separating the specifications from what was humanly possible to design and construct. The Board’s report on the 1966 comparative SPIW evaluations contained clear indications that this gulf had again proven too wide and deep to bridge.

A Frank Assessment by Colt’s Robert E. Roy

Meanwhile, AWC was trying to find a civilian firm willing to continue the development of the Springfield SPIW, which was to receive no further funding at the Armory regardless of the outcome of the second generation trials: that bastion was being adamantly wound down in response to Secretary McNamara’s termination order. A meeting was therefore set up at Fort Benning in October, while the 1966 evaluations were still in progress, to demonstrate the second generation SPIWs to representatives of a selected few companies who had expressed interest in taking the Springfield project over.

The real if inadvertent importance of this AWC demonstration was that it provided some highly qualified but uncommitted outsiders with their first real look at the SPIW in action. Among those attending was Mr. Robert E. Roy, then the Engineering Project Manager for Colt’s Inc. Colt’s had purchased the rights to the AR-15 from ArmaLite back in 1959, and had since shrewdly piloted the “little black rifle” all the way to quasi-adoption in the U.S. Armed Forces. With America’s massive buildup in Vietnam went more and more Colt-made M16 rifles: Colt’s had more at stake than virtually anyone should the SPIW be successful. They therefore took a very sharp and direct interest in these proceedings. A saboted flechette load in the regular 5.56mm case already existed, for example, as did experimental smoothbored M16s.

The Infantry Board was necessarily constrained to report its findings exclusively in terms of the requirements, but Colt’s was not so restricted: Mr. Roy wanted to know how the SPIWs looked and functioned in a real-world sense. The bottom line was, how long did Colt’s have until the SPIW put the M16 out of business. Mr. Roy’s confidential report to his superiors, excerpted as follows, soon calmed any fears on that score:

… It appears to me that the SPIW system is still far from fruition as an operational weapons system. The “all things to all people” approach that has been used in setting requirements for this weapon has resulted in many problems that appear almost insurmountable, since many of the requirements are at odds with each other.

… The normal tendency when [the flechette] strikes flesh or bone is for the shaft to bend slightly and then to tumble. It is this property that makes such a small, light projectile lethal. When the flechette tumbles, it has lethality comparable with the 7.62 NATO. The flechette does not always tumble, however, and if it does not tumble, it has very little stopping power and a person might hardly know he is shot…

In order to keep SPIW ammunition as light as possible, cartridge cases have been made to the minimum size possible. This makes it necessary to use relatively slow-burning powders in order to get the necessary energy for full velocity. The result is very high pressures at bullet exit. I would estimate bullet exit pressures are in the order of 25,000 psi.

The noise and flash produced by these weapons is far in excess of the M14 or M16 and at least the equal of our M16 Commando submachine gun without the noise-flash suppressor. I have fired the AAI weapon, and it is definitely uncomfortable to fire without ear plugs.

Present plans call for design finalization by early 1968 and initial production by 1969. After looking at the hardware available, witnessing the firing, and firing the weapon myself, I can’t see how this schedule can possibly be met. SPIW is still an R&D effort and will require at least one more complete redesign, and the solving of several basic problems before it can be seriously considered as a military weapon.

by J.M. Ramos

Part One of this two-part article covered the author’s own AR-7 rifle design which featured many useful improvements that made this survival type arm more practical and user friendly.

Part two of this series will cover “after market” dress up kits offered for the AR-7 during the heyday of the exotic gun market between 1980-1990. There were numerous accessories offered for the AR-7 during this time period. There are only three companies that I can recommend, which originally produced some of the finest dress up kits and accessories for the AR-7 as well as other popular sporting guns.

EAGLE INTERNATIONAL, INC. The exotic gun market boom, which started around the early 1980s resulted in the establishment of dozens of independent accessory producers in the United States. Their main thrust was producing and marketing high-technology accessories for many popular sporting rifles to include the Ruger Mini-14, 10/22, Charter Arms AR-7 and Remington Shotguns and hunting rifles made by some of America’s well known manufacturers.

Among the many independent producers of after market accessories, Eagle International of Arvada, Colorado no doubt created the finest “dress up” kit for the AR-7. The complete kit included a telescoping buttstock assembly, which was precision machined from aircraft aluminum and black anodised. It was keyed to hold the buttplate in a vertical position, had positive indexes, like the CAR-15 telescoping stock, that allowed length adjustments from 71/2 to 12 inches for individual fit. The rear of the buttstock was drilled and tapped at 90º to accept a 1-inch sling swivel attachment. An AR-15 pistol grip was machined on the top to fit the kit to the AR-7 receiver frame. The bottom of the grip had a built-in pivoting cover allowing the storage of extra ammunition, a match or fishing hook for emergency use. With the kit came the company’s own “Zypher 700” sighting system. The Zypher was a military style rear sight with hooded aperture, fully adjustable for windage and elevation. The rear base was machined from aircraft-quality aluminum alloy. To install the Zypher to the gun, simply remove the factory part and slide the rear opening of the replacement part underneath the sight base until it sits flush with the frame hood. The tightening screw is inserted through the peephole of the hood. Complementing the telescoping stock is a beautiful ventilated barrel shroud, which is also made from aircraft-grade aluminum tubing finish, black anodised. Installation of the shroud requires front sight blade removal to allow insertion of the part over the barrel. The rear of the shroud utilized a 360º sling swivel attachment. The kit came complete with a one inch black Nylon sling. Other optional accessories offered by Eagle for the AR-7 were an extended charging handle, which replaced the factory telescoping charging handle to make cocking easier. For shooters who wished to use the gun for hunting or precision shooting, a lightweight scope mount machined from durable aircraft aluminum was offered. It incorporated an adjustable rail, which accepts all Weaver-type rings. In addition to AR-7 accessories, Eagle also produced superb dress-up kits and high-capacity magazines for the popular Mini-14 and 10/22 rifles. When the ban on assault type weapons and high-capacity magazines became law in the 1990’s, Eagle International became a victim and went out of business.

Ram-Line, Inc.

Established in the early part of 1980s, this highly innovative company, originally based in Golden Colorado, produced some of the most innovative and unique after-market accessories ever offered for the very popular Ruger Mini-14 and 10/22. Ram-Line’s Syn-Tech stocks are considered the strongest and most durable on the market. The company also proved to be a leader in high-capacity polymer magazine design, the best one being the double stack 10/22 rimfire magazine, the first of its kind. This double stack magazine was offered in 20-, 30-, 40- and 50-shot variations. For the AR-7, the company produced a high-performance 25-shot curved plastic magazine in both clear and black. Ram-Line’s high-capacity magazines were also purchased by manufacturers such as Marlin and Charter Arms and offered as optional items for their production guns. A ventilated aluminum barrel shroud with built-in barrel retaining nut was also offered along with a matching aluminum flash hider and replacement front sight blade made of bright orange plastic material. In the beginning of the 1990s, Ram-Line operation was moved to a new location in Wheat Ridge, Colorado. With the threat of an assault weapon and hi-capacity magazine ban closing in, Ram-Line put their machinery to full force cranking out folders and high-capacity magazines 24 hours a day. Regretfully, the owners of the company called it quits and sold the company to Blount, Inc based in Onalaska, Wisconsin in 1994.

CHOATE MACHINE & TOOL COMPANY

Choate Machine & Tool, was another independent accessory producer that sprung up at the beginning of the exotic gun era. Unlike Eagle and Ram-Line, Choate products included tough DuPont Zytel and Rynite plastic mated to steel. Choate’s folding stock was one of the strongest available and combined the use of a solid steel arm coated by DuPont Zytel. These folders were offered extensively for shotguns and rifles. As the popularity of dress up kit for the 10/22 and AR-7 reached its peak in the late 1980s, Choate introduced his own version in 1987. The AR-7 kit consisted of a full-size pistol grip buttstock made from Zytel material complete with a 1-inch recoil pad. Complementing the stock was a blued ventilated steel shroud. Installation of the shroud required the removal of the factory barrel retaining nut. The shroud came complete with a built-in retaining nut. A folding stock and a muzzle brake would have been a nice addition to the Choate AR-7 dress up kit. Among the three leading after market producers that started their business back in the 1980s, only Choate managed to remain in business. Today, this resilient company from Bald Knob, Arkansas has proven to be more successful than ever, as more law enforcement and security agencies are employing their products to improve their equipment.

MIX AND MATCH

One of the biggest advantages of having multiple companies producing different style of dress up kits is being able to mix and match the various accessories to fit one’s personal taste or requirements. For example, the Choate fixed buttstock could be combined with the full-length Eagle ventilated barrel shroud for rifle/submachine gun configuration or vice versa. Those vent holes of the shroud were perfect for mounting front grips, be it Choate or a regular AR-15 part. The line of holes in the shroud was perfect for finding the right spot for mounting the most comfortable location of the front grip to fit individual reach or liking. My improved AR-7 looked much better as soon as I installed the Eagle telescoping stock unto it. For maximum firepower, if you have few 25-shot Ram-Line magazines, glue three of them together side-by-side to create a 75-round magazine system. Those golden days of exotic weaponry are over.

SMALL ARMS REVIEW magazine is proud to present LAND WARRIOR, the first of a three-part series on the evolution of the American infantry soldier in the 21st Century.

Sergeant Petree’s comments were not made lightly. He and some fellow paratroopers of the Army’s tough and highly trained “All American Division” were taking part in more field-testing of the LAND WARRIOR concept. Rigged up in high-tech gear including body armor fitted with a small computer, helmet with two-way radio and tiny monitor, plus night vision equipment linked to his M4 carbine, the sergeant and his squad were apparently impressed by how much better they were able to move, communicate and shoot in a series of typical infantry missions.

LAND WARRIOR is the first of three phases in programs underway in the US military to make damn sure the American fighting man will be able to dominate any potential enemy soldier for the next twenty years. LW will be followed by OBJECTIVE FORCE WARRIOR in 2010 and then FUTURE WARRIOR in 2020. Each step will take advantage of existing and emerging technologies to continually upgrade his lethality, survivability and multi-mission effectiveness against any threat, day and night, on any terrain and in all weather conditions.

This is already a formidable task at a time when even the smallest and poorest nations have easy access to chemical, biological and laser weapons, cheap and plentiful night vision equipment, as well as increasingly lethal conventional arms and munitions. We are up against adversaries with no regard for human life – theirs or others – who don’t hesitate to mount suicide attacks and who cynically use innocent civilians as shields. America’s infantrymen are fighting in this world right now with no end in sight and in full view of television news organizations that seek to sensationalize every misstep.

The United States has a clear technological edge built into our ships, aircraft and fighting vehicles that enables an astonishing degree of coordination and precision in target engagement. The Digital Battlefield is a reality today with networked tactical computers; secure multi-channel communication, exact navigation with Global Positioning satellites, sensor systems unlimited by darkness, clouds or smoke, and “smart” munitions that need no human guidance.

But these advantages are not fully available to the Grunt on the ground; the foot soldier who must operate with only what he can carry. Sure, there are “manportable” versions of all this whiz-bang hardware but no way in hell can one GI hump it all. Until now….

The Five-Fingered Fist

The LAND WARRIOR (LW) system is five major components that work together to make one super soldier. Since personally putting holes in bad guys is perhaps the most elemental infantry task, let’s start with a look at the weapon subsystem.

Right now the main “lethality component” is a 5.56x45mm M4 Modular Weapon System, a chopped M16 with wrap-around mounting rails. These allow an almost endless variety of accessories to be clamped on including an underslung 40mm M203 grenade launcher. So far this is pretty conventional as all this stuff has been around for thirty years since the Vietnam War.

But then you start adding some electronics and things get really interesting. A Multifunction Laser combines functions from six separate devices to provide range and direction finding, aiming light, IR illuminator, bore scope, combat interrogator, and MILES trainer. Then, a Thermal Sight and a Day Video Sight provide 24-hour, all-weather target identification and engagement, cleverly feeding into LW’s helmet display monitor.

This last is the often-misunderstood “shoot-around-corners” capability. No, the rifle doesn’t fire curveball ammunition; the soldier can stay behind cover while lifting the weapon overhead or around a corner for a look-see through the helmet sight. If the enemy is close enough and standing still, it is theoretically possible to whack him one-handed.

Now, for many reasons the M4 is not an ideal weapon and recent experience in Afghanistan has intensified criticism. LW’s lethality will be significantly upgraded in the next few years with fielding of the OICW – Objective Individual Combat Weapon – a combination assault carbine and semiautomatic grenade launcher firing “smart” 20mm airburst projectiles. We’ll look much closer at this exciting weapon in next month’s feature.

But maybe soldiers won’t have to wait that long to get a better carbine. Uncle Sam has just given ATK, the OICW’s lead contractor, about $5 million to detach that weapon’s “kinetic energy” component for use as LW’s baseline weapon. This should be no sweat because it’s a modified 5.56x45mm HK G36, one of the best assault rifles of recent times with an increasingly favorable combat reputation.

Triple Threat

The next three subsystems – helmet, computer and software – are so closely integrated that we’ll examine them together. The computer is modularized for efficient placement on the soldier’s body and hardened against the rigors of combat. It rolls up several functions including navigation plus secure voice and digital radio communication. It works with the weapon-mounted laser to automate indirect fire support requests. A small hand-held flat panel display provides better resolution for digital maps.

Its current software provides a common tactical picture including location of friendly and enemy forces, video image capture and transmission, graphics, and system status reports such as battery reserve. Capabilities can be changed, upgraded, or added with ease as technology evolves.

The Integrated Helmet is the third leg of this tripod, bringing information from the weapon and computer right to LW’s eyes and ears. Familiar lines of the current PASGT Kevlar helmet are maintained, but cut a bit shorter in the neck area so it won’t wedge against the high collar of the new body armor. Hard points are built in to allow sturdy attachment of the color display mini-monitor, radio mike and headphones, and a PVS-14 night vision monocular.

Body Armor

Point Blank’s excellent INTERCEPTOR body armor is the basis for LW’s enhanced ballistic protection. The basic outer vest weighs a relatively modest 8.5 pounds and will stop 7.62x51mm ball rounds with the addition of “chicken plates” front and back, weighing 4 pounds each. Sturdy nylon straps are sewn all over for customized attachment of computer-related modules and all sorts of gear from magazine pouches to water bladders.

The new MOLLE rucksack works well with all this and removable compartments are used to tailor it to situation and mission. Quick-release shoulder straps let LW drop it instantly if needed.

Current chemical warfare protective masks and suits are said to be compatible. However, anybody who has had to stay inside this stuff for a couple of hours knows that it’s bad enough by itself – let alone when worn with all that other LW gear.

Coming Soon

RDT&E (Research, Development, Testing and Engineering) is effectively completed and the Army is scheduled to begin fielding the first of some 34,000 LW systems in fiscal year 2005. Insiders say that it is likely this will be accelerated in view of the situation in Iraq. Meanwhile, defense giant General Dynamics has recently gotten almost $60 million to enhance LW’s capabilities as a key component of the highly digitized and integrated Stryker Brigade Combat Team.

LAND WARRIOR on the Web: www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/landwarrior.htm Next Month Improvements to LAND WARRIOR and exciting new technological advances will lead to the Army’s next program, OBJECTIVE FORCE WARRIOR. Read about how scientists expect to solve problems with fighting in extreme heat and cold, chemical warfare, protection against directed energy weapons, and how to increase the lethality of hand-held weapons.