Czechoslovakia is a country with a long, long history of innovation in making arms. In fact, central Europe was at the very heart of firearms development from the start. While not every design was a success, the ones that were made history. The first in the modern era was the ZB26 and ZB30 light machine guns which evolved into the British BREN light machine gun. The BREN, originally in .303 British caliber, was modified to accept 7.62 NATO rounds and served from the late 1930s well into the 1980s. The most common Czech design seen these days started as the 9mm CZ 75 pistol, and variants are in use today in the U.S. for personal protection and high-level competition.

But the failure of a design can come from any number of reasons, including design flaws, changes in perceived needs and … political issues. The rifle we will be looking at here was a real innovation, strangled by purely political demands. Even in gun design, politicians and the demand for total uniformity have a say. Like it or not, the world evolves along political lines.

Evolution from Battle Rifles to Semiauto Carbines

The late 1940s and early 1950s saw major changes in the service weapons of the various countries. Keep in mind that the U.S. was the only country to issue a semiautomatic rifle to most troops in WWII. All the other combatants relied on versions of their WWI bolt-action rifles for their soldiers. While most countries had an overabundance of WWII rifles on hand at the end of the War, the need for less powerful cartridges and thus lighter, smaller rifles—carbines, if you will—to fire them had become clear. All sides entered WWII with rifles and ammunition that could reach 1,200 yards; after-action reports defined the battle space as much smaller at 300 yards or less. So the rifles were too big, too heavy and fired unnecessarily powerful rounds. Of course, there was no desire to lighten the loads of the troops (called “grunts” for a reason: it‘s the sound they make when they try to stand with all their gear), but with lighter guns and ammo, they could carry more ammo. A post-War study concluded that most casualties from small arms were not caused by aimed fire, so the conclusion was to put more bullets in the air and cause more casualties. 

The Germans had led the way, with their Sturmgewehr assault rifle, using a shortened 8mm round. The Soviets, having suffered the most casualties in the War, paid attention and developed the 7.62×39 round, the SKS and later the AK-47 to fire it. The Russians had enveloped Czechoslovakia into their “sphere of influence” after WWII, bringing them behind the “Iron Curtain,” while allowing a pretense of self-control. The Czech arms designers pressed on, thinking their developments would produce a better rifle, regardless of who ran the country. 

The M52/Vzor 52 (adopted in 1952) is commonly known as the “SHE,” for the three letters stamped over the serial number. What they mean is unknown. It was an interesting evolutionary step which was a contemporary of the Soviet SKS, and similar in many ways. Both rifles used 7.62 (.30 caliber) rounds but also different rounds. Both are gas-operated and load from 10-round magazines—detachable on the M52, fixed on the SKS. Both at one time or another were fitted with folding bayonets, permanently attached to the rifle. And both became side notes to other developments. 

Design Factors 

As noted, the M52 was designed around a 7.62 round—an intermediate round. But this round is the 7.62×45. The NATO round for comparison is the 7.62×51. The Czechs went for more powder space, and thus more velocity, than the 7.62×39. And, in a snub to the Soviets, it is NOT compatible with the SKS; it will not fit into the magazines, let alone the chambers. 

The rifle, while gas-operated, works slightly differently than the designs we are familiar with. It does not have an operating rod like the M1, FAL, M14, SKS and so many others. Nor does it have a gas tube like the M16/M4 family, currently so popular. It utilizes an annular gas cylinder concentric around the barrel, a sliding gas cylinder piston or sleeve and a sheet metal piece which moves the “actuator,” which imparts the impulse from the gas piston to the bolt carrier via two prongs at 3 o‘clock and 9 o‘clock. The use of two rather than one prong means the force is more evenly distributed to the bolt carrier. Thus, they avoided the twisting and wear issues found in the early piston-driven ARs. The sheet metal piece is formed as a close fit to the barrel, reducing the weight and height of the forend, while avoiding the problems of dumping the products of combustion into the bolt/bolt carrier. 

In a fully automatic rifle, heat from full-auto fire and magazine dumps could become a problem, but the M52 was designed only as a semiauto with that small, 10-round magazine. Long before the heat retained on the barrel and the actuator could become a functioning problem, the wooden handguard would most likely burst into flames. 

It uses a tipping, rather than a rotating bolt, with front locking lugs. All the M52s were fitted with a side folding bayonet—a poor idea, as most former infantrymen will tell you. Bayonets are used far more often for opening boxes and cans than stabbing the enemy, so the bayonets either get removed, bent, or the troops have to be issued a knife as well—even more weight to be carried around. The example pictured in this article still has its leather sling, and two spare magazines were found at a local gun show, priced right because the owner had no idea what rifle they fit. 

The biggest complaint with the rifle was its all up weight of 9.5 pounds, almost as much as the .30-06 M1 weighs. 

The 7.62×45 Round 

The rear sight is marked up to a very optimistic 950 meters, which brings us to the cartridge. Most of the 7.62×45 ammunition found is in steel cases with a lacquer finish, with a few brass-cased rounds in small lots. The extra 6mm of cartridge length produced only 100 to 200 fps more velocity than the 7.62×39. It uses a 131-grain projectile. 

Every round the author has fired has been a hang fire: the pop of the primer is followed by a 2- to 3-second delay before the powder ignites with a bang. The first time this happened was very disconcerting; these are the only true hang fires the author has ever experienced. Sadly, ammunition was only made for a few years, until the 7.62×39 was issued to all troops. Some, dated 1967, turned up in Grenada when we invaded. It is currently quite rare. 

The M52 was only made for 5 years, before the Soviet Union lowered the boom and required all further guns to be in their 7.62×39 round, creating the M52/57, or just M57. It was identical to the M52 in all respects except caliber, and some M52s were converted to the Soviet round. This rifle only lasted 1 year before the M58 was introduced, a selective fire 7.62×39 rifle with a 30-round detachable magazine and an external resemblance to the AK-47. 

The M52 was, as usual for the Soviets, passed on to client states such as Cuba and may occasionally be encountered in Africa. As long as they have a gun and a few rounds, nothing is discarded. 

Why Was the Design Dropped? 

Even in the U.S., good designs were sidetracked by the NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome. Perhaps the most notorious was the 1941 Johnson Rifle, a recoil-operated .30-06 semiauto, which our Ordnance Corps bypassed by rushing the M1 Garand into production. John Garand worked for the Ordnance Corps, while Johnson was a lawyer and a U.S. Marine Corps Captain and thus was clearly not the “proper” type to design the new U.S. service rifle. 

Equally ignored was the FN FAL when we switched from the .30-06 round to the 7.62 NATO round. The M14, a modified M1 designed by the Springfield Armory, was adopted by the U.S. The few other countries that adopted the M14 did so because they got it basically for free from the U.S. Yet 90 countries adopted the FN rifle and paid for it or for the rights to make it. That alone shows which is the better rifle, but politics overwhelmed quality on both sides of the Iron Curtain. 

It is interesting to speculate on what an M52-type rifle would look like made with modern materials. With a polymer stock (and heat shields under the forend), the rifle could be more “tubular” in appearance. Without the gas block and tube (or piston) of the M16/M4 types, it could be quite svelte. Of course, the folding bayonet would go, and magazines would be larger. One feature that would be kept is the threads on the exterior of the end of the barrel and the thread protector. It would make it easy to fit a “sound moderator” (silencer). 

Ultimately, the Soviet demand for uniformity killed the M52 and the 7.62×45 round. To the absolute rulers of the Communist Bloc, it made sense. 

REFERENCES 

W.H.B. Smith, Small Arms of the World, 9th ed.,1968, and 11th ed., 1977. 

Gary Paul Johnston and Thomas B. Nelson, The World’s Assault Rifles, 2010. 

Reloading—taking a fired cartridge case, reforming it, replacing the primer, powder and bullet, and shooting it again. Most folks do not know that reloading was first widespread by the U.S. Army. As always, logistics was a big issue after the Civil War, with the adoption of the breech-loading rifle. Our first breechloaders were muzzleloaders, converted to load from the back. As they were issued out to the troops on the Western frontier, resupply from the East (St. Louis) took time.

As a result, some ordnance officer, whose name is lost to history, figured out that it took less space to ship lead bars, kegs of powder, primers and one set of reloading tools than case after case of ammunition. The ordnance folks always want to save money, so recycling the cases (in the recycled guns) was a good idea. When you get supplies perhaps once a month—IF the wagons got through—running out of ammo is not an option. 

How Is It Done?

These days, the reloading process is pretty much the same as it was in the 1870s. Obtain some cases; clean them; reshape the case; remove the old primer; place a new primer; add a measured powder charge; place the bullet in the case; fire the round again. It is cost-effective—about half the cost of factory ammo. But here is the secret the folks who make reloading tools don’t talk about: You don’t save any money! You shoot twice as much!

Yup, for the price of 50 rounds of ammo, you now have 100! Yee Haw! As this is written, guns and ammo are disappearing from gun shops so fast that most shops limit how much you can buy; maybe 1 or 2 boxes! They make toilet paper seem to be readily available! While the components can be hard to find, they are out there and still cheaper than factory ammo.

Reloading is efficient—in addition to expanding your ammo per dollar, it does not take much time. Even with a single-station press that does one operation at a time, by loading in batches you will never miss a practice session, match or hunt because you do not have any ammo. If it’s too cold, hot or wet to go shooting (it’s hard to believe, but some folks feel that way), you can always load some more ammo!

Fun? That too! When the author has a knotty problem to work out or is irritated about something, he’ll start focusing on loading some ammo and usually work out an answer or work off irritation and get a better perspective on things. Plus, one gets to fine tune the load for his or her particular firearm and objective. There is personal satisfaction at making that difficult shot with ammunition you built yourself. When the steel “clangs” at over 1,000 yards, or the holes in a target are all tightly grouped, there is extra pride in knowing YOU made those rounds.

Increase Your Versatility 

Do you want to introduce someone new to shooting? Load up some reduced charges for less blast and recoil, so they can focus on the fundamentals. Want to see how accurate a rifle or pistol is? Try different loads to find that sweet spot of maximum accuracy. It’s all there to experiment with. There are folks who buy a box or more of every brand of ammunition in their preferred bullet weight in their chosen caliber and then spend hours carefully trying to figure out which is the most accurate in their rifle or pistol. They end up spending a lot of money creating an inventory of partial boxes of ammo that are inaccurate for their purpose.

A reloader can choose a bullet weight and powder and then load a few rounds with each of several different powder charges and in one range session figure out what load works best in his/her firearm. They can try different brands of powder and bullets by different makers to see the effect on their group size. If the finest precision is their pursuit, they can then further refine their load, until every shot goes into a tiny group. Others want a capable load at the least expense so they can produce lots of ammo for practice and/or competition. Shooting is a perishable skill, and practice is the key to skill maintenance and enhancement.

Then there are those fascinated by older guns in calibers no longer produced. A reloader can obtain the necessary dies to load just about anything, so that antique family heirloom can go out to the range and let its owner feel what it was like “back in the day.” There are even ways to make cartridge cases from existing models to revitalize that oddball round.

Our focus will be on rifle and pistol ammunition, as reloading shotgun shells is not as cost-effective. Of course, for some bird hunters and shotgun sports competitors, the sheer volume of shooting brings on economies of scale, justifying reloading their hulls.

Some of the readers own full-auto firearms, and the days of inexpensive bulk surplus ammo are long gone. But you can keep those hungry guns fed by reloading. In fact, one reloading tool company was founded because the inventor wanted to shoot his machine guns more than his budget could allow!

Whatever your shooting goals—excellence in competition, meat in the freezer or shooting some gun in an obsolete caliber—learning to reload opens new vistas for the hobbyist, collector or general gun owner.

Getting Started

There are some upfront costs to be considered. These are one-time costs for the tools needed: mainly, reloading manuals; a means of cleaning the cases; a press for reforming the cases and seating the bullets; the dies for your caliber(s); a powder measure to dispense the charges of powder; and a scale to measure the charge weight. There are ways to save money here as used equipment shows up in gun shops, and almost all of it has more life left. It is not uncommon to see presses from the ‘50s still turning out quality ammo.

One decision to be made early on is how much shooting you do or will want to do. Most folks start out with a single-station press, meaning it allows one operation at a time, with the dies changed between operations. Large volume shooters may choose to dive in with a progressive press—a manually operated press that, once fed cases, primers, powder and bullets, will produce a round for every pull of the handle. Rates of 300 to 600 rounds per hour are easily attained if you have settled on one particular load.

One of the oddities of reloading is the multiple ways to get the job done. For every operation in reloading, you can find multiple ways to do it. You will prefer some and discard others, depending on the degree of precision you desire, the volume of ammunition you want to shoot and the differing calibers you may want to reload.

COMPONENTS

Cases

Cases are the best starting point, as they hold the other components together. They can be made of brass, steel, aluminum or plastic. With a sole exception, the steel cases are not reloadable. One company makes a case of stainless steel and aluminum which can be reloaded using special tools. Aluminum and plastic cases are not reloadable. Considering the stresses of high pressures, heat and rough handling, brass has proven to be the best material for reloadable cases. 

There are three principal sources of cases—new unloaded cases, the cases from factory ammunition and “range pickup” cases. Those shooting either in high-end competitions at the highest levels or trying to put every bullet through the same hole will buy bags of cases direct from the makers. They will track the number of times the cases are reloaded and trimmed (more about this later) and discard them at a given point. This is the most expensive source. If you have been shooting factory-loaded ammunition, you have “once-fired” brass, all from the same lot; that would be a remarkably close match to the “from the maker” brass. You have already paid for it, so your additional cost is zero.

Most shooters use range pickup brass—which is exactly what it sounds like. Range pickup brass is usually free or can be purchased for a very nominal cost, but there are some disadvantages. It will not be as uniform if absolute precision is your goal; it may have sand, dirt and/or rocks in it. It will need to be sorted in a general way for two specific issues: primer type and origin.

Europe adopted a primer type developed by U.S. General Berdan, where the anvil is part of the case. These have two flash holes inside the case, offset from the center. They can be reloaded, but it is a very messy and slow job, perfected by Europeans with depriming, using hydraulic or pneumatic pressure. Unless it is in a rare caliber, like 7.62×45, it is not worth the trouble. The U.S. adopted a primer system invented by Edward Mounier Boxer, where the anvil is part of the primer, and the case has a central flash hole. These are easy to de-prime, and most are suitable for reloading.

As you gather the brass, once you identify any brass with the Berdan priming, look at the headstamp—the markings on the base of the cartridge. It is simple enough to discard all the cases with that headstamp. As you look at the headstamp, look to see if the caliber is marked there. Commercial brass will always have the caliber, the name or initials of the maker or some other distinguishing mark. There are several books cataloging makers’ marks if interested. If the case is a military origin, there will be no caliber marking, but usually two digits for the year and a letter or number maker code. If it was made to NATO standards, it will have a circle with a cross in it, the NATO symbol.

What is the difference in the brass? Military brass is usually thicker to withstand the rough handling in the gun of fully automatic fire. As a result, it has less interior volume and can generate higher pressures than the same load in commercial brass.

As you pick up the brass, shake it in your hand. If you hear a high musical note, there is one or more cracked cases in that group. Discard all cracked cases, even if the crack is tiny and just in the mouth of the case. The crack could allow the bullet to seat too deeply during the loading cycle, massively increasing the pressure—perhaps to unsafe levels. You will also need to sort the brass by caliber—remove the .380 brass from the 9mm, 8mm from .30-06, .38 SPL from the .357 Magnum, etc. They can look the same but be very different. Continue to check the brass every time you handle it, weeding out the wrong and cracked cases.

The next step in processing the brass is to clean it—no matter the source. The author had some “fresh from the maker” brass, which still had some oil on it from the manufacturing process. Even the first round fired in your clean gun needs to be cleaned, as some of the products of combustion will cover the exterior of the case. You can use a rotary tumbler, a vibratory cleaner or an ultrasonic bath, each with advantages and disadvantages.

Primers

Primers are the ignition tools for ammunition. They contain a tiny amount of an impact-sensitive explosive, which shoots sparks into the powder charge, which then burns. Primers come in two sizes, large and small, in two types, rifle and pistol, and a variety of special uses—regular, magnum, Match, Benchrest and others.

The large and small deal with the size of the primer. In pistols, large cases usually take large primers, which contain more priming compound to set off the large powder charges. Rounds such as .44 Special, .44 Magnum, .45 ACP or .45 “Long” Colt take large primers. 9mm, .38 Special, .357 Magnum and the like take small primers. Your reloading manual will direct which size you need.

Some powders have deterrent coatings to slow the burn rate and take Magnum primers to insure uniform ignition. Again, the loading tables will note which kind of primers were used for which powders. The Match and benchrest primers are made with closer tolerances and greater uniformity and generally cost more.

Both rifle and pistol primers are the same size in large and small. In order to avoid confusion, the author uses one make with nickel-plated cups for rifle loads and a different make with copper-colored cups for pistol loads. The cups for rifle loads are thicker, to withstand the high pressures in rifles. Loading a rifle primer into a pistol case may cause a misfire. Loading a pistol primer into a rifle case may result in a pierced primer and all that high-pressure gas flowing into the action of your rifle and into your face—definitely NOT RECOMMENDED! 

Where I’ve Been and Where I’m Going

The author began reloading in the 1960s and continues to reload about 10,000 rounds per year. He loads for 16 different calibers (both rifle and pistol) on both single-station and progressive tools. He has been a professional reloader and is an NRA-certified reloading instructor. His next Small Arms Review installment will cover powders, bullet selection and putting it all together! 

The AK-47 is an amalgam of several older systems which, when assembled into the rifle, is greater than the sum of its parts—for the Soviet Union of the 1940s and 1950s, and even into the 1980s, a near perfect tool for its people and armies. The people were un- and under-educated, drafted in large masses for “The Great Patriotic War” (World War II everyplace outside the Soviet Union). They were uneducated to the point that many had never seen a machine beyond a simple wagon. There are many tales of Russian troops stealing faucets from homes in occupied areas and being surprised when they stuck them into the wall of the hovels, turned on the faucet, and no water came out.

Their leader, Joseph Stalin, is quoted as saying that “Quantity has a quality all its own.” Certainly his massive armies won many battles because of their sheer numbers, rather than any tactical genius. Stalin had depopulated his officer corps of anyone who may have even thought of resisting his orders, or who was of the wrong background. He espoused the idea that the common man was as capable as any intelligent, educated man—the despised “intelligentsia.”

The Rifle

As of 1986, it was believed that 30 to 50 million AKs had been produced; today it is probably twice that number. The AK is a gas-operated, turning bolt, semi- and fully automatic firearm, fed from a 30-round detachable magazine. The Model 1947 was designed around the 7.62×39 cartridge, which was based on the German 7.92 Kurz (short) round. In this country, the semiautomatic versions are almost universally called “AKs,” even without the full-auto feature. A sidelight to its design is that purportedly, Stalin ordered the caliber so the barrels could be made on existing machinery for the M1891 7.62×54 rimmed cartridge, to be sawn in half prior to being chambered for the shorter round. These and the bullets could be made on existing machines after a minor adjustment.

The two items that are most criticized are the short stock and the safety arrangement. The short stock is easy to explain. Most Russians were short (as were most Americans in those days); more so in Russia due to their food production, food distribution problems and limited diet. In addition, Russia’s greatest ally in history has always been “General Winter,” when the troops would have to wear thick, heavy clothing to survive. Keep in mind that a tall person can easily, if not totally comfortably, shoot a short-stocked rifle, while a short person can have great difficulty shooting a long-stocked rifle.

As for the safety, which is only present on the right side? The author can only speculate that it may have been placed to keep the un-/under-educated peasants from “accidentally” shooting each other—or their officers.

In any event, the large tolerances built into the design, along with its being somewhat “overgassed” with more operating power than really needed, put a very reliable weapon into the hands of the troops.

The Official Tale

In keeping with Stalin’s beliefs, the official history of the designer, Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov, presents him as the son of a poor but noble peasant family. In The AK-47 Story by Edward C. Ezell, he comments that even in an East German article, the reader is “presented with an interesting mixture of fact and fiction” about the designer. Keep in mind that dates of birth were “moveable” in the USSR, if required by The State. While a “self-made man,” he still needed the assistance of the Party and his comrades to perfect his design. 

In the official version, he worked for the railroad before enlisting into the Army in 1938. His interest in things mechanical was, of course, recognized by his officers and the Party, and he was trained as an armorer before his training as a tank driver. They claim that during his tank training, he invented both a way to measure gas consumption and new tracks for tanks.

Promoted to Sergeant, he was appointed to supervise the manufacture of his inventions. He was later sent to an active tank unit, where he was wounded in action. While in the hospital, he thought he could help the Motherland by designing better guns. He was given a book obtained by his nurse, written by another Russian firearms inventor, Federov, published in 1939 on the evolution of small arms.

Kalashnikov was given 6 months to heal and went to visit his friends at the railroad, where he announced he wanted to build a working model of a submachine gun he had designed. With the assistance and permission of the local Communist Party, he was allowed to proceed. This lead to his assignment to a design bureau and ultimately to the design of the AK-47.

But Is It True?

At this point, let me add some observations about the “official” tale. 

The poor but honest peasant being recognized by The Party and elevated to a high level is a recurrent story in Soviet literature of the time. Here, Kalashnikov fits the mold perfectly—a bit too perfectly. It was a common theme in the Communist ideology, but here it fails.

After the 1918 Russian Revolution, landowners and the intelligentsia were purged from the society. The definition of intelligentsia was … flexible. Anyone with a college degree was included, along with Jews, shop owners and people who were well-read. In some areas, if you wore glasses you were included—the only reason to wear glasses would be to read, so you went off to the gulag or the firing squads. The “common man” was to be exalted. They were the “proletariat” or “proles.”

In the Soviet Union, any information about places or people was SECRET! There were few people with telephones and no public telephone books. There were also no maps of any place in the entire country, other than for ranking party members. Even asking about a person or place (or telephone number) could mean an unhappy meeting with the internal security police. Everyone was required to be an informant.

All information on weapons design was classified—highly classified. The idea that Kalashnikov’s nurse could nip down to the local library and bring him such a book is a flimsy construct. In fact, had she even asked about books on weapons design, she would have had a very uncomfortable interview with the KGB—the internal security police. Then Kalashnikov would have had a similar interview. At best, they may have both been sent to Siberia and the gulag. More likely, they both would have been shot as spies.

Then, for him to get 6 months to heal is ludicrous. He had a shoulder wound, when the Soviet Union was rounding up every available body to go to the Front and were publicly celebrating soldiers with far more serious wounds who fought on. Of course, he is portrayed as asking to be sent back to the Front when told he would be placed on leave, ever the faithful servant of The Motherland.

Finally, the very idea that his friends at the railroad shop could get permission to make any kind of firearm is unbelievable. They too would have been rounded up, along with the local party officials who gave permission, and shot as “counter-revolutionaries” and “enemies of the State.” The KGB officers would have been given medals and promoted for “eliminating these criminals.”

An Alternative Possibility

Here in the U.S., well into the 1960s, there was great fear of another war. The author recalls “Air Raid Drills” in grade school. When the sirens went off, we had to hide under our desks to “protect” us. Living 30 miles from a major target, it is unlikely that a school desk would have saved the author. Information about the Soviet Union and its guns was near impossible to obtain, other than in W.H.B. Smith’s Small Arms of the World (originally printed in paperback as A Basic Manual of Military Small Arms in 1943).

In Russia, mere possession of even a piece of paper from any of the many “Development Bureaus” would mark you as a spy. After you were tortured for the source of the paper, you would be shot. There were “closed cities” for weapons development, which officially did not exist. Weapons designers went in, but they never came out—alive. Asking a question—any question—about such a place would send you to Siberia.

Most of our data on Russian firearms came from humans—“HUMINT” in today’s language. A whisper here, an overheard conversation there and almost nothing on paper. We actually paid big rewards to Russians or “third-party nationals” who could give us data on weapons development behind the Iron Curtain.

Why Disbelieve the Soviet Tale?

So, why would this author believe Kalashnikov was NOT just a humble tank Sergeant? Because of a minor note in a formally classified U.S. government publication. When you write about military firearms history, you read a lot of “unusual” publications. In fact, you start to haunt bookstores and thrift shops, looking for old books on guns. My searching of the latter lead me to a complete set of a U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance books titled simply The Machine Gun, by Col. George Chinn, USMC. This is a complete history of repeating firearms, and Volumes II through V were classified “Confidential Security Information” when they were first published in the 1950s. Volume I dealt with the early evolution of firearms and the mechanical machine guns (Gatlings) and self-powered guns through World War I, so it was not classified. 

After reading the 680 pages of Volume I, I read the much smaller (200 pages) Volume II, Weapons Development in the Soviet Union and her Satellites. On page 25, there are a few sentences that throw a possible new light on the weapon designer. In a discussion of the “Maxim–Tokarev” (MT) machine gun in 1928, the following paragraph appears:

In competition with the M–T was another version of the Maxim. This gun was modified by Koleshnakov and therefore called the M–K (Maxim–Koleshnakov). It differs outwardly from the M–T in the shape of the stock, but otherwise there is little difference. Koleshnakov was not successful in securing adoption of this weapon, but enough were made for trial to allow its use in the Spanish Civil War.

A designer of the same name is credited with the development, some years later of a machine gun mount for a caliber 12.7mm gun …

In an age when HUMINT was the primary source of information, is it possible that the name was spelled phonetically? How many of us refer to the AK as the “Koleshnakov?” Non-native Russian speakers were and are rare, and were rarely trusted. After all, why would someone know Russian, unless he was a spy? Even a minor typing error at some point could convert a written “a” to an “o,” or an “e.”

Which Tale Is True?

Could the “official tale” be true? Possibly, but unlikely for the reasons listed above. Could the author be wrong? OF COURSE! Neither “Koleshnakov” nor “Kalashnikov” are listed in the index of any of the 5 volumes of The Machine Gun. A Russian speaker of my acquaintance has said that “Koleshnakov” is an odd name in Russian—not familiar in any way to him.

Ultimately, it makes no difference. The AK-47 and its follow on guns are highly successful, both individually reliable and as instruments of Socialist/Communist ideology. When you find an AK series gun, if all the parts are there, no matter their condition, the gun is likely to work. 

Now, this author needs to search for more nuggets of information in the remaining 2,028 pages of The Machine Gun, while looking for other obscure titles. 

In the late 1800s, the manually operated “automatic gun” was the state of the art. The Gatlings, Nordenfelts and Gardners were adopted in very limited numbers by the major armies, with the U.S. choosing the homegrown Gatling.

All of these guns were large, very heavy and mounted on either pedestals for naval use or large wheeled carriages like the artillery of the Civil War. Since they looked like artillery, they were grouped with the artillery and used like artillery, fired well back from the front line of the infantry.

Then, at the start of the Spanish–American War in 1898, a chance meeting and a bowl of ice cream changed the employment, the look and the design of all fast-firing guns—manually-operated and true automatics.

The principal player was John Parker, a recent West Point graduate, a lowly 2nd Lieutenant. There was at the time no retirement system, so officers stayed until they died, stifling promotion for the lower ranks. Parker was introduced to the manually-operated, multibarreled Gatling gun and quickly became an enthusiast, even though he was an infantryman.

Our War with Spain

When the Spanish–American War started, we were, as usual, woefully unprepared. Our Army was way too small, and no one had commanded a Naval invasion since the war with Mexico, 50 years prior. Our Navy had little in the way of troop transportation and no real landing craft; just ships, boats (mostly powered by oars) and rafts. Troops were enlisted for the duration, most famously the 1st Volunteer Cavalry known as the “Rough Riders,” lead by Lt. Col. Teddy Roosevelt. They play a part in this story as well. For all the troops, there was stiff competition to get space on the few transports going to Cuba.

Lt. Parker got permission to take four Gatling guns—IF he could get onto the transports. Lieutenants did not usually speak to Generals, and General Shafter was really busy with trying to organize our first large invasion. Parker wanted to get into the fight—and so did everyone else. Tampa was jammed with far more troops than there was room on the transports. He contacted various senior officers, without progress.

He ran into a young 2nd Lieutenant who happened to be the Ordnance Officer for the invasion and thus could speak directly to the General. They retired to a local ice cream parlor, where Parker made his case. The Ordnance Officer decided to help and talked to General Shafter. Parker was temporarily assigned as the “Deputy Ordnance Officer,” and his guns and men were put on the transports.

General Shafter gave some very general orders to Parker, who “took wide latitude” in interpreting them. Rather than placing his Gatlings in line with the artillery, to be used for indirect fire (where the gunners could not see their targets), he took them up close behind the troops about 20 yards behind the firing line of infantry and dismounted cavalry, which included the Rough Riders. He did not expose them until the Spanish refused to surrender, and the charge was ordered. By this time, he had been joined by Sergeant Tiffany of the Rough Riders, who had two Browning M1898 machine guns and 14,000 rounds of ammunition. They supported the charge by pinning down the Spanish troops. They also shot many as they left their trenches to avoid the steady hail of bullets. The attack by the Rough Riders and the 10th Cavalry (all dismounted, as there was no room on the ships for horses) was successful. After taking the heights, he had his troops remove the wheels from the Gatlings to lower their silhouette so they could be emplaced in the trenches.

Thus the Beginning

We see here the start of the trend that still continues. Early pictures of Gatling guns on their wheeled mounts show the crew members standing to serve the gun. The pictures of Hiram Maxim, with his automatic (not manual) gun number 1, show him seated and sitting upright on the tripod. All the belt-fed guns used in WWI similar to our Browning M1917 had tall tripods about 24 inches high to the bottom of the receiver. In WWII, our basic belt-fed Browning M1919A4 had much lower tripods, lowering the height to 10 inches to the bottom of the gun, so the gunner could be prone while firing. Crews became smaller: from 10 for the Gatling to five for a 1917 water-cooled and then the WWII 1919A4 (air-cooled), which still required a team of three (the gunner, who carried the tripod; the assistant gunner, who carried the gun; and ammo bearer(s), with 250-round cans). Today, one or two soldiers serve the gun.

The Germans in WWII had adopted a machine gun that looked more like a rifle, so the gunner could get even lower and fire off of a bipod—or off of a very sophisticated tripod that still sat up high.

The weight also dropped, from 170 pounds of a Gatling (gun without mount), to 41 pounds of the Browning M1917, to the 31 pounds of the WWII 1919A4. Today, our troops carry belt-fed machine guns that weigh less than 30 pounds (23 pounds for the obsolete M60) and can be handled by one soldier.

Machine guns were assigned to machine gun Battalions in WWI and were parceled out to lower units. By WWII, machine guns were placed in platoons, and by Viet Nam they were used in squads. Today, they can be found in even smaller units, another trend started in Cuba by Parker.

And the Gatling still serves in the guise of the Vulcan 30mm cannon, the gun chosen for the Air Force’s A-10 Warthog close air support aircraft, the “mini-guns” (in 7.62 NATO) on AC-130s and various helicopters and ground mobility vehicles.

Parker (known ever after as either “Machine Gun Parker” or “Gatling Parker”) was still serving in 1917, when Colonel Parker was made the head of all Machine Gun Schools for the American Expeditionary Force in France. He must have been a “hard charger” to rise from 2nd Lt. to Colonel—5 grades (1st Lt., Captain, Major, Lt. Colonel, Colonel) in 19 years, when some officers were Captains for decades.

Parker was well aware of the potential impact of what he had done. In his book, History of the Gatling Gun Detachment at Santiago, he notes that machine guns could, and should, be used in the offense. In fact, he states that the infantry and artillery had been “pounding away” at the Spanish for 2 hours, yet 8 1/2 minutes after the Gatlings opened fire, the enemy trenches were captured. He even submitted a proposal for the Gatlings to be considered a “new arm” of the service, separate from the artillery.

And to think this all started over a bowl of ice cream—the flavor and toppings of which are lost to history.

Oh, yes, that young Ordnance Officer whom Parker convinced over ice cream? You may know his name, as he rose to the rank of General and then after WWI promoted a handheld machine gun, which he coined a “submachine gun.” That was John Taliaferro Thompson, the promoter of the Thompson submachine gun.

SOURCE: The Gatlings at Santiago: History of the Gatling Gun Detachment at Santiago, U. S. Fifth Army Corps, During the Spanish-American War, Cuba, 1898. John H. Parker.

There is no ammo available where I live. No 9mm, .38 Special, .223 or .308. Occasionally, if you are lucky and happen to be in a store just as the truck arrives, you may get a box or two of whatever brand or bullet weight they just received. But it is unlikely to be the brand and bullet weight you know to be accurate in your pistol or rifle. How can you maintain your skillset with this inaccurate combination? Clearly, you cannot shoot up your hoard of “the good stuff” in practice and have nothing left for your hunt, competition or saving your life!

Shooting skills are perishable skills, just like any other. If you need to practice, how can you measure your abilities when your firearm will not hold your usual group with the ammo you can get?

The author was taught to never present a problem without a possible solution. This solution may not work, but if you do not try you will never know. Here is a solution that may work.

Minimize the Variables

You are dealing with three variable sets:

1. Your firearm. In this case, a rifle.
2. Your ammo. In this instance, it’s not your known, preferred choice for accuracy.
3. And you.

The first thing is to control the controllable inputs. You know that this rifle, with “Brand A” ammo, shoots 1/2 Minute of Angle (1/2 inch at 100 yards) from the bench. How can you maintain your skills?

The author has the good fortune of having three levels of ammo for his preferred rifle: a very limited quantity of Match grade ammo (or “the good stuff”); a fair amount of okay ammo for informal matches “Grade B”; and a goodly supply of bulk-loaded bargain ammo (“Blaster” grade). This is the ammo for position practice—kneeling, sitting and offhand. It is not “bad ammo,” it is just not tuned to this particular rifle.

Take your rifle and the ammo you can get, which we will call “Blaster brand,” and go to the range. Sandbag your rifle to eliminate (or at least minimize) the effect of your shooting skills and shoot a group. Not a 3-shot group, but a 5- or even 10-shot group, with all the skill you can apply. The larger the number of rounds you fire, the greater confidence you can have that the minimum group size you have fired is truly the best this “Blaster brand” ammo can do from your rifle. Let us say you shoot a 2-inch group at 100 yards—certainly not something to be proud of, but the best you can manage with this ammo. Now you have established your accuracy potential with “Blaster brand”—2 inches, or 2 MOA.

Perfect Practice

Since 2 MOA is the best you can do, start your practice session. Since you know the best you can do is 2 inches, you also know that every shot outside of 2 inches from your point of aim is due to your skill (or lack of skill) for that shot or shots. Now you can work on perfecting your skill so your practice targets have 2-inch groups, the maximum accuracy your rifle and ammo can achieve. You can work on things like the position of your rest if you use one, or sling tension, or any of the other possible variables in your hunt/match/self-defense.

Along the way, do not change the zero of your scope or iron sights. After all, you want to keep your rifle (or pistol) set up for the big hunt or competition. If you absolutely must change your zero, be sure to write down exactly how many clicks and in what direction you changed it. Make two copies, one you keep with your rig, the other in a safe place, just in case a gust of wind blows your note away. That way, if your hunt or competition comes up before you can obtain more of your preferred ammo, you know precisely how many clicks in which direction to get back to zero.

And maintain your regular cleaning regimen, so the only thing you change is the ammo (and sights, if you must). If you intend to hunt with a cold, clean bore, make sure you know where that round will hit. Same thing if you will hunt with a cold, dirty bore. In fact, some very elite law enforcement snipers prefer a cold, dirty bore. Meanwhile, a high speed, low drag rifle instructor and graduate of several sniper schools insists students run a dry patch through their bores every morning just before opening fire, as he believes any trace of moisture in the bore causes an errant first shot. Whatever you decide, stick with it. Cold clean, cold dirty, dry patch first—consistency is more important than which method you choose.

All is not lost just because you have a limited supply of “the good stuff.” Dry fire (any modern gun except a .22) as if you are in a match or on a hunt. Same clothing, same holster/sling, etc. Learn more about your target. I asked a client heading for a safari in Africa, “What is minute of Elephant?” He had no idea, and did some research. So your question may be, “What is minute of Whitetail Deer?” You still need to know. And get to the range for some live fire with whatever ammo you can get—and practice!

And when the ammo shortage abates, slowly build up your supply of “the good stuff.” Not hoarding, but a supply to last you through the next “emergency.” When the author has enough for one match, he starts to buy smaller quantities, leaving “some for the other guy/gal.” Otherwise, the shortage will never end.

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V25N7 (August-September 2021)

         The United States was home to the bolt action military rifle from 1903 until the end of World War II in 1945, when they still dominated the hunting market. At that time, most bolt action (or “turn bolt”) rifles required four separate movements – rotate the bolt up, pull it to the rear, push it forward, and rotate it down. However, on two separate occasions our troops were issued straight-pull bolt action rifles – pull the bolt straight back and push it straight forward. One was a main battle rifle, the other was for training only.

         Straight-pull rifles were an offshoot of turn bolt rifles around the turn of the the19^th century. They were adopted by several European countries, with their longest term in service being with the Swiss, who used the M1899 (and other variants) into the 1970s. A major benefit was that the straight-pull rifles were faster to shoot for partially trained troops. One can still see the occasional Swiss rifles and carbines for sale, desirable for their accuracy at long range.

Army vs. Navy

         As always, there has been a rivalry between the U.S. Army and Navy. In the late 1800s this rivalry extended as far as their choice of rifle. The Army considered various contenders for the United States’ first magazine-fed bolt action rifle, ultimately settling in 1892 on a Norwegian design, the Krag. Its cartridge was our first small-bore jacketed bullet design. The 30-40-220 – 30 caliber was loaded with 40 grains of black powder, and topped with a 220 grain, round-nosed, jacketed bullet. Its commonly called the 30-40 or 30-40 Krag.

Of course, the Ordnance Department had to “improve” the rifle’s action by adding a magazine cutoff and changing the opening of the magazine from folding toward the front to folding down. This neatly prevented the use of stripper clips for loading, and became important in the Navy adoption of the Magazine Lee-Enfield (or MLE) Rifle. The Krag’s magazine cutoff design dealt with the usual Ordnance concern that the troops would “waste ammo by shooting too quickly”! It originally required an Officer to allow fire from the magazine, otherwise, it was used as a single loading rifle. Magazines were loaded with single rounds drawn from a cartridge belt or box carried on the belt. This design lasted through the 1903 rifles until the M1 semi-automatic completely replaced the 1903 after World War II. After all, if the troops fired too fast, Ordnance would have to have more wagons to bring more ammo to those on the sharp end. In fact, until World War I, the troops had to turn-in and account for every fired cartridge case!

 With the adoption of every service rifle since, including the M16/M4, the exact same arguments were heard: “The new rifle lets the troops shoot too fast!”, and “The new rifle is not as accurate as the old rifle! It was good enough for me 30 years ago, we don’t need any new, fast shoot’n, inaccurate rifle!”

The Navy chooses a different course

The Navy decided to go its own way, looking for and finding “something different”. James Paris Lee was a small arms inventor whose ideas for rifling were adopted by the British. Different models and marks of Lee-Enfield served the British in both World Wars. Lee’s magazine design was adopted by most everyone. He had come up with a clever rifle where the bolt was pulled straight to the rear and shoved straight forward. The bolt was locked into the receiver by a lug and cammed out of the lock by angles that caused the back of the bolt to tilt upward on the rearward stroke. These same cam surfaces cammed the rear of the bolt back down on the forward stroke.

The Lee M1895 was adopted in 6mm (a concept we seem to be revisiting) and fed via a two-piece En Bloc five-round clip. The entire assembly was entered into the magazine, and when the last round was loaded, the clip and a separate spring fell out an opening in the bottom of the rifle. This introduced two problems: dirt entering the action via the large hole in the bottom; and the little spring of twisted wire getting lost, preventing clips from being reloaded with loose rounds in the field. The Navy had specified these clips were for one-time use, which was a problem for Marines who practiced working the action with dummy rounds and needed to reload their clips.

Of course, the biggest problem was ammunition supply. The Army made its own ammunition, while the Navy contracted-out its ammo. The 1892 Navy Caliber Reduction Board concluded that there was no need for using the same ammo as the Army. As to landing parties, “These would be only Naval actions of limited extent and duration, so there was no need for interchangeability of ammunition as joint operations with the Army were highly unlikely.” This quickly proved wrong, as the Spanish-American War of 1898 had both Army and Marines landing, and neither group could use the other’s ammo!  Interestingly, it was not an issue for the Marines and Navy in the Legation Siege in Peking China in 1900, as no Army troops were present until the end. But this was the last combat action of the 6mm Lee Navy, and the start of interoperability between the services. The Navy was already re-arming with 30-40 Krag rifles, they had just not yet reached China.

Enter the ROSS

Our entry into World War I meant a massive increase in the number of troops, far beyond the output of the Springfield Armory Model 1903 rifles. And such production was not easily ramped up, so volunteers were literally training with brooms! There simply were not enough rifles for training, even after all the war reserve 30-40 Krags were issued.

Canada, as a member of the Empire, was already involved in the war and learned some harsh lessons of their own. Sir Charles Ross had come to Canada from Scotland and opened the country’s first rifle factory. He designed and made a straight-pull rifle in .303 British, the MKII Model 1905, which established a fine record for accuracy. Of course, national pride required that Canada adopt this rifle for its small army. It evolved into the MK III Model 1910 by using a rotating bolt head to lock the action. When the call came, the Ross Rifle went to the trenches and it was there that two major defects came to light.

The rifle’s sensitivity to mud was the lesser of the two faults. It is one thing to wander about the countryside with your hunting rifle, but quite another to be, as one famous text calls it, “Eye Deep in Hell!”. The trenches of WWI were deep, and the weather was wet. The mud was deep enough to swallow rifles, men, and even artillery pieces. The Ross, while still very accurate, could not be kept clean enough to fire by the troops. A limited number were retained for snipers, and the rest were replaced by the #1 Mk III Enfield, also in .303 British.

The greater fault with the Ross was a design flaw, and it was a killer. A poorly trained soldier could, and did, reassemble the bolt incorrectly. Should he then fire a round, the bolt would blow back out of the receiver, killing the soldier instantly. Legend has it that a senior Sergeant Major declared this was not true. Before an assembly of senior officers, he intentionally misassembled a Ross, shouldered the rifle, and upon firing a round, was killed.

One country’s trash is another country’s treasure

This left Canada with a surplus of rifles suitable for drill purposes, but not for firing. Meanwhile, the US had a surplus of green troops to drill, but no rifles for them to drill with. Some unsung soldier put 2+2 together, and the US bought 20,000 .303 Ross MkIII M1910 rifles for drill with no intention of firing them. One of the oddities of the day was these rifles did not bear a serial number, and they had to be marked as US property. The markings were stamped into the stock and even onto the bayonets, and our troops learned the drill requirements.

The Ross stays stateside

As far as is known, none of the Ross rifles went overseas with US troops, due to another smart move by some unsung ordnance officer. The British had been producing their new rifle, the Pattern 1914 (or P14), originally in a smaller .276 bore. When they entered the war, they moved production to the US and contracted with Winchester and Eddystone Arsenal to make the rifles in .303 caliber. Some Ordnance officer got his hands on one and realized that with a different chambering reamer, the same rifle could be made in 30-06, our standard round. A deal was struck, and more American troops went “Over There” with the Model 1917 or ‘U.S. Enfield’, then with the Model 1903. As a side note: due to dimensional differences in the rounds, this is the only US service rifle with a six-round magazine, and it does not appear in the issue manual.

Both the Lee M1895 Navy and the Ross Mk III M1910 are rare collector’s items today as the only straight-pull rifles adopted by the US!

Sources:

• Small Arms of the World         
• Sir Charles Ross and his Rifles
• The Military Arms of Canada  
• The Winchester-Lee Rifle   

By Seth R. Nadel

This is a follow-on to Seth Nadel’s preceding article titled, “Reloading Ammo—Cost-Effective, Efficient, Fun” in Small Arms Review, Vol. 24, No. 8.
Before you can select a powder, you must know what you want to do (hunting, casual shooting, practice for personal defense or target shooting), what cartridge you are loading, what bullet weight you want to use and your ultimate goal, be it precision, velocity or purely cost savings.
There are many different makes and distinct powders, which are divided into three groups: black powder (and its substitutes), rifle powders and pistol/shotgun powders— in this case, the same powders can be used for both. A visit to a local gun shop showed they carry four types of black powder substitutes and 71 different kinds of smokeless powder for rifles, pistols and shotguns.

We can dispense with black powder, as it is only used in muzzleloading firearms and old cartridges. When the round is known by two or three sets of numbers, such as the 45-70 or 45-70-405, it is usually a round that was created in the black powder era. In this case, it is a .45-caliber bullet, loaded over 70 grains of black powder and weighing 405 grains. The most common round like this is the 30-30, a .30-caliber bullet originally loaded over 30 grains of black powder. There are of course exceptions, such as the 30-06—the .30-caliber round modified in 1906. Black powder is an explosive, with regulations as to how it is to be stored and limits to the quantity of how much a store can have on hand. The substitutes are not restricted.

Smokeless powder is a propellant and much safer to handle. It can be single or double base (nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin) and shaped as rods, flakes or balls. It can be coated with deterrent coatings to change its burn characteristics. You will find “burn rate charts,” which give the relative “speed” at which powders burn. Never use load data for one powder with any other powder, even one from a different maker with the same name, or adjacent on a burn chart.

Smokeless is just that—it smokes less than black powder. It is not completely smoke-free. It is a fire hazard (so no smoking while reloading) but not an explosive hazard. Powder is measured by weight, but dispensed by volume. What does that mean?? The charge—the amount of powder to be placed in the case—is defined by weight in grains and tenths of a grain. Thus you will need a powder scale to weigh the charge. But for convenience it is run through a powder measure, with an adjustable cavity. You set the cavity to “drop” the right amount of powder for each case by weight—the scale lets you set the measure.

Some makers name their powders—Bull’s-eye (the oldest name still in use) is a pistol powder usually used for target shooting at round, bulls-eye targets with pistols. Other companies use numbers: IMR 4895 is “Improved Military Rifle formula #4895.”

Bullets

The bullet is what “does the work,” be it punching a hole in a paper target, ringing some steel, dropping the animal you are hunting or protecting your life. There are a variety of bullets optimized for each use.

The least expensive are lead bullets, cast or swaged into shape for your caliber. These are mostly used for practice and some types of precision competitions. They are limited by the soft nature of lead to lower velocities.
Plated bullets are the (relative) “new kids on the block,” electrically plated with a thin “skin” of copper over the lead. Slightly more expensive than lead, they can be pushed to higher velocities and leave less residue in the barrel of your gun.

The top of the list are the jacketed bullets, where the lead is forced into a copper jacket. These can be sent downrange at the highest velocities—close to 4,000 feet per second in some rifles.

There are a limited number of pure copper bullets used for hunting and a few defensive pistol rounds. Usually found in factory ammunition, a few have found their way onto gun shop shelves.

In addition to their composition, the shape of the bullet is also a factor in selection. For precision pistol shooting in handguns, there are the wadcutter and semi-wadcutter shapes of lead bullets. The wadcutter is used in revolvers and looks like a cylinder of lead, dead flat on the ends. They cut a hole of bore size in the paper target and leave little wads of paper on the ground behind the target—like a hole punch dumped on the ground—thus the name. The semi-wadcutter does the same thing for use in semi-automatic pistols, with a smaller than bore-size tapered cylinder on the top to allow feeding.

Round nose bullets are just that—fine for some kinds of competition and all kinds of practice. Jacketed Hollow points and, for rifles, jacketed soft points, are the choice for personal protection and hunting. Match bullets are, as you would expect, used for competitions—matches. They are made to a high level of precision and, of course, cost more.

Tools

The list is fairly short, and used, err … “previously enjoyed,” tools can be found at discount prices. The author has been using some of the same tools for 50 years while loading an average of 10,000 rounds per year, and in examining used tools has yet to find any junk. All the makers are dedicated to making tools that will last several lifetimes.

The Number 1 tool is the reloading press. These come in single-stage (one operation at a time), turret (capable of performing each operation on a single case) and progressive tools, which, once loaded with cases, primers, powder and bullets, produce a loaded round with each pull of the handle. For clarity, and because most folks people start out this way, I’ll describe the operations as if loaded on a single station press.

Die sets for each caliber (along with a shell holder) allow you to load different rounds in the same press. With one very minor exception, all dies use the same thread pattern and fit in all presses. For bottleneck rounds, there are two dies in the box. Straight wall cases (rifle and pistol) require a three-die set, as you will see. Dies come in standard, small base, tungsten carbide (for very high volume reloading) and match (higher precision) types.

A case cleaner—rotating, vibrating or ultrasonic is a must have, as is a case trimmer and a micrometer. One final tool is a bullet puller, to “erase” any mistakes.

As noted above, you will need a powder scale and a powder measure. There are lots of small items like boxes, bags, markers, etc., that are not reloading-specific.

Putting It All Together

The first thing you will learn here is there are always two or more ways for each step in turning your brass into ammunition. I’ll cover the most common methods.

We will use the cleaned brass mentioned in “Reloading Ammo—Cost-Effective, Efficient, Fun” (Small Arms Review, Vol. 24, No. 8). Get your dies for the caliber out, and set them according to the instructions. This is a step you only need do once.

The clean brass needs to be lubricated for sizing—reforming the expanded case to its original shape. You can use a pad (which does a fine job of lubricating your hand) or spray lube. If you are loading straight-wall pistol cases and have carbide dies, you can skip lubrication. If you are loading a bottleneck case, even with carbide dies, you still must lubricate. If you fail to lubricate, you will get a case stuck in the die, which is FAR more trouble than lubricating the cases.

With the correct shell holder in place, running the ram to the top (by lowering the press handle) will decap (remove the primer) and resize the case. You can re-prime the case on the down stroke of the ram or choose a separate priming tool. On a bottleneck case, the decapping stem will also bell (expand) the case mouth to accept the new bullet. On straight wall cases this is a separate operation utilizing the second die in a three-die set.

Those bottleneck cases need to be measured for length, as the cases stretch with each firing. The forward portion of the chamber is designed for the diameter of the bullet, not the diameter plus the case wall thickness. This will cause a pressure spike big enough to possibly blow up your gun. Your reloading manual will have the case “OAL” (overall length), and you will need a case trimmer to cut it back. The straight wall cases can skip the trimming as they have no shoulder for the gases to push forward.

By now you have selected the bullet weight and design, and by consulting the loading manual, a powder and charge weight. That charge can be high or low, with two caveats:
1) Never load a charge you “found on the net” unless you can find it listed in a reloading manual or on the powder or bullet makers’ website. Someone’s “perfect load” can work in his gun but blow yours up. Plus you run the risk that it came from some 12-year-old in mommy’s basement who thinks it would be “funny” for you to destroy your gun and possibly get hurt.
2) Use at least two separate sources—two manuals or a manual and one of the aforementioned websites to confirm that the load is safe. Even the folks who write the manuals can make a mistake.

The author always loads “in the middle” of the charges listed. That way if he makes a minor error—the case chosen has an unusually thick side wall, the bullet is a bit on the heavy side or any one of a hundred things beyond his control—he still has a safe load. If the “middle” load is too slow for your needs, buy a bigger caliber gun! If the .308 is too slow, buy a .300 Win Magnum. In the long run, it is much cheaper than pushing the envelope and getting a ride to the emergency room. There is no reason to risk blowing up your gun and/or getting injured in a “pressure excursion” just to get your bullet to go 100 feet per second faster.

After selecting a charge weight, close the manual, reopen it and make sure you are on the right page for the round you are loading and looking at the right bullet weight. These extra seconds can save you from making up an over or under pressure batch! Then using the powder scale and the powder measure, set the measure to drop the correct weight. As another safety check, never accept the first correct weight. Always drop several more charges and then weigh another, as some powders settle and become denser from the operation of the measure. When you first start, weigh every charge. If they are all good, you can weigh every fifth charge and then every tenth as you become more comfortable. Once you establish a consistent rhythm, it’s easy to drop the charges with confidence. You will want a cartridge tray to place the rounds with powder in them and reduce the chance of knocking them over. Only cases with powder in them stand up on the author’s bench, or else there is a chance of seating a bullet into a case with no powder!

Using the bullet seating die, set per the directions, seat the first bullet and let the die crimp the case into the bullet. This keeps the bullet from setting back or moving forward—setting back can drastically raise the pressure, and moving forward can jam a revolver. Then take that first round and make sure it will fit into your magazine. You may want to make up a dummy round (no primer or powder) for this step. Save that dummy, as it can be handy if you ever need to rest your dies.

The final steps are wiping the lube off the completed rounds, if you have not already done so after sizing, and then boxing or bagging them with the load data. You’ll want the caliber, case make, powder make and charge, and bullet make and weight on a note with your handcrafted ammo.

Going Forward

Once you become confident, you may want to experiment with higher or lower powder charges or different bullets and seating depths. You can customize your loads for the best precision in your rifle or pistol or produce large quantities for the same cost as store-bought ammo. You may also decide shooting your ammo is so much fun that you want to shoot more and perhaps move up to a progressive press. With such a tool, you pre-load it with powder and primers, then put in a case and a bullet, pull the handle, and a loaded round comes out!

So start saving your brass and try reloading it!

Eugene Stoner is widely known as the designer of “America’s Rifle,” the AR-15/M16/M4, and its original parent, the AR-10. He also created the U.S. Survival AR-7 .22 rifle, which has passed through many hands and is still in production. This is the takedown rifle that fits in its own stock. Then there was his aluminum receiver, extremely lightweight 12-gauge shotgun which was produced for several years but soon left the marketplace. And since there was an AR-7, AR-10 and AR-15, there must have been AR-1s,-2s, and so on, and SAR has covered these numerous times.

While the AR-15 guns were originally chambered in .223/5.56, the AR-10, the original design, was chambered in .308/7.62 NATO. Now the design is available in a raft of calibers, from .22 Long Rifle to .50. It also serves as the base for bolt-action guns all the way up to .50 BMG.

The direct impingement gas system dates to 1900 France, but it was the combination of the gas system, the intelligent use of plastics and aluminum and, most important, the ergonomics, which revolutionized small arms design. The author recently discovered that Stoner’s talents were not limited to rifles. He is credited as the designer of a 25mm autocannon!

The Project

In 1964, Stoner was a consultant to Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge (TRW), which was working on a 25mm cannon. TRW has a long and storied history. It was started in 1901, after developing a method for making bolts by electrically welding the heads on. TRW moved from that to making parts for cars, then complete aircraft engines, later rocket engines, semi-conductors, satellites and ultimately spacecraft! They evolved into one of the first and largest “aerospace” companies, until they were taken over in 2002. But they also were involved in firearms development and production.

In 1961, TRW received a contract to build 100,000 M14 rifles and another contract the next year for 219,691 rifles. They eventually made 4,874 National Match rifles, which are held to a high standard for accuracy and speak to the quality of the company’s manufacturing abilities.

It was in this time frame—1964 to be exact—that a new project came to TRW, the Vehicle Rapid Fire Weapons System, which became known as the Bushmaster cannon. It was a tight competition, including multiple candidates each from Philco-Ford, General Electric and Oerlikon. The prototypes included a Vulcan type rotary gun, a revolver (single barrel, rotating chambers), traditional single-barrel guns utilizing several different operating systems, even a two-barreled system. The TRW candidate was called the “TRW-6425.”

The competition was somewhat open-ended, as no round was specified, only a result. The intention was to create a vehicle-mounted fully automatic cannon, capable of defeating a lightly armored vehicle at a distance. Guns of 20mm, 25mm and 30mm calibers were contenders. There was already an “interim” gun, and the performance of the new gun had to be better.

Being mounted on a vehicle offers some advantages and some constraints. The gun would have both electrical and hydraulic power available, and weight would be less of a problem than say, in an aircraft. But if you have ever been in an armored vehicle turret, space is very limited, a heavy gun system reduces the ability of the vehicle to carry men and ammo, and the gases from firing must be exhausted from the turret. In the early tanks, crewmen were incapacitated by the fumes from their guns.

The TRW entry prototype only took 22 months from contract to first firing in 1965. Great Britain and France, among other countries, also tested the gun. Various tests and studies went on until 1973, but work at TRW had stopped after Philco-Ford acquired the rights to the design in 1969. Only six of the guns were built. Renamed the PFB-25 (and Oerlikon’s related KB series of cannon), the ammunition was developed by Oerlikon.

The TRW-6425

The maximum rate of fire was 550 rounds per minute, with lower rates available, including semiauto fire. It is fed from a belt of linked rounds. Locking of the bolt to the barrel extension was done via the multi-lug system, cammed by a bolt carrier similar to the familiar type in the AR series guns. But there the similarity ends, as the 25mm was recoil-operated. It uses the short-recoil action, where the barrel recoils less than the length of a loaded cartridge. A hydraulic accelerator moves the bolt carrier assembly at 1.5 times the speed of the barrel, providing the impetus for the bolt carrier to cam the bolt out of engagement with the barrel extension. This allows for a short receiver inside the turret.

In the long-recoil system, the bolt remains locked to the barrel until the entire assembly recoils more than the length of a loaded cartridge, then the bolt is held back and the barrel moves forward, extracting the case by pulling the barrel off of it. This requires a very long receiver.

Testing

In short, the TRW-6425 was a failure. There were many malfunctions and lots of part failures. Of course, the idea of testing is to find any weaknesses and see if they can be remedied. Some issues were in fact resolved during testing, and the Ordnance Corps found the gun had military potential but needed further development. Of course, Stoner worked for TRW, and there is no record of him working for Philco-Ford.

It is possible that Philco-Ford was “hedging its bet” by submitting two different guns using two different operating systems into the competition. Certainly having Stoner‘s name associated with the gun would not have hurt.

Ultimately, the Hughes 25mm M242 chain gun was selected for the Bradley Infantry Fighting vehicle. It weighs 230 pounds and can fire 100 or 200 rounds per minute. The same gun in 30mm was adopted as the M230E1 for use in attack helicopters. Both guns are externally powered electrically and operate using an “endless chain” (allegedly designed from a bicycle chain), hence the name. The use of electric power means a shorter receiver inside the turret and less problems with the gasses produced entering the confined space of the turret. It also means a failure to fire (dud round) does NOT stop operation of the gun. The dud round is ejected along with the empty cases, and the cannon continues to fire.

Had TRW kept the rights to the project, Stoner may have perfected it, but history is full of “could haves,” “would haves,” and “should haves.” Eugene Stoner will always be secure in his place among gun designers for his work on “America’s Rifle,” the AR series. The TRW-6425 gets placed with other designs by Stoner—and every other inventor—as one that just missed the niche. Sources: The Machine Gun, Volume V, by George M. Chinn; U.S. Rifle M14—from John Garand to the M21, by R. Blake Stevens.