New Del-Ton TRX Rifle Available Through ATI

American Tactical Imports (ATI) is proud to introduce the brand new Del-Ton TRX16 rifle. Del-Ton fans have long awaited the release of a new product from the family owned, North Carolina-based AR manufacturer. This new rifle from Del-Ton, Inc. is a 16-inch semiautomatic rifle already fully dressed with the latest Troy Industries accessories. Chambered in 5.56x45mm, the TRX features forged 7075 T6 Aluminum hard coat anodized Mil-Spec upper and lower receivers. The 1×9 twist chrome moly vanadium barrel has a threaded muzzle, mid-length gas system, Troy Industries Low Profile gas block and A2 flash hider. The TRX also features a reinforced fiber Troy Battle Ax buttstock and a Troy 13-inch TRX Extreme Hand Guard. It weighs 6.8 lbs. empty and has a fully extended length of 36.75 inches and a collapsed length of 33 inches. The sights are Troy DOA/STD rear folding and Troy M4/HK front folding. The TRX has an HPT/MPI tested bolt. MSRP for the Del-Ton TRX16 rifle is $1,250 and it comes with a hard case, 30-round Troy magazine and a cleaning kit. It will be available in both black and flat dark earth. For more information please contact American Tactical Imports, Dept. SAR, 100 Airpark Drive, Rochester, NY 14624. Phone: (585) 328-0945. Fax: (585) 328-4168. Website: www.americantactical.us.

Ruger Announces New SP101 Revolver in .22 LR

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. announces a new SP101 revolver chambered for the .22 Long Rifle, the most popular cartridge in the world. The new .22 LR Ruger SP101 is true to Ruger standards of rugged reliability and perfect for those seeking a quality small frame revolver. This new SP101 will appeal to firearm instructors and enthusiasts who want to practice and perfect their shooting skills, or just spend time plinking with inexpensive rimfire ammo. Ruger re-engineered the SP101 to chamber eight rounds instead of the traditional six, improved the sights, and maintained the same classic features that were the SP101. The 30-ounce double-action revolver is made of weather resistant stainless steel with a satin finish for longevity and good looks. The walnut grip panels inset in the one-piece rubber grip are checkered and engraved. The revolver features a fully adjustable square-notch rear sight and fiber-optic, square-post front sight. The 4.2-inch barrel features a half shroud covering the ejector rod. For more information contact Sturm, Ruger and Company, Inc., Dept. SAR, 200 Ruger Road, Prescott, AZ 86301. Website: www.ruger.com.

M240 Machine Gun Foregrip and Rail Adapter

Special Tactical Services, LLC, now has a new adapter kit that allows the user to add useful accessories to the M240 machine gun by means of a rail (patent pending). This short rail adapter assembly fitted to the forward mount lug is primarily designed for rapid and rugged attachment of vertical foregrip assemblies but the attachment is also suitable to accessory bipod assemblies that utilize a Mil-Std 1913 interface (Picatinny Rail Grabber). As the pivot point has been moved closer to the operator, the STS adapter provides a more natural handling point and improved ergonomics. Bipods attached in this location allow for a more rapid traverse and offer handling characteristics that emulate the Mk43/M60-E3 configuration for quicker engagement of multiple targets dispersed across the field of fire. Installation is quick and easy. Simply pull the center pin all the way out to the right side. The pin is captive and will stop in the fully disengaged position. Place the adapter over the receiver forward the mounting hole location. Push the pin all the way left, through the receiver lug into the fully engaged position and securely attach the rail accessory or grip of your choice. STS does not recommend the attachment of polymer or cast metal (MIM) rail interface material. Plastic or rubberized grips are fine; so long as they incorporate a high quality machined metal rail grabber. For more information you can contact them at Special Tactical Services, LLC, Dept. SAR, Diamond Springs Road Suite B, Virginia Beach, VA 23455. Phone: (757) 554-0699. Fax: (208) 693-9692. On the web at www.spectacserv.com.

New Rifle Assault Bag From Uncle Mike’s

Uncle Mike’s, a leading provider of shooting accessories for more than 60 years, has introduced the Rifle Assault Bag, a rugged and versatile case for owners of AR or modern sporting rifles. Constructed of tough 600D polyester and lined with 2-inch closed-cell foam padding, the Rifle Assault Bag offers gun owners long-lasting protection for their firearm. Hook and loop straps hold the firearm securely in place, ensuring it doesn’t shift in transit. The bag also features a hidden interior pocket for handgun storage. With three exterior pockets, the Rifle Assault Bag provides shooters with plenty of room to store extra magazines and gear, making it an ideal case for range or competitive shooters. The bag is not only compatible with AR style guns, it is also a great option for take-down firearms and other short rifles and shotguns. The bag is available in lengths of 36 or 43 inches and is 20.5 inches deep and 11.25 inches high. It includes a padded, adjustable shoulder strap, and is available in the following three colors: black, canopy or dark earth. The MSRP for the Uncle Mike’s Rifle Assault Bag is $101.95 for the 36-inch model and $113.95 for the 43-inch version. For more information contact Bushnell Outdoor Products, Dept. SAR, 9200 Cody, Overland Park, KS 66214. Phone: (913) 752-3400. Fax: (913) 752-3550. On the web at www.unclemikes.com.

New Blaze Gun Case from Technoframes

Technoframes is the world leading producer of high quality gun & ammunition storage solutions, with product lines ranging from gun cases and ammunition boxes to replica ammunition displays. Their new Blaze is a state-of-the-art gun case precision engineered from hi-grade aluminum and ballistic acrylic. Blaze delivers not only a secure storage system but also an unparalleled display platform for a wide range of handguns. The built-in dual-sided locking system facilitates rapid access if needed while the comfort grip handle means Blaze is also easily transportable. Add-on components include devices to enable the gun case be both wall mounted and have the contents obscured from prying eyes, so, with 3 different models to choose from, Blaze has got you and your handgun covered. For more information on these innovative cases please contact them at Technoframes, Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 1067, Manchester, NH 03101. Phone: (866) 246-1095. Website: www.technoframes.com.

New SureShell Shotshell Carrier from Mesa Tactical

Mesa Tactical, provider of high quality tactical accessories and gear to law enforcement, military and civilian shooters, announced the availability of its four-, six-, and eight-shot SureShell shotshell carrier and optics rail assemblies for Mossberg’s Model 500 and Model 590 pump action shotguns. Mesa Tactical’s aluminum SureShell shotshell carriers are an industry standard and the preferred choice of most federal, state, and municipal law enforcement agencies due to their hard anodized aircraft aluminum construction and fail-safe shell retention system.

Mesa Tactical has been supplying shell carriers for the Mossberg 500 platform since November 2005, but this current announcement highlights the availability of integrated shell carriers and optics rail assemblies. Similar products have been available for the Benelli M2, Benelli M4 and Remington 870 platforms for years, but this is the first time integrated shell carriers and rails have been offered for the Mossberg shotguns. SureShell shell carrier and rail assemblies for the Mossberg pump shotguns feature four-, six- or eight-shell shotshell yokes fitted to a bracket incorporating a Mil-Std 1913 (NATO STANAG 2324) Picatinny optics rail. The rail bracket is secured to the shotgun receiver using the optics rail mounting holes already drilled and tapped into the Mossberg receiver at the factory. The optics rail stretches most of the length of the shotgun receiver, or about 4.5 inches, allowing the mounting of a red dot scope or other target acquisition aids. In addition to the standard 4.5 inch rails, Mesa Tactical is also offering four-, six- and eight-shell carriers in a full length (20 inch) configuration. Twenty inch rails allow the use of back-up iron sights (BUIS) in addition to optics. The full length rails are supported at the front by Mesa Tactical’s new Magon magazine clamps. A unique feature of the full length rail and Magon clamp system is the ability to completely field strip the weapon, including removal of the barrel and bolt carrier, without tools, leaving the rail and clamp intact. A full length rail is also available with no shell carrier. For more information contact them at Mesa Tactical, Dept. SAR, 1760 Monrovia Ave., #B1, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Phone: (949) 642-3337. Fax: (949) 642-3339. Website: www.mesatactical.com.

AccuCover Increases Accuracy While Reducing Parallax Error

British designed and manufactured, the AccuCover is an entirely new concept in scope cover design. As you would expect from a manufacturer of quality scope covers, it provides excellent protection of your scope and lens against whatever the elements can throw at it. However, what really makes the AccuCover unique is its ingenious patented design which helps you soot both faster and more accurately. This is done quite simply with the addition of high visibility markings on the rim of the scope cover. When you aim, your eyes traditionally focus on the crosshairs within the scope and the target behind. With AccuCover, your peripheral vision also come into play, sensing the four markings on the rim and helping to keep your eye aligned with both crosshairs and target. By simply aligning the brightly colored chevrons with the crosshairs, the eye becomes centralized to the scope. Its simplicity is its beauty. With all three elements aligned, this not only allows you to acquire the target faster, it also ensures a more accurate, consistent shot. The benefits of the AccuCover are:

• Reduced parallax error – excellent cheek weld delivering greater accuracy
• Reduced rifle cant – less rifle tile delivering greater accuracy
• Faster eye alignment – especially in dusk/dawn lighting conditions
• Silent push-button opening – ensuring a stealthy approach
• Cover folds flat to scope – eliminating undergrowth entanglement
• Water resistant – as you’d expect from a first class scope cover.

AccuCover is already being used by British police forces for firearm training and on sniper rifles and the military is also learning of the benefits of this simple product. It comes in three sizes, which fit up to 99% of all ocular rifle ends. For more information, contact them at AccuZero Ltd, P.O. Box 6387, Leighton Buzzard, Beds, LU7 6BY Great Britain. Phone: +44 (0) 7958 195446. Website: www.accucover.com.

(Editor’s note: Special Tactical Services, McClellan and Renz’ highly respected tactical training and resources firm, is an important partner of US Ordnance, current manufacturer of the substantially improved M60 series machine guns and spare parts. Both companies have long been fighting a determined retrograde action in support of US military personnel and other users of thousands of these battle proven guns that are still deployed worldwide in the Global War on Terror. This interview was originally conducted to provide background information for Robert Bruce’s report on US Ordnance’s MK43 series machine guns, featured in the April 2008 issue of SAR. Because of its remarkably candid and necessarily controversial elements, SAR believes it deserves to run on its own, providing much information that is both relevant for today and important for the historical record.)

Special Tactical Services, LLC, established in 2000 by former Navy SEAL Dale McClellan, offers highly effective tactical training in a variety of weapons and antiterror/security disciplines that increase the war fighting capabilities of today’s operators in the Global War on Terror and on the front lines of Homeland Security. STS is an officially listed US Government General Services Administration vendor and works for the US Navy and its Center for Security Forces. STS instructors have provided uniquely effective training for numerous federal, local, & state law enforcement agencies as well as elite units in every one of the US Armed Forces.

STS is also the exclusive weapons and armorer training partner to US Ordnance, current manufacturer of improved M60 series machine guns. Additionally, STS designs and manufacturers a number of innovative products including advanced Shipboard Ballistic Weapons Stands and Modular Armored Security Shields for Entry Control Points.

Dale McClellan, President and CEO, has over 16 years of military and private sector experience and is responsible for shaping the future growth and diversification of STS. He graduated from Basic Underwater Demolition SEAL Training in 1990. While serving at SEAL Team Eight he was deployed to Mogadishu, Somalia in 1993. Trained as a Machine Gunner, Point Man, Sniper and Scout Sniper Instructor, McClellan finished his military career training Seal Team members for combat operations as an Assault Cell instructor.

Steve Renz, Senior Vice President, with nearly 20 years of instructional experience in the military, law enforcement and the private sector, is among those responsible for the direction of all activities that Special Tactical Services offers. A six year veteran of the United States Marine Corps, he served as an anti-tank assault man assigned to a Combined Anti-Armor Team, a Scout Sniper and Scout Sniper Instructor, as well as a Close Quarters Battle Instructor. While assigned as a sniper to the Surveillance and Target Acquisition platoon with First Battalion, Eighth Marines, he conducted several deployments to the Mediterranean area and to the Middle East. He later served as a Scout Sniper Instructor at Camp Lejeune, N.C. and went on to assist in the development and implementation of the Marine Corps’ Designated Marksman program. As a CQB Instructor, he was responsible for the training of Marines and other military personnel in all facets of handgun, submachine gun, shotgun and rifle/carbine combat marksmanship as well as all facets of covert and dynamic entries for vital asset recovery.

Special Tactical Services, LLC, Virginia Beach, Virginia

SAR: This interview is intended to gather background information for an in-depth look at the MK43 Mod 1, latest member of the M60 family that the Navy calls a ‘legacy weapon.’ Although officially on their way out, if you go on Navy News website and start pulling down photographs of Inshore Boat Units and others deployed to GWOT, there are a heck of a lot of M60s out there in various configurations.

Dale McClellan: The irony in this (MK43) feature for Small Arms Review is I wish it was done five years ago. Because when we started trying to keep the 60 alive, started performing CPR on it, nobody would listen.

Everyone wants our Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines to have the best weapons. FN builds the machine guns with the exception of the M2HB. Following the lead of the Marine Corps and the Army, the Navy set the system up where the M240 was to replace the MK43, or the M60 series in its system. Now with the protracted war effort, the armed forces is having a difficult time keeping up with sustainment, and total replacement of the M60 is being pushed out even further.

The issue we had is what you just said, detailed in a letter that we wrote and circulated back then, (see “The Battle Proven M60,” linked on the STS website). We wrote this and sent it out to everybody because there are anywhere between five thousand to ten thousand M60s in the Navy’s inventory, still being deployed on Navy ships and with reserve units throughout the world. But the Navy says it’s an ‘unsupported weapon system’ and they sent out emails to the effect that it’s to be replaced by the M240.

Unfortunately, that meant support for the M60, M60E3 and Mk43s was going to be through cannibalization of M60’s currently in inventory. There is a potential problem though with cannibalizing M60s for spare parts. What most people don’t realize is that the feed cam assembly, cartridge guides, and feed pawl assembly on the Mk43 are not interchangeable with older models.

Replacement was not going to be finished for several years to come. And it wouldn’t matter if it was six days or six years, if someone has to employ an M60 weapon system there’s a high probability that it would not operate properly because the systems are 20+ years old and have been maintained with spare parts that were supplied by the lowest bidder; or worse through cannibalization of incompatible used parts.

We did a firing demonstration for Congressman Mark Kirk and he was impressed with the weapon (Mk 43 Mod 1) and our arguments. This led to a news article in the Washington Times, ‘Rummy Asked to Save Rambo’s Favorite Gun.’ (Linked on the STS website). It was taken all the way to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. And we tried to get it saved because it was already out there, it was more cost effective, it’s a good American made weapon system. But we lost that battle ultimately and the gun became ‘unsupported.’ The government had made up its mind; the money had already changed hands.

In Crane’s (NAVSEA Crane, the Navy’s central small arms support facility) defense they said these things are decided and planned three to six years out. And there was no turning around the decision on the M60. So the 60 will continue to get phased out and be replaced by the 240, or the MK48 in some capacities. Which makes more sense. And hopefully the Marine Corps and everybody will start to get some type of shorter 240 so they can have a manportable/dismountable configuration.

“Unsupported”

SAR: There must be plenty of M60 replacement parts in the inventory.

McClellan: Unfortunately, some of the people at Crane don’t know what they’re sending out. When several Navy Units received their M60s they had Basic parts on a Mk43 with an E3 forearm. I mean it was terrible. Obviously, somebody doesn’t know what they’re putting together. They think a M60 part is a M60 part is a M60 part. A Navy briefing about problems shows how much money was allocated in 2002 and how they were going to overhaul 595 guns. All were SEAL Team guns; the only ones they were still supporting.

The Navy has said, ‘Well, we have all these guns in inventory. As they break we would replace the parts but there’s nobody manufacturing parts.’

Well there is. US Ordnance manufactures top quality, MILSPEC parts under a US government contract. The problem is in the bins of parts the Navy currently has. They’re mismatched, old parts from some of the first models up to the E3s. What most don’t realize is that those top covers and a lot of other parts are not interchangeable. They mess up what we call ‘the timing’ of the weapon system and cause it to malfunction. So now you have individuals who may or may not be educated on those exact parts and they’re taking these components, interchanging them, and consequently it decreases the reliability of the weapon system.

Steve Renz: One of the biggest things that really forced us to educate ourselves on the 60 was that no two of the Navy’s guns had the exact same parts and pieces. There were different bolt plugs, different buttstocks, barrel configurations, all kinds of different parts and pieces on the ‘same weapon.’ So it forced us to do a lot of research. And what we found was when we started to do some inspections on some of the different ships and different units is the Gunners Mates and Armorers had no idea about the Product Improvement Program from back in the 1960s. There were receivers that had obviously never even gone through PIP (Product Improvement Program upgrade). There appeared to be little to no subject matter expertise on the weapons system and we wanted to help fix that.

We needed to know what some potential problems are if you have a basic M60 that’s running components from different models including the MK43. So as a private company we were able to take a lot of these different parts and pieces, mismatch them, throw ‘em into a gun, run it and see what the problems were. And we found there were some significant problems. This resulted in simple malfunctions and stoppages to complete weapon failure in some cases.

STS Arrives on Station

SAR: How did STS get involved with the Navy’s M60 situation?

Renz: I think a lot of that happened around the 2000 – 2001 time frame when we started doing training for the Mk43 with the Submarine Squadron Support Unit (SSSU) command which is now called NSSU

McClellan: SSSU was the first unit that came to us. This is after they went to the SEAL Teams at Little Creek Amphibious Base, Virginia, and said, ‘Hey, we have all these MK43s like yours but our guys don’t know how to use them.’

The SEAL Teams basically said, ‘We know these guys at Special Tactical Services, call them.’ So they came to us to learn all about the MK43. Building on my SEAL Team background (Team Eight from 1990 to 1998), STS put together a program built from the same principle mechanics that I had implemented back then as an Assault Cell instructor focusing on weapons manipulation and tailored it to what we thought would work for the fleet Sailors who operate the weapon alone in a watch duty station or for any machine gunner for that matter.

We started training the Navy with the MK43 guns and ammunition they had – shooting a thousand rounds per Sailor. But when you start putting that kind of volume through a machine gun it’ll break. Doesn’t matter if it’s a 60, a 240 or a .50, eventually it’ll break.

This is when we started finding about the support that could or could not be provided to the Sailors. They weren’t getting the parts, and the guns were broken.

At the same time we started thinking, these are their wartime guns with so many rounds through ‘em! This is ridiculous. They ought to have training guns that they can beat up and break. We got a line to Saco Defense but they referred us to the new owners at General Dynamics (GD). GD wouldn’t touch us unless we were buying hundreds if not thousands of parts. ‘You want twenty firing pins? Yeah. Call us when you want twenty thousand firing pins.’ So they wouldn’t have anything to do with us either.

Alliance with US Ordnance

McClellan: GD had been extremely reluctant to tell us but I complained enough to them that eventually they told us about US Ordnance, which had bought the M60’s manufacturing rights, technical data package and all the tooling. Once we found out about US Ordnance it was ‘Game On!’ Now we had a source for current parts manufactured to MIL-SPEC (military specification) in the United States of America. This enabled us to fix the Sailors’ guns with the correct components.

Later, we told US Ordnance that we would like the opportunity to come out there and show them the training program we had been putting together. We want you to tell us from a manufacturer’s perspective if there’s anything wrong with the course. So Steve Renz and I flew out to Reno, Nevada, met with Norm Justice and some of the other guys, and taught them our Navy machine gun course. They had a few things for us that were constructive criticism but overall their opinion was, ‘The course is incredible,’ and they sponsored us as their exclusive trainers.

As we went down the path with this they started supporting us with everything we needed. They were fantastic to us and the troops. Also, they were probably one of the most receptive companies I’ve ever seen to constructive criticism. We would call them up and say, ‘Hey, these roller cams keep breaking.’ They’d say, ‘Send us every roller cam that breaks.’ So we would do a round count and we would send it to them. And what was amazing about US Ordnance is they took that data, they looked at their metallurgies and data provided, and they listened to everything we told them and they built a better machine gun.

SAR: So MIL-SPEC wasn’t enough? US Ordnance went beyond that?

McClellan: Well, not exactly, and they could explain it more accurately; but as the Viet Nam war wound down and the M60 support and sustainment transitioned to peacetime, various spare parts contracts were bid out to the lowest bidder. Quality suffered and substandard parts flooded the system. The M60 was not alone in this and as a result several revisions were made in the federal purchasing code to protect small arms manufacturing companies with respect to bolts, barrels, and receivers. But the damage had already been done. The system was flooded with substandard and outdated M60 spare parts.

Once US Ordnance got the M60 under their roof they were able to control both ends of the spectrum using only newly manufactured parts on their weapon system. If there was a problem with a part they could find out where the failures were. If the rollers on the actuator cam assemblies were breaking, they stopped outsourcing with that supplier or they held them to a tighter tolerance or material specification so that it matched the print and it worked with the other internal components as the system was designed.

By The Book

SAR: We understand that STS prepared a highly detailed chart that specifies the right parts for each variation of the M60. Is that institutionalized back through Navy channels?

McClellan: Yes, we gave it to them. But because everyone assumed the 240 would replace the 60 by now it was never implemented.

Renz: That’s one of the big things with this current CSWI (Crew Served Weapon Instructor) Program that STS assisted in developing for the Navy. Those guys are going to be instructors so they’re educated on it. We want them to be able to go back and work on the four guns they’re going to come across in the Navy system; the original M60, the M60E3, or MK43, and some Deltas (aircraft guns with spade grips) out there in the Air Wings.

MK43 Conversion Kits

SAR: What came next?

McClellan: We went forward with US Ordnance to NAVSEA Crane and tried to get them to support doing a remanufacturing process. To at least take the new US Ordnance parts and send out the A and B type kits to have the guns rebuilt so they were functional in a combat capacity similar to what was done for the SEAL Teams. That seemed to fall on deaf ears and frustrated the hell out of us.

Renz: A lot of the guys who come through our course, or see the videos, want the conversion kit for the MK43. This is really about a five minute project that costs just around forty five hundred dollars: a lot cheaper than a twelve thousand dollar FN MK48. That’s been our argument. You’ve got so many of these M60 receivers that are still in the system. For $4,500 per weapon system you can turn it into the MK43.

850 Round Bursts

SAR: Tell us about that amazing video on YouTube of the MK43 firing a continuous 850 round burst.

McClellan: I think everyone except US Ordnance and STS laid claim to that video, but yes, we did the first run of those 850 plus round endurance test.

As we went through the parts on the gun and US Ordnance fixed what was broken, they started making operational changes based on some of our recommendations and some of theirs. About then I found this article that talked about Army testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground in the 1990s. Test results for MRBF (mean rounds between failures) were quoted as very good on the FN MAG 58 – the Army M240 – and very bad on Saco’s M60E3. They said the mean rounds between stoppages (MRBS) for sustained rate burst fire and normal operation on the MAG was 2,962 and MRBF was 6,442. On the M60 the MRBS was a mere 846 and the MRBF was 1,699.

The point was that we had to prove that these old MRBS and MRBF figures didn’t apply to US Ord’s new MK43s or for that matter any correctly assembled version. The Army said the MRBS was 846 rounds so we decided to test that theory and demonstrate a continuous burst of 850 rounds.

We called up Curtis Debord, and asked, ‘If I linked 850 rounds and pulled the trigger one time would the light and short Commando barrel take it?’ They gave it some thought and said no. Based on the temperature rise of about one and a half degree per bullet, they estimated failure would occur at something like 700-800 rounds as the barrel material becomes compromised at temperatures above 1,000 degrees

I told Curtis that to ‘myth bust’ the stated MRBS we need a barrel that can do more than 850 rounds. Think about it – most special operations guys don’t carry a spare barrel. A SEAL Team operators average load out is 600 plus rounds and the old ‘Predator Packs’ could hold 800 to a thousand rounds. Also, most ‘H-Gear/LBE’ guys (infantry grunts) carry around 300 rounds plus a few hundred more carried by those in the squad.

So we wanted to shoot 850 rounds through one barrel in one continuous burst. But how do you do that? The answer was to take a heavy barrel and chop it down and flute it. That way it had the original hard sight on it, it’s shorter, it’s a little bit lighter and it has more surface area for the cooling. So US Ord built one … and as soon as we got it we pushed it to see what it would do, and it worked at least two times for 850+ rounds. Then we did some 600 rounders for Special Forces groups and others. Several on the same barrel until eventually the barrel bulged a little bit. ‘Hey that doesn’t look right,’ so we sent it back to US Ordnance.

The outside contour on the ‘Shorty’ barrel has an enlarged profile where the Stellite liner ends and the hard chromed barrel begins. This strengthens the intersection of the Stellite liner with the barrel and this is where the barrel first bulged after repeated continuous bursts. So US Ordnance adjusted their barrel contours.

Then, assisting US Ordnance at the 2003 Armed Forces Journal (AFJ) Shootout in North Carolina, we were ready to go public with the 850 round burst. This was a production US Ordnance Mk43 that AFJ evaluators had been shooting all day. When AFJ evaluators came up we’d hand over 100 round belts and let them shoot the hell out of that gun. And at the end of the day, we didn’t clean it or anything. All we did was add a whole bunch more CLP on it in preparation for the 850 round endurance test that would be recorded on video.

FN set up on the Known Distance (KD) Range that day because they were demonstrating several other products that were not suitable for the carbine range. We have not tried it but I am not sure that a M240 chrome lined barrel could sustain 850 rounds continuous.

But it still goes back to the MRBS. What we were saying is ‘let’s call a spade a spade’. Put the weapon on the line and let’s do it.’ So I fed 850 rounds of ammunition to ensure there were no binding issues with the stacked 850 rounds and we asked one of the evaluators, Jerry Hurd, to shoot it; a guy who’d been through our training. We wanted somebody we knew would not let off the trigger and could hold the gun on target safely. So Jerry got down and he pulled the trigger and held it down for 850 rounds. And the demonstration went flawless.

SAR: Even after long lines of people had fired a hundred rounds each.

Renz: It was probably close to four thousand rounds through it earlier that day.

A funny thing happened during the 850 round burst. A friend of ours was over on the KD range. When the gun kicked off everyone there just stopped and listened as it chugged and chugged away for what seemed like forever. He said that when it ended everybody was like, ‘Damn!’ The whole idea was to beat that 846 rounds and everyone knew that it worked. It was a pretty bold statement and it was caught on video.

(Editor’s Note: The video recording of this remarkable demonstration has achieved something of a cult status with tens of thousands of viewings on YouTube and other sites. See the resource listing at the end of this feature.)

MK43 Mod 1 Team

SAR: You’ve got a MK43 Mod 1 right here in the conference room. How about walking us through the significant changes that STS and US Ordnance have collaborated on in these weapons.

McClellan: It was clear to us that if they’re this receptive we need to give them some other thoughts and ideas. David Delp, a design engineer at US Ordnance, had several ideas that paralleled some of ours so I would be careful on taking too much credit.

Renz: One of the big things we saw was the military’s obviously going to different types of optics, lasers, pistol grips, everything else, and needed a place to attach ‘em. We went in and I think they were already working on this top cover with the integral rail. We asked, ‘Why don’t you put rails on the front end of the gun?’

So Delp designed the new forend with the rails up front, but we found out it wouldn’t fit some of the Navy’s mounts, like the MK82 with two attachment points. We took a Dremel tool and cut it out, and we would take pictures and send it to ‘em and say, ‘Hey, you need to open this up or it won’t fit on the old gunner shield and some of the other mounting systems’ and they did.

McClellan: These takedown pins right here were designed by Mark Pierson, who now works for STS. We asked US Ord to do a knurled version for the top cover. They were knurled on both sides so you could pull ‘em apart easier.

We asked them to implement the circular aperture (rear sight) on all the guns and were surprised to find out it was already standard on all new production guns.

Another of our other recommendations they’re playing around with is a larger charging handle. One that’s thicker so you can get a better grasp on it.

We talked about the screw on the cocking handle. Pierson started using an aircraft screw because the cocking handle retainer screw kept coming off under vibration. Based on this feedback and feedback from their international customers, US Ordnance redesigned their cocking handle retaining screw with a Teflon insert to keep it from backing out. So US Ord was not only fixing the things that break, they were listening to the operator’s perspective, based on thousands and thousands of rounds with these Sailors and their customers around the world.

We did the new carrying handle that’s on the barrel, going through three or four different versions so it didn’t block the sight. We actually built up JB Weld on the front end of these and mailed ‘em off to US Ord and they adjusted them.

Now US Ordnance came up with the nice hard plate that mounts to the receiver to hold the ammunition (assault bandoleer) to the side. Which is still one of the biggest problems with the 240 – you can’t mount a hundred rounds of ammunition physically to the side of a 240.

SAR: But that assault pack hanger dates back to Vietnam.

McClellan: Actually, it was attached to the feed tray. Problem was, in order to clear malfunctions, you had to lift up to 6.5 pounds of ammo with it. US Ordnance attached it to where the ammo mounts to the receiver and you can easily lift up the feed tray now.

One of the things was this link port, a lot of times the links will sit up on top or this will hit ‘em and knock ‘em down in the receiver. We were looking to get rid of this piece so you could lay the ammo on quicker and not have other problems. So we took a hacksaw and cut the top part off, but that reduced the rigidity. So US Ordnance is looking at building this piece into the top cover.

People always ask about the bolt locking lugs and why shavings would come off them. That’s normal for a Sixty but most people don’t like to see that. US Ordnance is changing the metallurgies between the barrel extension and the bolt locking lugs and have corrected that issue.

Man Portable Medium MGs

SAR: What interaction has there been between STS and other military services related to machine gun training?

McClellan: We’ve taught USMC units all over the country, some Coast Guard and the US Army Special Operations Command came to us and we ran a course for Special Forces guys at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. They know all the foreign weapons, they know all the guns. So we did an in-field armorers and weapons analysis course for them. This afforded the opportunity to evaluate the MK43 and they wanted to talk about the M60 and some of the improvements that were being made because the Army was saying, ‘Maybe we should look at this weapon again for dismounted applications.’

SAR: Well how about what recently happened with the 101st Airborne? They were using (US Ord M60E4/MK43s) in Iraq and apparently loved it. US Ordnance sent SAR some enthusiastic emails and a couple of pictures of the gun in combat use in Iraq that were forwarded to them from an officer in the division’s 3rd Special Troops Battalion.

McClellan: It’s unlikely that the Army will do anything like that for other infantry units – maybe for the Rangers or Special Forces. But we’ve resigned ourselves to the fact that a lightened and chopped 240 will be the next big thing here. But right now this (MK43 Mod 1) exists, it’s lighter, it’s less expensive, and it works.

Everyone’s realizing the 240 is too big for dismounted missions. There’s no ‘A gunner’ (assistant) anymore to operate under the ‘crew-served’ application. Soliders and Marines operating the weapon system themselves today and the M240 is too big for these types of dismounted applications. Just ask any forward deployed service member using these weapons.

The proof of that is FN, responding to a USSOCOM requirement, built the MK48. This is FN’s 7.62mm version of the MK46, which was basically an upsized M249 SAW; in our opinion a 5.56 frame beefed up for 7.62. From SEAL Team evaluations in the beginning, and depending on the person you talk with now, they’re having problems with the gun.

There’s been talk of a 240 ‘shorty,’ where they’re scaling down a 240 (M240E6/KSP58). This seems to be a more logical approach and same thing they did with the M60 when they built the E3 and the Mk43.

Our argument the whole time has been the Mk43 already exists, it’s already in the system. You put the modification kit out through the remanufacturing process, and you have your shorter, lighter machine gun.

War in Cyberspace

McClellan: I was making the M60 argument online in tactical forums with a bunch of SEAL Team guys and others, going back and forth about the 60s and other weapons. So I said, ‘Alright, enough of this cyber chat, let’s go to the range.’ At the range, I showed them the weapon system, we put the conversion kit on one of their weapons, shot it and ran another 850-round burst. Needless to say we established new ground and a mutual respect for the weapon system.

Another item was the published weights for the M240 machine gun. We put a 240 on a scale and it wasn’t even close to what the military manuals stated. So we were trying to figure out how did they get the weight? Well, it appears the M240 receiver weighs that much – not the M240 with the barrel, top cover, etc. In the end, the published weights that we have seen are a bit confusing.

So we weighed a M60 receiver then the receiver with each different type of barrel, every different configuration we could come up with, rounding everything off to the nearest half pound. That way when people would say, ‘Well yeah, but it’s heavier than a 240,’ we ask, ‘What configuration is your 240 in?’ The bottom line is a modern Mk43 is lighter than a M240 and comparable to a Mk48

We went around and ‘round and it kept fueling our fire, it was a good time and a great learning experience. We have a high level of professional respect for anyone involved in providing quality products to the troops.

Conclusion

SAR: In the meantime, there are a whole lot of M60s out there and they need to work right.

McClellan: I’ve talked to units within the last couple of weeks that are getting guns given to them today to go to war and they are M60s!

The sad part is that an old combat proven American made work horse is on her way out. Like the M2HB, she’s been around for a long time, seen a lot of wars and killed a lot of bad guys. But the deal had already been done; the US military was determined to replace the 60. By 2003 she was on her way out, there was no changing the Government’s mind. I was the last person you’d have heard say that eight years ago, but the writing’s on the wall.

Evolution of the M60
    By Robert Bruce

The light and handy 7.62mm NATO caliber M60 General Purpose Machine Gun was developed by the US Army in the aftermath of WWII and fielded in 1957. A departure from traditionally machined heavy steel, it could be made cheap and fast on a stamped sheet metal receiver.

Determined to replace all its Browning-designed M1919 series guns, the Army began a series of modifications to the basic M60. The M60D came first, a helicopter door gun characterized by spade grips and prominent ring sight. The solenoid-fired M60E2 was developed about the same time, a coaxial gun for tanks and external mounting on helicopter gunships.

“PIP” (Product Improvement Program) parts upgrades were applied along the way to address certain design and performance deficiencies.

The M60E3 followed, dropping five pounds in a major overhaul demanded by the Marine Corps. The weight loss unfortunately came with poor durability and reduced performance.

Navy SEALs liked their custom chopped regular M60s but the troubled E3 wasn’t up to the job. Long time M60 manufacturer Saco Defense began delivering a retrofit parts package – the M60E4 – in 1994, receiving the Navy designation MK43 Mod 0.

Still reasonably light and somewhat more reliable and durable than the despised E3, SEAL Team MK43s can be recognized by a distinctive “duckbill” flash suppressor and a positive lock gas cylinder extension that is stubbier and thicker.

After US Ordnance acquired exclusive manufacturing rights to all M60 series guns in 2000, their reliability and durability increased tremendously. However, by this time the US Army – eventually to be followed by the rest of the Armed Forces – had made an irreversible decision to phase out Sixties in favor of the Belgian designed M240 series. The US Navy is the M60’s last major user but all of these are being replaced as quickly as M240s are delivered by FN Manufacturing.

The MK43 Mod 1 is US Ordnance’s latest version of the SEAL Team classic Sixty, readily identified by an integral accessory mounting rail on the feed cover and three more on a redesigned forearm. A retrofit parts kit is available from US Ordnance that will make any serviceable M60 receiver into this light, short, versatile, and powerful one-man machine gun.

Find Out More

US Ordnance, Inc.: www.usord.com
Special Tactical Services, LLC: www.spectacserv.com

• STS website has a link to the letter “The Battle Proven M60”
• STS website has a link to the Washington Times news story “Rummy asked to rescue Rambo’s favorite gun.”
• STS website has a link to the 850 round demonstration video (also seen on www.youtube.com – search “M60 850 rounds” )

“My favorite is the .50 cal. The brainchild of John Browning is a beast of a weapon but it’s so simple and it’s been around for nearly a hundred years. That’s amazing to me. The M240 has quickly climbed that list. It seems like they took the M60 and said how can we simplify this and make it easier for the average guy to get behind this weapon and do well with it. And I think that’s what the 240’s turned into.” Petty Officer First Class Tim Caldwell, CSWI Course Student

Range 14, MCB Quantico, VA – 15 March 2007

PO1 Caldwell, a straight talking 41 year old Master-at-Arms Navy Reservist, was responding to a question we like to ask gun guys everywhere we go. He answered without hesitation and few would dispute his observation about Browning’s .50 caliber masterpiece, prototyped in 1918 and still going strong today.

Further discussion followed, of course, and the seven year veteran, a police officer in civilian life, was intrigued to learn that the M240 of his growing esteem was a direct descendent of other Browning designs.

Rarely hesitant to conduct a short course in firearms history, we explained that it was born in Belgium in the late 1950s at Fabrique Nationale, European licensee for all of John Browning’s designs. The FN MAG 58’s boxy, riveted, heavy steel receiver is common to Browning’s .50 and .30 caliber machine guns and its operating and locking system are derived from the stalwart Browning Automatic Rifle, initially fielded in 1918, the last year of WWI. Now made in the US at FN Manufacturing, Inc. as the M240, the gun is essentially unchanged in form and function after a half century of service in many armed forces worldwide.

As to Caldwell’s observations on the combat utility of the stamped sheet metal receiver M60 (based on the WWII German MG42 with the operating system of the WWI Lewis Gun), its development began at the end of WWII and was adopted by the Army in 1957, making it a contemporary of the MAG 58. The “Sixty” entered service in the Marine Corps and Navy during the Vietnam War and has served with mixed reviews since. The Navy still has thousands in the fleet and ashore, including the significantly improved MK43 versions that were developed for Naval Special Operations, but intends to remove all 60s from first line use by the end of 2008.

He explained that all the aging and hard-used M60s in his unit are scheduled for replacement as new M240s come into the Navy inventory. We certainly understand his preference for brand new Browning-inspired M240s over the worn and tired Sixties since reliability will undoubtedly be greater and the substantial weight penalty is not so big a factor in typical Navy Expeditionary Warfare operations.

Meanwhile, he and his fellow students were getting plenty of training with both machine guns, an eminently practical solution during this time of transition Navy-wide.

Contract Training Package

It was Day 4 of Center for Security Forces’ intense and demanding two-week Program of Instruction (POI) that qualifies Navy personnel in the rate (rank is “rate” in the Navy) of E5 and above to teach their fellow Sailors the science and craft of effective employment of crew served weapons on land and sea. Caldwell and eleven other Petty Officers from various commands were a few hours into the first of two days on Quantico’s vast range complex.

Although the students were under the direct control and supervision of CSF’s military staff, we found it interesting that all the front-line instructors for this block were civilians, employees of Virginia Beach-based Special Tactical Services (STS), one of several firms contracted by CSF for various programs.

Make no mistake about their qualifications for the tasking, all of these guys are former military and most with more than one Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) deployment. Under the stern eye of STS Vice President Bill Witherspoon, a burly, retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant, six red-shirted STS employees were getting the job done with professionalism and efficiency.

Equally impressive was the fact that STS’ support package even included all the weapons to be used on both days, a tall order for any operation. Today’s emphasis was on live fire with the 7.62mm M60 and M240 machine guns, weapons in widespread use throughout the Navy. The following day would be hands-on with Caldwell’s esteemed .50 caliber M2HB and the 40mm MK 19 Mod 1, heavy hitters for serious situations.

Petty Officers Make It Happen

A short break in training action on the range yielded an opportunity to speak at some length with Chief Petty Officer Alex Hebert (pronounced “A-Bear”), Weapons Department Head at Center for Security Forces’ Chesapeake Learning Site. The serious but cordial 34 year old Master-at-Arms (Air Warfare) has 15 years in the Navy including service in Mobile Security Forces and 13 months in his current position at CSF.

Our Public Affairs escort for the day, Lieutenant Brian Simpson, CSF’s Assistant Expeditionary Warfare Program Manager, had spoken earlier of Hebert with high praise, “If I could clone him I’d be a happy camper.”

SAR: What’s the biggest challenge you and the other instructors have in implementing what we’re looking at today?

Hebert: Logistics. Currently, the Navy doesn’t own any of their own machine gun ranges in the Norfolk area. The closest Marine Corps range is Quantico, a three and a half hour drive from Norfolk. The closest Army range is a two and a half hour drive. Then you have to worry about lodging and food and ammo and getting the weapons up to the range. If we could do something to get a machine gun range in the Norfolk regional area, a closer range where we could shoot heavy machine guns on – Fifty Cals, Mark 19s – logistically it would make the job a lot easier.

SAR: Ammunition is sometimes in short supply due to wartime operational requirements and other factors. Have you got all the ammunition that you need for this course?

Hebert: Yes.

SAR: Is two weeks enough time to implement the CSWI program of instruction?

Hebert: Yes. With the two weeks you’re looking at ten to twelve hour days, so the instructors get a lot of what they need on the weapons. Most of these guys should be coming to us with some machine gun background so they should already have some knowledge of the weapons. Prior to that they have to complete the two week Operation and Maintenance course where they learn how the weapon actually operates, what that weapon does, all the intricacies of the weapon. So it’s actually four weeks of instruction.

SAR: We talked about how getting students out to a suitable live fire range is a long reach, but as far as the rest of the necessary components – classrooms, access to the FATS (Firearms Training System) simulator, these kinds of things – is that working well?

Hebert: Yes sir. On our Learning Site in Chesapeake, Virginia, we have two classrooms we can use plus a FATS room where we can fire up to twenty weapons at a time if we need to. Also, we have a blank fire range in the back of our compound, so after the students do the live fire component and FATS component they come to us.

SAR: This course is “Train the Trainer.” Tell us about the process.

Hebert: We have a ‘crawl, walk, run’ method that we do with the students. When they first get to the school we start them with some PowerPoint’s on teaching fundamentals, how the weapons operate, principles of machine gun employment.

Then we bring them into the FATS simulator for the ‘crawl’ portion of it. They shoot this course of fire that they will shoot later in live fire. In the simulator we can correct any bad habits, we can look at things they’re doing, we can give them recommendations without actually having live bullets flying around. I can train all the 7.62mm weapons, the .50 caliber, the Mark 19, we can also do the Squad Automatic Weapon, 9mm pistol, shotgun, M203.

So we go from crawling on FATS, then we come up to Quantico. Currently we spend two days here but in the next two months we’re going to increase that to three days on the range. That’s where students are beginning to ‘walk,’ shooting live fire with machine guns on a full size range, seeing everything happening.

From there we go to the ‘run’ phase where instructors and students switch roles. It’s done in blank fire and we’ll run through the same exact drill sets they’re running through today. This time it’s their show, they’re running it and we’re the worst students in the world, giving them all kinds of headaches so they can know how to deal with a student who doesn’t know what he’s doing with the weapon.

SAR: Your CSWI students are Petty Officers – E5 and above – so they have an experience level they bring with them right now. Why is it important to have a more experienced Sailor who is then going to be a weapons instructor back in his unit?

Hebert: There are a few issues with that. First, it’s E5 and above in any rating (Military Occupational Specialty). Prior – probably about five years ago – the only personnel who could teach firearms in the Navy were your Aviation Ordnancemen, Gunners Mates, Torpedomen, and Master-at-Arms. Well, because the Navy has gone to more of a hybrid Sailor – on the Riverine Forces, Mobile Security Forces (MSF) – you have a wide array of different types of Sailors. You can have a Culinary Specialist (Cook) running a machine gun, so we decided to open it up. Anybody who can qualify on the weapon can become an instructor because of how we’re developing hybrid Sailors. The E5 portion, a lot of the ranges you sign out by Army or Marine Corps standards an E5 or above is the only one who can run the range – leadership ability, situational awareness, things like that.

SAR: We have seen some ‘tricks of the trade,’ things maybe not exactly by the manual. Comment on bringing real life experience into the program of instruction and making this work in a way that is acceptable to the higher headquarters.

Hebert: Every thing we do on the range is by the instruction manual. We don’t go outside the instruction. What we do is if we have a question on something we’re doing and whether or not we can do it, we’ll clear it through higher authority with the Navy. We’ll demonstrate it to them, talk about it and see what we can do. The last thing we want to do is something that’s not inside of the instruction because we’re training the trainer.

SAR: Is one example the Runaway Gun Drill?

Hebert: This is a surprise that has to be recognized and immediately fixed. Classroom instruction prepares them to deal with a runaway gun. So, the only thing different implemented here is that the instructors say, ‘We’re going to introduce you to the MK43 machine gun on a tripod mount. One volunteer get down behind it and everybody else gather around.’ Then all of a sudden the one student picked for the demonstration gets a surprise and has to deal with a runaway gun. That’s more of a dramatic presentation than what’s usual in a program of instruction.

Simpson: (Lieutenant Simpson joins the conversation) It’s required by the schoolhouse that they’re not allowed to take that technique back to the ship and do it in that kind of a (live fire) training situation. The schoolhouse does it as a demonstration to make the point that you’re never really ready when this happens to you.

SAR: But it’s perfectly OK that this is done because it’s a dramatic lesson the students will remember for a long, long time.

Simpson: That’s correct. Noted once again, specific situations have been routed and approved through our chain of command. But it’s a learning technique we don’t recommend for our CSWI graduates to take back to the ship. It’s not authorized for them to take this technique back to wherever they’re stationed.

SAR: Give us an example of a real world lesson that has been brought back and then incorporated in the program of instruction here.

Hebert: When our course was in its beginning stages a lot of our shooting was done from ground type mounts – tripods or bipods in fixed positions. One of the things we realized was we’re not just training Navy ground forces; we’re also training a lot of the Navy surface forces. And surface forces shoot from a standing position; they shoot from a shipboard mount. One of the things we did was to have a trailer developed and certified. The trailer actually simulates being on board ship with the mount at the same height, the same distance from lifelines. Sailors actually get up and shoot like they’re shooting from a ship. That was taken from the fleet and we brought it into the course. And they can also experience how their brothers on the other side of the Navy are shooting. So, your sea sailors are shooting like ground sailors and your ground sailors are shooting like sea sailors because you never know when a ship may have to do its landing party team and they may have to do a ground mount. Now, they’re being exposed to all aspects of the weapon and how it can be employed.

SAR: In shooting from the mounts on the trailer, is there anything specific that you learn as a result of that – brass splashing off the bulkhead, coming back at you and rolling around on the deck?

Hebert: No, it’s really straightforward; the brass falls down on the deck. You have some slip hazard from brass on the deck so you have to continuously police your brass. Whereas on a ship it would just be kicked overboard or fall overboard. On the trailer we just have to make sure to police the deck to keep the brass from being on the deck as a slip hazard.

SAR: If you could write the POI exactly as you wanted, would you make any changes?

Hebert: We’re doing revisions to it on a continuous basis trying to improve it. Some things we’re adding are to use M203s for target illumination during the night fire. We’ll teach the students how to instruct their shooters on different types of target illumination, how to employ the M203 effectively with the machine gun. Both using flares and using HEDP (High Explosive Dual Purpose) rounds for dead space where the machine guns can’t reach or can’t cover. You can lob that HEDP round into that hole and still have an effective machine gun position.

SAR: How about a Night Vision component?

Hebert: Yes there is. Once we implement the whole night shoot there will be a night vision component – in about two months from now. In the O&M phase, the prerequisite course, they learn about maintenance and use of the night vision goggles, how they work with your eyes, the physiology.

SAR: But as far as practical application with night vision on the guns, that’s not being done now but is planned for the future?

Hebert: Yes, that’s in the revision and probably will be done beginning two months from now. Night vision goggles and thermal imagers, night vision scopes, a multitude of NVO (Night Vision Observation) equipment. Also the flares.

That’s why we’re going to add that third range day. There will be a day of 7.62mm machine guns, then a day of M203 and 7.62, then a day of .50 cal.

Simpson: Just to clarify, we aren’t going to do any night qualification – just familiarization. It will be up to the unit to actually do the qualification at their level.

SAR: You have a dozen students. Are any in danger of not making it through?

Hebert: With an instructor course – because most of these students do have some machine gun experience – we ‘re not going to see the students who might fail until next week when they start doing their ‘teach-backs.’ When they start teaching us the weapon systems and they start teaching us the live fire portion that’s where we’re going to see our ‘problem children’ who won’t be able to make it through the course.

SAR: Based on your experience with the number of students coming through past courses, average number who don’t make it?

Hebert: One or two per class. The main reason is they can’t relay the knowledge they have to other people to learn it properly. Or just not as familiar with the weapons as they are expected to be.

SAR: So it’s not a gentleman’s course. If you can’t make the standards you aren’t going to graduate.

Hebert: We’ve dropped people on graduation day.

SAR: What remedial help do you give them?

Hebert: All of our instructors are available the entire class day, we open the doors at 0700 and we’re usually there until 1800. And during the entire day all the weapons and instructors are available for after hours work. The weapons are always at the back of the classroom. During a break if the students want to work with the weapons and do some practice, they verify everything’s safe and they can pull a weapon out – continuously work with a weapon and take the ‘bogeyman’ out of the weapon for themselves.

The other thing if a student is having problems, the first thing we’ll do is have a counseling session and explain to him where their problems and deficiencies are. That will usually be a one-on-one situation and we’ll work with it. If the student continues to have problems or if the student fails to meet a performance requirement then we’ll remediate that student on the performance requirement – on the test or on the live fire portion – explain to him where they’re failing and what they can do to make improvements. Then re-test on that portion of it. If they fail that, then we hold an Academic Review Board. We’ll take the lead instructors and student and sit down and go through the student’s performance during the entire course to find out if it’s just that segment of the course he’s having problems with and what can we do to fix that segment. Or, if he’s just been getting by with the skin of his teeth the entire course and this is the straw that broke the camel’s back, we need to send him home.

SAR: What is the ideal student?

Hebert: One who presents himself well in front of other people. Is comfortable speaking in front of a crowd and has experience with the weapon. If I can get a shooter in here who has put six to ten thousand rounds through one of these weapon systems, knows the weapons system, understands how it operates, and can present himself in front of an audience, I’m ready to hire him as one of my instructors.

A CSWI Student

Chief Hebert’s perspective set the stage for a conversation with one of the students, Petty Officer 1st Class Tim Caldwell, a 41 year old Master-at-Arms with 7 years in the Navy Reserve. A police officer in civilian life, he joined up at the unusually mature age of 35, enlisting for Master-at-Arms in Advanced Pay Grade because of his extensive formal police training.

SAR: Tell us about your Navy assignment.

Caldwell: US Navy Reserve Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare Unit 210 out of Baltimore, Maryland. My specific duty assignment is in the Weapons Division in the Maintenance and Repair Department. I came in filling a Gunners Mate position. I can do that as a Master-at-Arms rating so I’ve been involved in weapons ever since I arrived there.

SAR: Is this a little bit of an inexact fit with your duty assignment that you’re sent here to teach Sailors the tactical employment of the weapons, not necessarily the maintenance and repair?

Caldwell: That’s correct. We have a security team within the unit and that security team will be responsible for perimeter security, any safety sweeps outside of the perimeter wire that would need to be done. So they’re going to take the people that are best qualified with the weapons and train them to be the instructors so I can take the knowledge I’m gleaning from here and transfer that back to the Security Team members back at the unit. That doesn’t mean only ST members or M&R department members are the ones that utilize the weapons. We all get trained on them. In the event that we all have to fight we all need to be able to fight.

SAR: What you’re going to be doing when you get back to your unit as a CSWI?

Caldwell: First things first, we’re getting rid of our M60 machine guns. We have received our M240 machine guns so transition has to take place and how you manipulate the weapon is different. Not completely because it’s still a machine gun with similar characteristics.

Familiarization with the M240 will be the first thing, to get my unit members familiar with how the weapon breaks down. After they get familiar with the basic function of the weapon we’ll get them out on the range and I’m going to go through the same drills that we ran here this morning; fire one round, fire two rounds, fire three. Get them used to it just as they (the course instructors) said here – ‘to get the bogeyman out of the gun.’ Get everybody figured and snapped in so they feel comfortable with the weapon.

Then after that comfort level starts to increase and their confidence starts to increase then we’ll be able to start into our qualification process and get everybody qualified up. The idea is not to bring people out to the range and expend thousands of rounds of ammunition and then not walk away with a qualification. And that’s going to be my end result is to get people qualified. If they’re screwing up on the range I’ve got to figure out why, what they’re doing wrong, see that, make the corrections, get them back on target and continue on with the course.

SAR: We talked about why you were sent to the course, how long is it and how far are you into it?

Caldwell: It’s a two week course and we’re in the first Thursday of the first week (4 days). It has been mostly classroom and mechanical up to this point. We have had some FATS (Firearms Training System) simulator training which was a precursor to this (live fire) to help us get snapped in on what we were going to be expected to do here so they didn’t come out here and we didn’t get the ‘deer in the headlights look’ when standing on the range. We had that figured out ahead of time so we had an idea of what was going to happen.

SAR: Before you came here you had experience with the M60, but how about the M240?

Caldwell: I did not. This is the very first day in my entire life I’ve ever fired an M240 machine gun. I like the machine gun.

SAR: How do you rate the course content so far and are the students getting enough time to learn each part?

Caldwell: Being my experience as a Reservist with machine guns, I have to be able to absorb and take in a lot. I feel as though it is simple enough that anybody who pays attention to those details should be able to come in and complete this course. There are other factors that come into that whether it’s learning styles, motivation, or whatever the case may be, that’s going to affect different Sailors at different points in their career. But I think its pretty much geared to the average guy being able to come and grab a hold of these concepts – some mechanical things and also some cognitive things you have to remember – and be able to put that back down on paper and remember it. It’s not full of mathematics and geometry, trying to figure out why these certain things happen with the gun or whatever on the physical side of it. It’s simplistic – it’s mechanics, it’s a machine and it’s designed to work this way and if it doesn’t work this way you figure out why.

SAR: Your course handout shows that you’re going to start here, go through this, and end up there. Does it all look logical to you?

Caldwell: Yes it does. We’re going to be instructors. The purpose of this course is not to teach us how to maintain and operate – although that’s part of it. My understanding is that the second half of this course, all next week, is going to be based on them showing us how to teach it back. Things we need to work on as instructors and how we communicate. Are we explaining it correctly, do we have habits that are going to turn people off when we talk to them? Those are the kind of things we’re going to get feedback on from the instructors to us – to help us go back and be effective in communicating this to our units.

SAR: Give us your overall impression of the instructor staff, their knowledge, professionalism and teaching style.

Caldwell: I think we have a great group of instructors who are stepping forward and doing this. We have the Navy side, obviously in control of us, and we have the contractor instructors who are teaching the course. On the Navy side, Chief Hebert has been fantastic. He’s stepped forward, been very forthright with us, there have been no hidden punches like ‘oh crap, I forgot to tell you about that.’ He’s been up front and supportive of everything we’ve needed to do for this course. The majority of the instruction has been done by the contracted instructors (Special Tactical Services), and all of them have previous military experience and some even in-depth combat experience which is even more important when you’re teaching this course. Because they know from a first hand level what happens to the body, what happens to the mind when it’s in that position where ‘oh crap somebody’s shooting at me too!’ and it’s not just a paper or plastic target.

SAR: How about their teaching styles. We noticed it started out very low key this morning and has quickly ratcheted up. Is that the way it usually happens?

Caldwell: I think so, that’s one of the ways you want to learn because if you’re going to make mistakes you want to make them now and you want to be able to help each individual Sailor. If you see a mistake as that adrenalin starts to go and somebody’s standing there yelling at you – because nobody likes to be yelled at – but as it happens and it does, the adrenalin starts to pump and you need to start thinking OK, maybe you need to take a deep breath and focus in on what’s going on and keep going. And I think they’ve done a very good job at raising our nervousness – call it that – and helping us work through that and keep going on with the drill and fight through it to completion.

SAR: What’s been the hardest part for you so far?

Caldwell: I think the hardest part has been the anticipation I placed on myself. Mental stress. The stress that was build up here was, hey, if you screw up here you’re done, we’re gonna throw you out of the course. Coming into this it was like, oh man, what happens if I get in there and I have a brain lock? It happens, people do that. But once I got through the initial phase – disassembly and reassembly of the M240 and the M2 Heavy Barrel .50 caliber machine gun – once I got through that it was like, OK, you can do this. Just relax, pay attention, do what the instructors tell you to do and you’ll be fine.

SAR: How about some of the other students. Have they had serious brain cramps, problems with the mechanical part or other?

Caldwell: I don’t think so and I think part of it is – my situation is a little bit different here. I took the Operation and Maintenance Course in September last year. A lot of the guys here took the O & M Course the two weeks before this course. So they’ve been here for two weeks doing Operation and Maintenance with the same instructors, and then fall right in to Crew Served Weapon Instructor Course so for some of them I think it’s been a little bit easier. There’s always that idea that you want to do good in front of your fellow Sailors. Nobody wants to be at the bottom, everybody’s achieving, to try to get to the top. But all in all I think everybody’s done the best they can. Each individual has different stressors, different buttons that get pushed. And as soon as the instructors find out which button it is, boom they’re on it and trying to force you to screw up and work through that and get to completion of the task.

SAR: So they’re helping individuals identify for themselves what their strengths and weaknesses are, and to work through those weaknesses as individuals. Not lock-stepping everybody through the program of instruction.

Caldwell: That’s correct. The instructors have been more than willing to step aside on an individual basis. When you say, I’m not getting this, I don’t understand it, these guys will pull us to the side, slow you down and say, OK now think about it. And take you through. You gotta crawl before you walk and walk before you run. And they’ve taken that approach to it. Step by step increments.

SAR: What challenges do you expect to face at your home unit when you bring this program of instruction there? Will you have the time you need, the range facilities, ammunition, that kind of thing?

Caldwell: I think the biggest challenge for me, being a Range Safety Officer, is getting the administrative side squared away first. Making sure I have my Letters of Instruction done, making sure I have my ammunition ordered, making sure that my ranges are set aside. Because where I’m at in Baltimore, obviously, we have no machine gun ranges so we have to make arrangements with Quantico or Fort AP Hill, places like that. So we need to be able to get range time, and plan that and have that plan fit into the overall plan for the unit on the calendar year.

The second one then is going to be OK, now I need to get in here, I need to have my line coaches done and snap my line coaches in on what exactly I’m expecting of them so when we go out and we present this to the Security Team I want them to look up to the Line Coaches and say I want to get to their level and try to get up to that. So they have something to work for too. It’s going to be a motivational thing.

SAR: Of the weapons you’re being taught here, what’s your favorite?

Caldwell: Well, we haven’t gotten to it yet (in live fire) but my favorite is the .50 cal. The effect, the devastation, you can wreak with a Fifty Cal, the things you can take out not only small vehicles but also boats. And in the event that you get good enough or in that situation, maybe even low, slow flying aircraft. It’s one of those weapons that’s been deployed and employed at various times throughout our military history. It has come up to the challenge and is still serving the country today.

SAR: What would you like to say to your fellow Sailors and to those young people considering joining the Navy about what you’re doing?

Caldwell: I don’t think there is anything I wouldn’t want to do to provide for the safety and security of my wife and my three daughters. If that means I’ve got to be 41 years old and being deployed to some foreign country somewhere to help ensure that our country’s borders stay safe then I’ll do that. I would hope that every single person takes stock in where we have been as a nation and how we started out and the sacrifices that people through hundreds of years have gone through to have the things we have. Freedom being the utmost, foremost thing. If we don’t have freedom we don’t have anything. And if we can’t stand up and defend that, put on a uniform and walk out in our communities and say, ‘This is what I stand for and this is who I am,’ then we’re in a sorry state. But I don’t think that’s the case at all. I think there’s many young men and women who are stepping to the forefront. This is a volunteer military now, not the draftees we had back in Vietnam. I’ve been watching these young Marines go through the chow lines here at Northwest. They’re kids, I could be their dad for most of them, that’s the way they look. I’m the old man and to see these young men step up and say, ‘Hey, I’ll go, I’ll do it,’ they have a servant’s attitude, a servant’s heart and you can’t top that.

SAR: OK, we’re going back and talking about your typical ‘mall rat’ teenager, what would you say to him about the Master-at-Arms rating?

Caldwell: The Master-at-Arms rating, there are a lot of particulars. You have to be a well rounded individual because it is the enforcement arm inside the Navy. In a unit we answer directly to the XO (executive officer) who tells us the things he wants to enforce. We’re responsible for security, responsible for doing roving patrols. That may mean if you’re in Iraq that you have to man up and be a gunner, it may mean you’re a driver. You see in the MA rating a lot of different facets of the Navy. You’ll go places, you’ll see things, you’ll serve on a ship, you’ll be a ground pounder as well as being a blue water sailor. A lot of things to experience. I don’t know how else you can get a paycheck and have somebody let you see the world, go across the globe. Hey, I’ve been here, I’ve been there. I was 35 years old before I left the borders of this country. Now I’ve been to England, to Spain, to Germany, to Kuwait. I can’t put a price tag on those experiences. And, I have the privilege of representing the United States.

M240 Technical Specifications (USMC and US Navy M240G Model)

Caliber: ….. 7.62mm NATO
Weight: ….. 24.2 pounds
Length: ….. 47.5 inches
Operation: ….. Gas
Cyclic Rate of Fire: ….. 650 – 950 RPM (3 gas regulator settings)
Sustained Rate: ….. 100 RPM
Max. Effective Range: ….. 1,800 meters from tripod
Manufacturer: ….. FNMI, Columbia, SC
Approximate Cost: ….. $10,700

Crew Served Weapons Instructor Course (CSWI)

“All Navy personnel armed with light and medium machine guns are required to undergo quarterly sustainment training. Sustainment training shall include but is not limited to: classroom instruction, dry fire training, weapons manipulation drills utilizing dummy rounds, simulator training, blank fire training and/or additional live fire training. The CSW Instructor (NEC 0814) shall conduct this training in accordance with items listed….” CSWI Course Trainee Guide

Given the large and growing number of Navy personnel whose duties include machine gunning on land and sea, the requirements for standardized initial training, followed by refresher training four times each year, plus annual qualification, pose formidable challenges. CSW Instructors are at the forefront of this; NCOs specially selected, thoroughly prepared and professionally capable of ensuring that Sailors under their supervision are held to strict standards.

SAR was provided a copy of Center for Security Forces’ comprehensive 190 page CSWI Course Trainee Guide that details tasks, conditions and standards for 40 major performance requirements. The course divides these into three main Units of Instruction with the first two covering not only the mechanical and live fire skills needed for weapons that will work when you need them and hit what you aim at, but also when and how to employ warning shots in appropriate situations. The third block emphasizes preparing and conducting training safely and efficiently in the Navy’s elaborate administrative structure and in conjunction with different regulations governing range utilization in sister services.

Those who successfully navigate through the full four week program will have attained the course’s nine “Terminal Objectives.” These define the wide range of specialized skills the Navy believes are needed for effective instruction in the military science of machine gunning:

• Describe range safety procedures
• Describe marksmanship fundamentals
• Demonstrate the ability to accurately employ warning shots
• Demonstrate CSW employment and gunnery
• Demonstrate coaching techniques for machine guns
• Identify publications, forms, equipment, and procedures for managing a command CSW training program
• Demonstrate the ability to prepare and plan a CSW training evolution
• Demonstrate the procedures, instructions, and equipment required to safely set-up and operate a machine gun range
• Demonstrate the procedures, instructions and equipment required to effectively use range cards

The Guide identifies much more than tactical and technical proficiency. In order to be awarded Navy Enlisted Classification Code 0814, Crew Served Weapon Instructor, each must conclusively demonstrate seven key attributes:

1. Knowledge and Ability
2. Self Control and Patience
3. Communications Skills
4. Ability to Inspire Confidence
5. Positive Attitude and Enthusiasm
6. Perception
7. Open Mind

Producing large numbers of CSW Instructors with this combination of admirable traits isn’t easy. It begins with an individual’s personality profile – not everybody has a teaching temperament – and builds over four weeks of intense training.

The two-week Crew Served Weapons Operation and Maintenance course is a prerequisite for admission into the Instructor course. This provides a strong foundation in all mechanical aspects of the 7.62mm M60 and M240 series medium machine guns, the .50 caliber M2HB heavy machine gun, and the 40mm Mk 19 Mod 3 grenade machine gun.

The CSWI Course’s Program of Instruction (POI) is also two weeks long, beginning with general weapons and range safety, then marksmanship fundamentals, employment of CSWs, and planning for training.

Crawl, Walk, Run

Every task is outlined – broken down into logical steps called “teaching points” – and supported by clearly written documentation. We found superb narrative and graphic aids in the form of Information Sheets with reference materials from technical manuals, Diagram Sheets with simplified drawings showing mechanical principles, Job Sheets with step-by-step instructions, and the make or break Performance Tests.

We were pleased to see that there is little if any “reinventing the wheel.” Marine Corps Weapons Publication 3-15.2.2 MACHINE GUNS AND GUNNERY, is the foundation for all of the CSWI POIs mechanical and practical application instruction. This superlative manual, in its umpteenth revision since the Marine bulldog was just a pup, is packed with no-nonsense information from real combat experience over the decades and can’t be improved upon

Indeed, Devil Dog machine gunners from World War One would find drawings in the new Navy manual illustrating fundamental Classes of Fire – Grazing, Plunging, Traverse, Search, Frontal, Flanking, Enfilade, and Oblique – nearly identical to those first used in instructional materials back in 1918 and carried forward in decades since.

Mastering Machine Guns

The thoroughness of instruction is immediately evident from a grouping of tasks for the veteran .50 caliber Browning M2HB machine gun. Ten detailed Job Sheets take the student through every aspect of this 90 year old favorite of GIs in all services. Affectionately known as “Ma Deuce,” this hard hitting and far-reaching combat weapon needs skilled attention for optimal performance.

So, the POI calls for mastery of stripping and assembly, cycle of operations, head space and timing, function check, load and unload both day and night, condition codes, trigger control and “rhythm,” malfunctions, and employment of the traversing and elevating mechanism.

Realistic training in several of these tasks once required going out to a live fire range, an expensive, time consuming process that is quickly degraded by inclement weather and many other factors. This enormous handicap is avoided in CSF’s CSWI training by extensive use of an elaborate FATS – Firearms Training System – installed at its compound in Chesapeake, Virginia.

This sophisticated electro-optical-pneumatic system uses a powerful computer to digitally project different training scenarios on a big screen for “live fire” target engagement and scoring of hits. It uses specially modified actual weapons that load, fire, report, and recoil. While not a substitute for the course’s two days on an actual range, FATS is the next best thing, helping trainees work through problems in a controlled environment instead of wasting time and ammo.

Role Reversal

After demonstrating all of these to strict standards in classroom, simulator and live fire range qualification, each student must then take over the role of instructor. These three days in the second week are the hardest part for many of the students as they “teach back” all topics for each one of four very different machine gun systems. An extra degree of difficulty is provided by a cadre who likely take wicked pleasure in role-playing as slow learners or worse.

Again with an eye toward efficiency and practicality, blanks are used in teach-back for the actual firing tasks with each of the four machine guns. This has a number of positive aspects, not the least of which are safety and convenience.

During the teach-back ordeal, all seven key attributes of an effective instructor must be clearly shown in informal and formal evaluation. For example, if a hesitant or flustered instructor trainee fails to “inspire confidence,” he gets extra time and plenty of sympathetic remedial attention to get better. If that isn’t sufficient to correct the problem then the student will not graduate. Standards must be upheld.

Planning, Preparation and Documentation

The administration of machine gun training doesn’t have the excitement of putting rounds downrange but it is no less important to the big picture. The trainee CSWI learns range preparation, planning, setup, and management. Then, with so many Sailors needing periodic qualification and refresher training on machine guns, certification and documentation for their personnel records is also essential.

Are Your Good Enough?

The Crew Served Weapon Instructor Course is open to Sailors of all ratings in the rate of E5 and above. Detailed information may be found in CANTRAC, the Catalog of Navy Training Courses, at Navy Knowledge Online.

Find Out More

The Center for Security Forces provides training and human performance solutions to Navy Expeditionary, Security, and Antiterrorism professionals to meet the needs of the Fleet. CSF’s primary customers are personnel serving in the Master-at-Arms (MA) Rating, Sailors assigned in an antiterrorism role, the Navy Security Officer communities, and the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC). The Center trains Navy personnel worldwide in security and antiterrorism measures and procedures. CSF reports to the Naval Personnel Development Command (NPDC) and is part of the Naval Education and Training Command (NETC).

CSF website: www.npdc.navy.mil/csf
CFS News: www.news.navy.mil/local/csf/
NECC website: www.necc.navy.mil
US Navy: www.navy.mil