After World War II, the French Army wanted to adopt a new submachine gun to replace the various British, German and American guns that their troops were then equipped with. The request had a sense of emergency as a new war was brewing in Indochina. Both the state factories in Châtellerault, Saint-Etienne, Tulle and the private arms manufacturer of Hotchkiss began work on this project.

The Hotchkiss Company, established by Benjamin B. Hotchkiss in 1867, was initially devoted to the production of solid cased ammunition during the 1870-71 war. Later, he developed the Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon that was used by many countries at the end of 19th century. The most successful gun the company ever produced was the Hotchkiss machine gun developed by Laurence Benét and Henri Mercié at the turn of the 20th century and used to great effect during World War I.

During the 1920-30s, Hotchkiss developed light machine guns, infantry machine guns, aircraft machine guns, large-bore weapons and anti-tanks guns for armies throughout the world. After 1945, the Hotchkiss firm produced submachine guns for the French Army and others.

General Information on Hotchkiss Submachine Guns

The general appearance and operation of the Hotchkiss submachine guns is the same for all their models. They have a cylindrical frame with the cocking lever and ejection port both located on the right side. Depending on the model, they may have a fixed or folding stock made of wood or metal. Some models have a short telescoped barrel that can be pushed to the rear inside the frame, while others have a fixed barrel with a cylindrical cooling jacket. The magazine is derived from the MP 40 magazine and is located in a folding magazine holder. The guns works with a blowback bolt with a delayed firing pin. The guns are relatively complicated being made with many parts. Firing devices are complicated and are made of many parts with numerous parts being made of stamped sheet metal.

Model 011

The Model 011 has a rigid wooden stock, is very simple in its manufacture and is as crude as the Sten submachine gun. The triangular stock has a vertical bar on the left side for attaching a sling. The stock is assembled with an end cap that closes the frame at the rear. The sear mechanism is located in a triangular shaped box under the receiver frame. The magazine well is also a front grip that can be folded permitting the gun to be carried with a loaded magazine under the barrel. The ejection port has a cover that can lock the bolt in the opened or closed position and is used as a secondary safety. The barrel is located in a socket that can move to the rear for carrying thus reducing the length of the gun. The rear sight is located on top of the stock end cap and the front sight can be folded.

This model was developed in 1948 and was used by local units in Indochina, such as Phat-Diem Bishop Suppletive Guard.

Model 010 or “Type Universal”

The Model 010 is probably one of the most curious submachine guns ever made. Most of the components can be moved to reduce the volume of the gun for carrying:

• The metallic tubular stock can be folded under the frame,
• The pistol grip can be folded forward enclosing the trigger guard,
• The magazine housing can be folded forward under the barrel,
• The barrel can also be moved rearward.

The receiver frame is of a tubular shape with a flap to cover the ejection port that is located on the right side. The cocking handle is spherical and is also located on the right side. It holds a sheet strip to cover the grove upon which it moves. The bolt has a separate firing pin and the recoil spring is helicoidal. Ignition of the primer is delayed until just after the bolt is closed and is actuated by a lever. The trigger housing is a triangular box located under the receiver and contains a push-through button selector. The magazine is located in a forward folding housing. The stock is made of an assembly of tubes with a wooden shoulder rest. The pistol grip is equipped with brown plastic grips. The folding rear sight has two apertures and the front sight is protected by a hood.

Disassembly the Hotchkiss Model 010 is straight forward:

• Remove the magazine and clear the gun,
• fold the stock,
• remove the rear plug,
• extract the recoil spring and bolt.
• Reassemble in reverse order.

The Model 010 is a very complicated gun and is not easy to use; particularly during handling as it is easy for fingers to get caught and/or pinched in any one of the many folding parts.

The gun was manufactured between 1949 and 1952. It was tested by the French Army in Indochina by paratroops and the Foreign Legion. Some countries did buy a few of these guns such as Venezuela and Morroco. The last Hotchkiss Model 010 at war were found in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Model 017

The Model 017 is designed like the Model 010 except it has a fixed wooden stock, a longer barrel, a perforated cooling jacket and the pistol grip cannot be folded. An additional safety device is installed near the trigger and when it is in place the use of the trigger is not possible. The Model 017 was designed for police use and was tested by the French police; but the MAT 49-54 was chosen instead. The Hotchkiss Model 017 was also tested by Morocco.

Model 304

The Model 304 is an evolution of the former models. It has a fixed wooden stock and several variations exist:

• tubular receiver frame, short barrel that can be retracted in the frame and a rectangular trigger box mechanism;
• tubular receiver frame, long barrel with a perforated cooling jacket, rectangular box trigger mechanism and a reversible spike bayonet like the MAS 36 rifle;
• sheet metal frame with dust cover on the ejection port, long barrel with a perforated cooling jacket, triangular trigger box mechanism and a reversible spike bayonet like the MAS 36 rifle.

Specifications

When World War I ended, peace returned: but it was fragile. A strong political anxiety existed in Germany, Central Europe and Russia and a minor incident could quickly turn into a major conflict. Military staffs throughout Europe were worried and, drawing from the conclusions from the war, decided to rearm.

The 1921 Program

France was quite conscious that the armament of its infantry was growing old and obsolete and embarked on a vast program relating to upgrading and modernizing its army. France initiated its famous program of May 11, 1921, which not only defined the characteristics of the weapons to be replaced, but also those of the new materials that remained to be created. These included:

• a semiautomatic rifle,
• a light machine pistol,
• an automatic pistol,
• a medium machine gun,
• a heavy machine gun,
• a tripod for machine gun,
• an anti-aircraft machine gun,
• two anti-tank weapons of small gauge (smaller than 37mm): gun half-automatic and machine gun also being able to be employed for the shooting against aircraft,
• a grenade thrower.

The characteristics of the machine pistol were defined as follows:
The machine pistol is to be light weight, using pistol ammunition and capable of providing a strong density of fire out to 200 meters.

The weapon will have the general shape of a shortened rifle. Its weight will lie between 3 and 4 kg.

Its ammunition will have to be the same as that model of the gun that will be selected by the Army. While waiting for that model to be selected, the weapons to be presented will have to fire the 9mm Luger cartridge. This cartridges can be obtained by the designers on request addressed to the Ministry of War (3rd Direction – 2nd Office – 4th Section).

The weapon will fire from a 25-round magazine or more.

It will be able to deliver single shot and full-auto. The rate of fire will be from 400 to 500 rounds per minute.

The weapon will be rustic and simple, and will be well protected from mud. The principle of an open bolt operation is recommended because of its simplicity.

Shooting at the distance of 100 meters, accuracy will have to be smaller than 70×70 cm in the full-auto shooting mode by burst fire from 5 to 6 cartridges, and smaller than 100×100 cm when shooting a complete magazine. The precision of shooting in the prone position will be tested and will be considered in the appreciation of the weapon.

The rear sight will comprise only of notches for 100 and 200 meters.

To facilitate shooting in the prone position, the weapon will have to be fitted with a bipod, whose weight will be included in that indicated above. The presence of this bipod will not obstruct the use of the weapon in the prone position when it is not used.

The program is signed by General Rémond, Director of Artillery to the Ministry of War.

Doctrines on Employment
Studies were conducted on the doctrines of use of the new machine pistols. It was observed that the Germans had employed in each company six machine pistols used by a team of twelve men. There were thus a gunner and an ammunition carrier for each weapon. The maschinenpistole was regarded as a collective weapon.

In the offensive, the elements of the mashinenpistole trupp were directed in advance on the points where the counter-attacks appeared most probable; or during the engagements they were placed at the disposal of the section heads by the captain leading the company. In the defensive, they were joined to the sections of which it was advisable to increase the means of resistance.

In the French Army, the light machine gun was used as a support weapon and there was no question of replacing it by the machine pistol. The machine pistol had to remain an individual weapon intended for close combat and could be used in the offensive actions as to react against an attack. In artillery and the tanks, the machine pistol would be used for the defensive.

One plan was to equip some NCOs and specialists not directly involved in combat in variable proportions according to the units with 64 guns in each company of infantry, 140 guns in each artillery regiment and 1 gun in a tank or motor vehicle.

Ammunition
Initially, the 9mm Luger cartridge was retained for the semiautomatic pistol and the machine pistol. The reasons for this choice are explained by the fact that this cartridge represents an excellent weight/power relationship between the various models of cartridges available on the market and whose calibre spread from .32 to .45. Additionally, there were considerable stocks of cartridges taken from the Germans.

As for the distance of employment, the figure of 200 meters, which had been looked upon at the time of the program of May 11, 1921, is called into question by the soldiers who consider the use of the 9mm submachine gun up to 600 meters.

Involved Models
Initially, various prototypes are made:

• that of the Section Technique de l’Artillerie realized in the workshops of Saint-Thomas d’ Aquin in Paris (a former convent),
• that of the Commission of Experiment of the Infantry to the Camp de Satory close to Versailles,
• another one from M.A.S. in Saint-Etienne.

STA 1924
The Section Technique de l’Artillerie (STA) worked since 1919 on the project of a submachine gun in association with the Saint-Etienne gun factory (MAS). It had no difficulties in achieving its project goals and, in October 1921, a prototype is ready. It is followed in 1922 by three other models: each one progressively improving their presentation by replacement of the V notches for shooting up to 100 and 200 m by a rear sight graduated up to 600 m, and, after having tested magazines of 32 and 40 cartridges, it is finally a model with 32 cartridges that is retained. To reduce weight it will be made out of duralumin. Another eight prototypes were presented in 1922: four with a bipod and four others with a monopod.

The Châtellerault gun factory made the magazines. Copying the curved Revelli magazine, it is inspired for that by the charger bent by the token entry Revelli, whose posterior groove was removed and replaced by three holes intended to check the filling. The use of duralumin was unsuitable and returned to the use of steel sheet magazines.

Other suggested changes were the installation of a dust cover for the cocking handle slot, fixed V notches to be replaced by a tangential rear sight graduated up to 600 meters, a barrel jacket and a selector switch for single shot. Only this last option was retained. The presence of the bipod is faulted and the possible presence of a bayonet is unanimously rejected.

Finally the STA submachine gun was put in production with 300 guns being made in 1924 and in September they are put under tests by various troops: 150 by infantry (146th Infantry Regiment), 40 by cavalry, 80 by artillery, 10 by tanks crews, 10 for experimentation, and 10 are kept in reserve.

The regiments were asked to come to a conclusion about the doctrines for use of the weapon, its simplicity in the service and the accessories. They ultimately asked for various modifications which were too applied under the designation of M1:

• the hook cocking lever is replaced by a round button,
• lips of the charger are redrawn and soaked,
• recoil spring is larger, which causes an increase in the rate of fire,
• bipod is definitively removed,
• other improvements relate to the ejector, the closing flap for the magazine housing, and the rear stopper.

Tested in July 1925, the STA 1924 M1 submachine gun proved satisfactory and was adopted on August 11, 1925. A ministerial dispatch shows an ordering of 8,250 weapons, which the MAS factory could immediately put in production.

But the weapon was not yet completely perfect and an order of ten specimens of the STA 1924 M1 was given to MAS in March 1926. A short time later, on July 9, 1926, the 1921 program was modified and new specifications were established. The future weapon would have to fire the .30 Pedersen long cartridge, which became the 7.65 Long cartridge. The career of the STA 1924 was finished.

Description
The STA 1924 submachine gun looks like a carbine with a stock and a short forearm. On the left side is a lug intended for the fixing of the sling. The oval buttstock is fixed by two screws and near the bottom an opening for placement of a cleaning rod.

At the rear of the frame is a key for take-down that resembles that which one finds on a shotgun.

The receiver frame is cylindrical and is sealed at the rear by a screwed stopper on which the stem-guide of the recoil spring is attached. On the lower part of the receiver is placed the trigger mechanism, which consists of a trigger and sear.

On the right side of the receiver is the cocking handle slot with the rear notched to put the weapon at safety when the bolt is in the rear position. A dust cover can be used when the bolt is at the forward position.

Also on the right is the ejection port. A cylindrical collar is installed at this location and its lower part receives the magazine housing. A flap can cover the magazine housing hole.

The bolt is directly inspired by that of the MP 18/1: a cylindrical main part with a hook cocking lever and a firing pin unit.

The barrel is 9mm calibre and has six right grooves. The muzzle end of the barrel is arranged in various manners according to the models. The front sight has two lower ears to receive the bipod on the prototypes. On preproduction models, a collar located before the front sight, receives the bipod and thread cutting is removed on the M1, because the bipod is discarded. On the prototypes, the bipod was made of stamped sheet metal. Later, the legs were telescopic and could be adjusted from 190 to 322 mm high.

The weapon is supplied by a curved magazine inserted in the bottom of the magazine well and holds 32 cartridges. The lips are arranged so that the cartridges of each column are presented alternatively. On the rear face of the magazine are three holes respectively marked 8, 16 and 32 to check the level of filling. A push through button retains the magazine.

The rear tangential sight has an eyepiece and is graduated from 100 to 600 meters by fractions of 100 meters.

The metal parts of STA 1924 are either blued or parkerized with black paint. Some specimens were zinc coated.

The marks on the weapon are the following: On the left side of the rear sight: STA 9m/m followed by the serial number. On the magazine housing, always of left side, M.A.S. – 1924. and on the barrel on a flat part machined in front of the chamber, the serial number.

The STA submachine gun is a simple weapon composed of only about sixty parts.

Operation

• Open the dust cover.
• Cock the weapon by pulling the lever to the rear.
• Open the magazine housing flap. Introduce a loaded magazine in the magazine housing.
• The gun is now ready to fire.

Disassembly

• Remove the magazine.
• Open the dust cover and clear the weapon.
• Turn the locking key to the right, which permits the frame and barrel unit to swing down.
• Unscrew the rear frame plug (1/8 of turn).
• Hold the plug as it moves to the rear, to help retard the recoil spring movement.
• Push the bolt unit to the rear.
• Remove the cocking lever.
• The bolt can be extracted from the frame.
• Remove the firing pin unit.
• Reassembly is carried out in the inverse order.

Accessories

• sling (is the same as the Mannlicher-Berthier carbine),
• cleaning rod, made of brass, it is carried permanently in the stock,
• crude leather cartridge pouches for soldiers contain three magazines. Each man who holds a submachine gun has to carry three magazine pouches (one on the right, one on the left and one on the back),
• crude leather cartridge pouches for troop, contains two magazines,
• Havana leather cartridge pouch for officer,
• gas cylinder brush for Hotchkiss machine gun was used to clean the barrel,
• oil can Model 1915,
• manual dated June 1924. (The manual examined carried the stamp of the colonel chief of the 146th Infantry Regiment and the handwritten date of reception: September 9, 1924.)

Eliminated from contention before it went into mass production, the STA 1924 submachine gun is an interesting weapon. It was the first one of long series of experimental weapons whose study is fascinating. Production did not exceed the 300 specimens produced and intended for testing by troops. The two specimens that we examined are held in military establishments and carry serial numbers 296 and 298.

It is possible that some of them were dispatched in Morocco, because their experimentation corresponds to the war in the Rif. Some others could have been kept in reserve and, perhaps, used in 1939-1940 when submachine guns were so scarce in the French army.

But these are only assumptions because no documents have been found that made it possible to find trace of their use in combat.

STA 1924
Operation: Open bolt blowback
Caliber: 9mm Luger
Overall length: 0.855 m (33.66 inches)
Barrel length: 0.226 m (8.9 inches)
Weight w/o magazine: 3.50 kg (7.73 lbs)
Capacity of magazine: 32 or 40 cartridges
Cyclic rate of fire: 350 rounds per minute

Estate papers recently surfaced documenting the life of a fascinating individual named Jean Koree of Romania. Mr. Koree owned 1/4 patent rights to the Hyde Model 35 Submachine Gun. Information from the documents shed new light on the weapon’s development and history.

Koree was an industrial engineer who moved to New York City in 1919, serving in various Romanian consulate positions. He left the government, going into business for himself in 1923. Koree developed a razor blade, which he began manufacturing in 1925. He later patented 3 different safety razor designs. He registered the trademark “ABC” for “American Blade Company” in 1926, (U.S. Trademark #216,330) and “Flexo,” for one of his razor designs in 1930 (U.S. Trademark #281,818). Koree saw good business success.

Auto-Ordnance Connection

Koree had an interest in small arms, particularly the Thompson Submachine Gun. He attempted twice to purchase Auto-Ordnance Corporation from the estate of Thomas Fortune Ryan in 1932 and 1935. Both attempts involved Auto-Ordnance company executive Col. Marcellus H. Thompson, son of John Thompson, namesake of the Thompson Submachine Gun.

The Auto-Ordnance deals fell through, which disappointed Koree. He may have seen a similar opportunity when he met George Hyde, who looked to approach the market with a new submachine gun design.

Association of George Hyde and Jean Koree

Hyde and Koree probably became associated through Koree’s interest in small arms, and Hyde’s observation of Koree’s business acumen. A 1935 letter said of Koree; “Mr. Koree has always impressed me as a man of unusual ability, with an unusual knowledge of foreign matters, and with unusual connections and selling capacity.”

The earliest record of Koree and Hyde’s association exists in the form of invoices for 450 rounds of .45 ACP ammunition purchased in late March 1935 for the purpose of “Testing Hyde Gun.”

Koree and Hyde contracted on April 11, 1935, and Koree began the patent paperwork. Hyde exchanged 1/4 of the weapon’s patent rights for Koree’s assumption of all costs involving patenting, manufacturing, and marketing of the weapon. The two agreed to form a corporation, which later became Triangle Ordnance Corporation.

The Hyde SMG Patent

The following list summarizes Koree’s patents leading up to and including the Hyde SMG patent:

• Vehicle Wheel, Patent #1,428,243, September 5, 1922 (Shared with Assad Malluk of France)
• Lockable Cover for Automobile Fuel Tanks, #1,447,260, March 6, 1923 (Shared with Assad Malluk of France)
• Resilient Bumper for Motor Vehicles, #1,457,259, May 29, 1923 (Shared with Assad Malluk of France)
• Safety Razor, #1,929,982, October 10, 1933
• Vehicle Wheel Rim, #1,931,229, October 17, 1933
• Safety Razor, #1,932,110, October 24, 1933
• Safety Razor, #1,981,958, November 27, 1934
• Gun, #2,049,776, August 4, 1936 (This is the Hyde SMG patent: 75% Hyde, 25% Koree)

Koree used other gun patents, and small arms manuals of the 1930s to aid in presentation of the Hyde gun in the patent application, and for marketing ideas. He developed a specification sheet for the Hyde based on one for a Steyr-Solothurn S1-100 SMG. Patent attorney Daniel Morris worked the details, including potential Hyde patent infringement on Auto-Ordnance patents for the Model of 1921 Thompson and box magazine with the U.S. Patent Office in late 1935.

The Hyde 35 patent was approved on August 4, 1936. The weapon was originally developed by Hyde in the early 1930s at Lake Erie Chemical Company, and refined to the patented model sometime in early 1935.

Koree’s excitement about the weapon’s prospects was apparent in his letters to various government agencies seeking marketing research information. He inquired regarding the total number of U.S. banks and sheriff’s departments existing at the time, in an attempt to determine potential marketability.

NFA of 1934 and Neutrality Laws: Industry Jitters

Since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was newly enacted, Koree familiarized himself with the law, and appeared to mostly follow the rules. As a foreign national showing interest in machine guns, and with the situation heating up in Europe, he nevertheless attracted some attention.

Koree made several inquiries regarding parts suppliers, and received an appointment with a Mr. Carpenter at Remington’s Bridgeport, Connecticut plant in March 1936. The meeting organizer mis-communicated the backgrounds of the attendees, and Koree subsequently arrived with an associate from his former Romanian government work. Since the gentleman with Koree served in a foreign government capacity, Mr. Carpenter chose to shun both men, as Remington was nervous about recent neutrality laws, and the potential for trouble involving public discussion of armament sales to foreign countries. Mr. Carpenter was described as “surprised and disturbed” when Koree introduced the Romanian representative, and the situation resulted in embarrassment. Remington chose to “do nothing, rather than run the definite risk of doing anything that might be misinterpreted.”

Nervousness abounded in the 1930s firearm industry, as an inquiry to Winchester by Koree regarding manufacturing Hyde barrels raised concerns with Winchester, and subsequently, the Feds. Edwin Pugsley, a vice-president at Winchester who later gained notoriety during development of the M1 Carbine, wrote a letter to Koree on April 7, 1936 regarding barrel pricing. Pugsley stated, “…we are all set as soon as we can find out from the Government what the regulation is so far as making the barrel is concerned. To date we have been unable to get a ruling on this and have written again for an interpretation of the law.” A follow-up letter from Pugsley to Koree on May 4, 1936 stated Winchester had received an answer from the government, and could proceed with a price quote based on the submitted sample. The quote was $6.75 each in lots of 1,000, and $5.75 each in lots of 5,000, and indicated they could deliver at a rate of 40 barrels per working day. The quote was for barrels made of “regular Winchester proof steel, which is a chrome molybdenum alloy having extremely good physical properties, insuring great strength and long life.”

Federal Scrutiny

Winchester’s inquiry to the Feds regarding the barrel deal prompted federal action. On May 18, 1936, Treasury Deputy Collector Harry Frankel sent a letter to Koree, “…in reference to some information regarding firearms the government would like to know.” The Treasury Collector had tried to contact Koree on several occasions, and seemed apprehensive in the letter. Frankel finally spoke to Koree on the same day he mailed the letter, and he followed up in a May 19th letter stating the following: “As per our conversation, I would like you to send me an affidavit, sworn to by a notary, whether you had any firearms in your possession on or before July 26, 1934 – and what use you intended in the machine gun barrels you were negotiating for with the Winchester Repeating Arms Co. of New Haven, Conn., also full details of your regular business at that time, and at present.”

Koree replied to Frankel on May 25, 1936: “In answer to your letter dated May the 19th I am glad to state, that I did not have any firearms in my possession on or before July the 26th 1934 or thereafter. I am interested in a new invention in Sub Machine Guns however and have therefore asked the Winchester Repeating Arms Corp. of New Haven Conn. to let me know what their quotation in lots of 1,000 and 5,000 barrels would be, in case such barrels and such quantities should be required.

“It is my intention to organize a company for the manufacture and/or sale of such new and improved guns and to endeavor to sell them to such organizations (Police, Banks, etc.) as the Company will have the legal right to sell to.

“I have been engaged for the last 5 years in the sale and manufacture of Safety Razor Blades and had the honor of serving as a member of the Code Authority of the Razor and Blade Industry.

“Numerous inventions on Razors and Blades take my time now. Until last month my offices were at 187-189 Mercer Str. N.Y. where we occupied the entire second and fifth floors.”

Koree provided some inconsistent information to the Feds. He understated his time of engagement in the razor business, and also possessed a Hyde SMG for the photographic session in June 1935. Perhaps Hyde accompanied him with the weapon, but only Koree’s name appeared on the invoice. He also received a 1936 letter thanking him for demonstrating multiple Hyde guns to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

“Dear Mr. Koree,

We were more than pleased with your demonstration last week of the sub-machine gun which I hope to be able to put in use with the bank in the near future.

As you know, the guns were tried out by some of our expert shots and they found them most accurate, and the men were impressed with the simplicity of the mechanism. They noticed that the weight of the gun was so much lighter than other guns used by us.

One of my experts commented about the gun having little or no kick notwithstanding its lightness in weight.

Very Truly Yours,

Myles C. McCahill
Manager, Administration Department”

The lighter weight comparison undoubtedly referenced the 1921 Thompson Submachine Gun, used by the bank at the time.

Triangle Ordnance Corporation and Hyde Arms Corporation

Hyde’s 75% patent share produced a contract guaranteeing payment of $3.75 for every gun sold during the 17-year patent term. He agreed to work for 5 years at a salary scaling from $75 to $125 per week. The corporation recognized “the unique and extraordinary character of the knowledge and experience of said Hyde, and that his services cannot be duplicated.” His employment was retained to “carry on experimental work and make inventions in ordnance and to perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the corporation from time to time.” Koree received $1.25 for every gun sold.

Triangle Ordnance Corporation incorporated in New York on July 9, 1936. Koree owned 50% of the company.

While Koree and Hyde assigned their patent rights to Triangle Ordnance Corporation, Hyde Arms Corporation was granted exclusive license to manufacture and sell Model 35 Submachine Guns. Hyde Arms conducted the only business that occurred with the gun, and they subcontracted most manufacturing to Griffin and Howe. Hyde Model 35 Submachine Guns cost about $75 to produce, and sold for $125.

Triangle Ordnance Corporation was an umbrella company that was well intended to engage in ordnance business, but never engaged in any substantial business. Koree faced New York State franchise tax problems between 1941 and 1943, and stated the following about Triangle Ordnance Corporation in 1941: “This corporation has not transacted any business since its incorporation. The owners of it wish to retain it as it is possible that it will become active in the near future.”

Lake Erie Chemical Company

Hyde first worked independently, and then for Lake Erie Chemical Company on his weapon as competition for the Thompson. Lake Erie wanted a submachine gun to compete with Federal Laboratories, who had exclusive distributor rights for the Thompson in the U.S. This hurt Lake Erie’s chemical agent sales, as most such sales to police forces were made in conjunction with weapons purchases.

The Hyde Model 35 Submachine Gun was evaluated during the U.S. Submachine Gun Trials at Aberdeen Proving Ground in late 1939. While the weapon was not adopted, it demonstrated some favorable aspects, including controllability and operation under certain adverse conditions.

George Hyde probably abandoned the project in 1939. The weapon never proved commercially successful, and the government trials sealed its fate. Hyde’s later projects are well known, and he appears to have disassociated from Koree after it became apparent the Hyde 35 wouldn’t be successful.

Koree did not give up, and retained rights to the Model 35 through Triangle’s patent ownership.

The ABC Automatic Hand Machine Gun

Koree began using his “ABC” razor trademark as a new name for the Hyde Model 35 SMG in January 1940, and the gun’s name changed to “The ABC Automatic Hand Machine Gun.”

No photographic evidence exists of a smaller model, but availability of a compact Hyde Model 35 was referenced in “European” calibers. A prototype may have been produced by Abercrombie and Fitch Co.

Koree believed strong foreign markets existed for the Hyde gun. As World War II began, more restrictive U.S. weapons export laws made many potential markets disappear.

Following the U.S. trials, sales efforts were focused on South America, including Peru and Argentina. Peru seemed interested, but wanted the weapon’s caliber changed to 7.65mm. Argentina did not respond to an invitation to demonstrate the weapon in their country.

Koree formed a sales commission agreement with an individual for sales to Canada, Britain, and France in March 1940.

Total Production Numbers

Estimates put total production of the Hyde Model 35 Submachine Gun between 86 and 101 guns. This figure does not include prototypes, or earlier models that were produced in small numbers by Hyde prior to his association with Koree. Winchester produced 100 barrels for Koree directly in 1936. An April 1940 Griffin and Howe document reaffirms this number, and references an additional 100 produced by Winchester for Hyde Arms Company after the first batch. An undated assets and liabilities sheet lists 99 barrels remaining in inventory. The Hyde barrels referenced in the document are probably the barrels Numrich has sold for many years, one of which was purchased by the author to look for markings. The barrel, which is the only remaining Hyde part available for current purchase, appears of high quality, and no markings exist except for an index mark.

An undated assets and liabilities sheet found in a Triangle Ordnance folder lists assets totaling $3,392.09, and liabilities of $4,798.25. Included in the liabilities were $1,629.48 owed to George Hyde, and almost $3,000 owed to either Seymour Griffin personally, or to the Griffin and Howe Company. Hyde formerly worked at Griffin and Howe, and Hyde Arms subcontracted them for manufacturing.

Remaining inventory included $203 cash, $1,700 worth of machine tools, 99 Hyde barrels, 1 Thompson barrel, 46 straps, 64 swivels, 24 Mauser sights, 3 complete guns, and 15 partially complete guns.

The list represents all that remained of the venture. Griffin and Howe probably got paid, based on a letter to Winchester in 1940 releasing to Koree any tools they had paid for that Winchester used for making Hyde barrels.

Conclusion

George Hyde saw his subsequent submachine gun design adopted by the U.S. Army as the M2, only to be eclipsed by the cheaper M3 after production startup problems with the M2 caused cancellation. He died in 1964.

Jean Koree achieved other successes, including invention of a new subcutaneous injection device, and prosperous real estate deals. His interest in ordnance continued through his life.

The Hyde Model 35 Submachine Gun compared favorably to the Thompson, but never saw success. Some mystery remains, and we may never learn its entire story. Examples of the weapon exist in the NFA registry, but the total number remaining is unknown.

The Koree estate documents provide a fascinating glimpse into small arms history. Other undiscovered paper treasures undoubtedly exist that can provide more insight into this and other weapons. We just have to keep looking.

Nearly twenty years have passed since former President Ronald Reagan signed the infamous McClure-Volkmer Act into law. Although this piece of legislation had a few pro-gun clauses, a last minute amendment was added that banned all future manufacture of machine guns for private ownership. The law took effect on May 19, 1986.

This piece of legislation forever fixed the number of transferable machine guns in the system. Since that day prices have steadily increased as the supply of transferable guns has steadily decreased. Today the cost of a transferable machine gun can exceed the cost of a new well-equipped automobile.

Many Class 2 manufactures were well aware of the impending restrictions a few weeks prior to the enactment of the ban. Most of the manufacturers worked night and day to make and register as many machine gun receivers as possible. It was not necessary to assemble complete working guns, but the receivers had to meet a minimum stage of construction as set forth by the BATF. At midnight May 18th it was all over.

The firearm-collecting world is always full of unexpected surprises; often parts or part sets that are unavailable for years suddenly show up in the warehouses of surplus dealers. One example is the parts and part sets for military issue Thompson submachine guns. These parts that were once in a seemingly inexhaustible abundance were gone and the prices of the few remaining parts were increasing daily. Then, recently, hundreds of mint to like new M1, M1A1 and M1928 Thompson part sets were found. Who would have ever thought this would ever occur – sixty year old Thompsons in new condition!

Every now and then a small quantity of new, unused registered receiver tubes would emerge. Most of the remaining tubes were originally produced to be assembled into Sten submachine guns, but then just a few years ago most of the Sten part sets disappeared, shelving the plans to assemble the tubes into working guns.

More recently, Class 2 manufactures got creative and have submitted plans to the BATF Technology Branch to use the remaining registered receiver tubes for assembly into guns other then the Sten. Although many of the new applications for the receiver tubes were approved, there were restrictions placed on modifications allowed to the receiver tube itself. To date, the BATF has approved the Sten tubes to be made into Sterling’s, Lanchesters and most recently clones of the Smith & Wesson Model 76. Yes, the Model 76.

The original 9mm Smith & Wesson Model 76 submachine gun was first manufactured in 1968 with production ending in 1974. 6,000 production guns were built during that period. There were other earlier clones of the S&W 76 made. One was the MK Arms Company model called the MK 760 and another was the Global Arms/Southern Tool’s M76A1. Production of these weapons were just starting up as the machine gun ban was being enacted, limiting production of these submachine guns.

Lack of magazines was always a problem with the Model 76, with originals being scarce and proportionately expensive. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, the easily adaptable Suomi M31 magazines appeared at bargain basement prices. Not only were the magazines cheap, most of them were in brand new condition. The magazines could be altered in seconds with a Dremel Tool to fit in the Smith Model 76 by simply removing a few thousands of metal from the front guide plate. Accordingly, with the magazine problem solved, the asking prices for the Model 76 began to increase.

The newest submachine gun on the market is the product of Ohio Class 2 manufacturer, and no stranger to the Class 3 world, Jim Burgess. Jim was a once a retail dealer for John Stemple’s original line of submachine guns, and also manufactured suppressors for them.

Jim’s new creation has been designated as the SW 76 (without the “&”). The SW 76 guns are manufactured from virgin tubes that were originally registered by John Stemple in 1986. Jim has enough parts and receiver tubes to assemble 100 guns. Jim said that he personally test fires each gun that he builds to insure proper functioning before shipping it off to the customer. All of the parts of the SW 76 will interchange with an original Smith & Wesson M76 except for the bolt. The bolt is not interchangeable due to the reorientation of the extractor and the Stemple receiver tubes have an inside diameter that is slightly larger than that of an original S&W M76, requiring two sleeves that act as bearing surfaces to be placed on the bolt to take up the extra space inside the receiver.

A big question is; where in the world would you find the part sets from the Smith & Wesson Model 76? Original spare parts for the gun just don’t exist. The answer; from semiautomatic copies of the Model ’76.

During 2001 the Tactical Weapons Company of Arizona was engaged to manufacture the parts and receivers for a weapon that would be marketed as the Omega 760 carbine, a semiautomatic-only copy of the Smith & Wesson Model 76. Initial sales of the Omega 760 were brisk but quickly dropped off. The disappointing sales of the Omega ultimately drove the decision to cease production and the decision left a number of parts that were never assembled into guns. Jim was able to purchase 100 of the surplus Omega 760 kits and convinced Special Weapons to produce the full auto bolts and the other parts he needed. The company agreed, and the 9mm SW M76 was born. Special Weapons still have a limited number of new Omega 760 semiautomatic carbines as well as part sets available for purchase.

One of the weakest areas of the original Smith & Wesson Model 76 design was its extractor, which will often fail after several thousand rounds. One substantial improvement that was implemented into the design of the SW 76 is the relocation of the extractor from the original 12 o’clock position to a 2 o’clock position on the bolt. Relocating the extractor substantially reduces lateral stress on the extractor effectively extending its service life. The extractor was also beefed-up for additional durability. The trigger, magazine catch and sear are easily serviced on SW 76, pivoting on removable pins that are secured with E-clips. While the sear on the original M76 is easily removable, the trigger and magazine catch are semi-permanently riveted in place.

The SW 76 uses the same magazines as the original Model 76 and, like the original, the plentiful Suomi magazine will fit and function in the gun with some minor fitting. The new SW 76 comes with instructions on altering the Suomi magazines.

Jim also has designed a suppressor specifically for his new SW 76. The powder coated suppressor uses standard 9mm ammunition and is designed to reduce its velocity to subsonic speeds. The suppressor will also fit and function on the Smith & Wesson M76, the MK Arms MK760 and the Southern Tool M76A1 guns.

I was able to get a first hand look and an opportunity to test fire the SW 76 at a recent shoot in Ohio. The SW 76 is indeed a dead ringer for the original M76. Jim brought along several of his SW 76 submachine guns to the shoot and all worked perfectly. He also brought along his new suppressor. It, too, was quite impressive and quiet even when firing standard super-sonic 9mm ammunition.

As mentioned earlier, the availability of these guns is limited to 100 pieces, and this is probably one of the last opportunities for buyers to purchase a brand new design and newly manufactured machine gun. Jim has a CD available that has close-up views of the SW 76 submachine gun, plus live-fire demonstrations both with and without Jim’s new suppressor. The CD even includes complete assembly and disassembly procedures. The cost of the CD is $10.00 and is free to dealers that send in a copy of their SOT. Dealer prices for the SW 76 and suppressors are available upon request.

For more information, visit Jim’s website at; wwww.jmbdistribution.com. Email; jburges@insight.rr.com

JMB Distribution
4291 Valley Quail S.
Westerville, Ohio 43081

During the Second World War, Germany fielded a number of new weapons produced from simple sheet metal stampings. The German 9mm MP40 machine pistol was the first successful sheet metal weapon to be made in large numbers followed by the German MG42 machine gun, and the Sturmgewehr. The MP40 weapon started a world revolution in small arms design. The methods and materials used allowed weapons to be manufactured cheaply and very quickly in large numbers – very advantageous during a large scale war. Weapons manufactured by these methods proved as durable as their labor-intensive counterparts made primarily of milled steel. One of the first designs fielded by the Allies was the 9mm British Sten Mark I in 1941. This was soon followed by the even more utilitarian Mark II and III Sten models.

Seeing the benefits of such a design, the United States Ordnance Department began to develop a similar submachine gun that was to be fabricated from mild steel sheet metal. After an in-depth study of the German MP40 and the British Sten by the Ordnance Department engineers, the requirements for a similar U.S. weapon were established on 6 February 1941. Development began by the Small Arms Development Branch of the Ordnance Department with assistance from the Inland Division of the General Motors Corporation. One of the first new submachine gun models to be designed was the T15 submachine gun. The T15 was a .45 caliber weapon that featured a straight open-bolt blow back operation commonly used in most submachine gun designs. The T15 quickly evolved into the simplified T20 model after several requirements were revised. One of the design changes was the elimination of semiautomatic function, and a requirement for the weapon to be easily converted to fire 9mm Parabellum ammunition. Because of the slow cyclic rate of the weapon it was decided that there was no need for a semiautomatic feature thus allowing the design to be further simplified.

The T20 had one very unique design feature that separated it from all other submachine guns of the day. On virtually all previous submachine gun designs, the bearing surfaces of the bolt would move forward and rearward supported by the inside surfaces of the receiver. On the T20 weapon, the bolt was designed with two horizontal holes that ran through the entire length of the bolt. The bolt then rode on two steel rods that were inserted into the holes, and were held in place by a steel plate oriented by two holes located in the rear of the receiver. Each guide rod had its own separate recoil spring. The steel guide rods were supported at the front by a steel guide plate that was indexed in the receiver by two integral tabs on the plate. A spring steel circular clip kept the bolt, guide rods and recoil spring assembly together until the barrel could be screwed onto the receiver. The front guide plate was secured to the receiver by the tightening of the barrel nut assembly. The primary advantage to the design was that the bolt never contacted the inside surfaces of the receiver. The unique arrangement made the T20 submachine gun nearly impervious to stoppages from dust, mud water or even sand. The T20 was one of the few weapons that was able to successfully pass the Ordnance Department’s rigorous mud and dust tests.

The receiver design of the U.S. T20 prototypes also differed radically from other submachine guns that used a simple circular tube for the basic receiver. When a tube receiver was used, a separate housing for containing the trigger and sear assembly needed to be designed and attached to the main tube. This would complicate manufacture somewhat as the two pieces would need to be accurately oriented to each other. In the design of the T20, the receiver was constructed by joining two separate stamped sheet metal pieces by welding. The receiver, the housing for the trigger and sear assembly, and pistol grip were all an integral part of the single assembly. The only other separate parts required were a dust cover/ejector housing for the trigger mechanism and a simple spring steel trigger guard that also held the cover in place. Other parts like the barrel bushing, sights and ejection port cover were attached to the receiver assembly by rivets or welding, no threaded fasteners were used.

The method of manufacturing barrels was borrowed from the British, who produced their Sten machine carbine barrels by the cold swaging method. The M3 barrel was also manufactured by cold swaging, a process that saved a significant amount of production hours. The steel tubing for the barrel would first be reamed to the correct inside diameter. The rifling would then be pressed into the barrel by inserting a mandrel and compressing the tube as it was forced through the die. The 40-inch piece of tubing would then be cut in sections to produce five M3 barrels. This barrel making process was much faster and less expensive than broaching or other methods. Accuracy of fire remained well within the requirements established by the U.S. Ordnance Department for submachine guns.

The T20 was recommended for adoption as the Caliber .45 Submachine Gun, M3 on December 24, 1942. The contract for manufacture of the M3 was awarded to the Guide Lamp Division of General Motors who were experts in sheet steel fabrication for the automobile industry. However, there were several problems encountered during initial manufacture of the M3. One of the problems was being able to accurately join the two receiver halves together by welding. A second problem was the thin sheet metal receiver halves were warping from the heat generated by the welding process. While Company and Ordnance engineers were engaged in resolving these problems, the Ordnance Department ordered the resumption of M1A1 Thompson Submachine Gun production.

The original M3 submachine gun production schedule had planned for 20,000 units to be produced by July 1943, but only 900 acceptable units had been completed. Before long the welding problems of the receiver were solved and the M3 was in full production. At the height of production in 1944 one-thousand M3 submachine guns were being produced every twenty-four hours.

The Guide Lamp initial contract price for the manufacture of the U.S. M3 was $18.36 per unit after being adjusted to cover the cost of minor production changes, and the packing of the completed units. There were a large number of subcontractors involved that supplied various small parts to Guide Lamp. The only major part that was subcontracted out was the bolt assembly, which was manufactured by the Buffalo Arms Company of New York. The manufacture of the M3 submachine gun was further simplified with the introduction of the M3A1 model in 1945.

While the unique design of the M3-M3A1 receiver made the weapons extraordinarily reliable, the design of the magazine proved problematic. It remains a mystery as to why the U.S. M3-M3A1 submachine gun was not configured to use the existing and excellent double stack-double feed magazine from the Thompson. The Thompson magazine was a proven design and already in production. Instead, the 30-cartridge M3-M3A1 magazine was a double stack, single feed design that contributed to stoppages when exposed to dust and mud. The single feed configuration had previously proved troublesome when used in both the British Sten and the German MP40 weapons. While the M3 was undergoing Ordnance testing, virtually all jams and stoppages were attributed to the weapon’s magazine. During testing of the M3 by the Infantry Board, they had suggested a few ways to improve the magazine’s reliability, but the problems were never addressed. The only fix was a rubber and eventually a plastic cap to keep dirt and debris out of the magazine. The cap was to be kept on the magazine until it was ready to be placed into the weapon.

Although many martial arms collectors of today are put off by the U.S. M3 and M3A1 submachine gun’s appearance and slow cyclic rate, the weapons were very cleverly designed. The M3-M3A1 has often unjustly received criticism based solely on its utilitarian toy-like appearance. The M3 and M3A1 submachine gun remained in U.S. service many years after most foreign and domestic World War II era weapons were declared obsolete.

The path of least resistance and least trouble is a mental rut already made. It requires troublesome work to undertake the alternation of old beliefs. Self-conceit often regards it as a sign of weakness to admit that belief to which we have once committed ourselves is wrong. We get so identified with an idea that it is literally a “pet” notion and we rise to its defense and stop our eyes and ears to anything different. – John Dewey

The anti Second Amendment fanatics are out there right now, trying to legislate some local bans on the ownership of so-called Assault Weapons. It is amazing how focused on non-issues they can be. Statistically, we are safer now that the stupid AW Ban expired over a year ago, but it remains to be seen if there is any connection at all between statistics and reality. So called “Assault Weapons” were a minor problem to begin with.

There have been a lot of Freudian accusations about why firearms owners have firearms – the most common being that we are “compensating” for something missing or inadequate. My opinion of most of the firearms collectors that I know is based on watching what interests them, and the collecting of firearms seems more related to a techno-geek type of thing. Most of the people I know are highly interested in history, technology, the science of ballistics, the amazing diversity of accessories or models, or just plain fun at the range. There might be a few who have some “compensation” thing going on, but the majority seem pretty stable, just focused on their interest or hobby. I can’t say the same for the anti-Second Amendment crowd. A very interesting observation that I have experienced over and over again, is the reaction of many anti-firearms ownership people who happen to be in a place where there are military type firearms. When talking with them, politely, I hand them a machine gun, or a rifle, and they look electrified and frightened and say, “I couldn’t have one of these – I might kill somebody.” Seriously, dear readers, I have heard this too many times to ignore.

This makes me think that the firm belief in the Second Amendment comes down to some fundamental beliefs about personal responsibility. With few exceptions, the firearms community has a strong thread of Teddy Roosevelt’s ‘Rugged Individualism” in it. Most of us are taught by our fathers, uncles, drill sergeants, hunting instructors, or other significant adults, that we are responsible for what we do with a weapon, and it is never pointed somewhere you don’t want a bullet to go. We are taught restraint. We are taught responsibility. Those who desire to disarm the others seem to lack that trait. In reading Dewey’s commentary, the above struck me as a concise paragraph on why the anti firearms ownership crowd doesn’t “get it” when they are obviously wrong. Dewey can also remind us to reassess our own beliefs and stands on issues, so that we can not make the same mistakes we are confronted with.

Off the pulpit, on to the questions….

Q-I was at a gun show, and saw a magazine on a table that said it was for fifty caliber. It seemed sort of short for a fifty but was quite large. I bought it for twenty bucks and brought it home, and sure enough it was too short. Any idea what it is?

A- There are so many unusual magazines out there it would be tough to say what it is simply from your description. I suspect, however, that it is the standard .50 caliber spotter magazine for the US M8C spotter rifle that mounts to the M40 series 106mm recoilless rifle. These do show up at gun shows fairly frequently, and there is a longer version as well. Twenty bucks is a good price for one as generally they are between forty and seventy-five dollars. Since you have ruled out it being one of the actual .50 BMG magazines due to the length of a cartridge that would fit, the Spotter magazine is the prime suspect. Other possibilities would be the magazines for the double sized military training rifles for the BAR, M14, M16, and M1 Carbine. These show up on the tables very rarely, are difficult to identify due to their oversize and are not a real weapon status. Please sell these oversized trainer magazines to me, as these are part of my personal fetish for oversize trainers. I suppose some might think I am “compensating.”

The M40 series of 106mm Recoilless Rifles are still in use in many countries around the world, and the US still has them in the inventory, although not generally active today. The M8C spotting rifle is mounted onto the main tube of the M40, sighted in, and the tracer/marking .50 caliber projectiles it fires duplicates the trajectory of the 106mm round. The M8C is semiautomatic, reloading itself from the magazine I suspect you have found. This is handy for the operator, because the 106mm is a breech loaded weapon, and having the next spotting round ready automatically cuts out one more operation in getting a second round ready to fire. The spotter rounds allow for an increased hit probability with the gun. Once the weapon is ready, the spotter round is fired. It won’t move the firing platform off of its aim and once the operator sees he has the target nailed touches off the main gun. Great for stationary targets, not quite so functional on laterally moving ones.

There are not too many M8C spotter rifles in private hands, but there are a few. The owners I am aware of have plenty of magazines for their guns, so this isn’t really a hot commodity; it is more of a collectable curiosity. The fifty caliber shooting community prizes spotter ammunition because many people pull the projectiles and reload them into .50 BMG cartridges, to achieve that very visible trace and target marking hit. However, these projectiles are very sensitive, especially to feeding, and much care should be taken with that process.

Q-I recently purchased a pre-86 dealer sample AR-10 machine gun. The seller called it a “Sudanese” model, and he had no other information on these. In the process of collecting the right parts to complete the weapon display board, I bought an” AR-10″ bayonet on E-Bay. When it came in, it didn’t fit on my AR-10. The seller insists it is an AR-10 bayonet and won’t refund my money. Who’s right on this?

A- As to whom is “right” that is a tough call. There was more than one type of AR-10 bayonet during the original production of these guns, and if he sold you an “AR-10 bayonet” and it is one – just not the right one for your gun. You are kind of stuck with it. I don’t think you will have too much trouble selling it as there are a lot of bayonet collectors out there. The basic models of original AR-10s are the very rare “Hollywood” guns, some of which could use a modified Carcano bayonet. The “Sudanese” models, which are Dutch, have a very special Mauser style bayonet. The “Portuguese” models, also Dutch, also use a Mauser styled bayonet which is cruder than the intricate and interesting Sudanese style bayonet. Since the production of the Sudanese style AR-10 rifles was limited to less than 4,000 pieces, it seems obvious that these are very rare bayonets. The Sudan contract was for 2,500 rifles, and there was another run of approximately 600 of this model with minor variations sold to Guatemala. If your gun says “Armex” on it, then odds are it is actually the Guatemalan contract gun.

This is actually a subject near and dear to me. I have always thought the Sudanese AR-10 bayonet was pretty tricked out, so let’s take a bit of time and look it over. This should help you in your search for the ultimate Sudanese AR-10 accessory. -Dan

Q-I enjoyed the picture of the VZ58 found by an SAR reader in Iraq, but you mentioned that it is not unusual for there to be “special” models made for guards in the Mid-East. I have not found reference to these models in other print references. Can you elaborate?

A- Yes, this is not an uncommon practice. In the small arms community it is not unusual to take the standard rifles or machine guns and make special presentation models or “dress” models out of them. These usually do not have a special designation. Frank James’ book on the HK MP5 series “Project 64”, includes pictures of the dressed up MP5s, and the official HK book has pictures as well. Since we were talking about Iraq, we should mention that SAR Contributing Editor Bob Bishop is a Colonel in the US Army Special Forces and he noted gold plated AK47 and RPG7s in the factories they captured. We are looking forward to getting more info later on these. As another example of this type of special run of submachine gun, I submit the following three photographs. This is a Sterling MK4 (L2A3) submachine gun that has been gold and chrome plated for the Saudi Royal Guards. On the white pistol grip is part of the symbol of the House of Saud, the Palm Tree and crossed swords. The complete symbol would have a wreath around it and a crown at the top, but for markings on a weapon this is accepted. There is no special model designation that would be recorded at the factory on these; they are simply MK4 submachine guns. I hope this helps convince you that the factories around the world do, indeed, produce the special runs of weapons for Dress Duty. (Photos by Dan Shea, Courtesy MOD Pattern Room)

Send questions to:
Raffica
sareview@aol.com
Or mail to Small Arms Review
Attn: Raffica
631 N. Stephanie St #562
Henderson, NV 89014

For many centuries, the Philippine islands has been a subject of colonization by many foreign invaders. In the early days, this paradise like island was known as the Pearl of the Orient. Rich in gold, diamonds and spices, it became a prized possession of King Philip the Second of Spain after its discovery by Ferdinand Magellan in the early 1500s. For over 300 years, the country was under Spanish rule with Filipinos used as slaves. In the early 1800s, the American expeditionary force under Gen. John J. Pershing drove the Spanish Guardia Civil back to Spain. However in WW II, the Japanese Imperial Army took over the country after the fall of Bataan. It was retaken by Gen. Douglas McArthur in 1945. The Americans have since used the country as a main Air Force and Naval base for their pacific fleet until the mid 1980s, finally giving the country its long awaited full independence.

Origin of Filipino Home Made Firearms

Although early type of firearms, such as flintlocks, have been used against the Filipinos since the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors in the 1500s, it was the dreaded Kris sword, the main battle sword of the Moro chieftain Lapu-Lapu, that felled Magellan on his way back to Spain. It was not until the arrival of the Americans that local fighters started to take notice of the deadly fighting capability of the new class of firearms employed by General Pershing’s forces against the retreating Spanish. Joint forces of American and Filipino fighters eventually drove Spain’s elements out of the country. Filipino fighters envied the new American weapons as the large wavy blade Kris sword and bow and arrow were no longer a match for long distance engagement. The Americans established their rule in the country and the Philippines rapidly prospered despite the ill fated rebellion by Emilio Aguinaldo, the highest ranking Filipino General, who vigorously opposed the permanent stay of the US military forces in the island.

The birth of home made firearms in the Philippines is accurately documented. Perhaps the most interesting stage of improvised firearms development can be traced back to the early stages of World War II. After the main strategic defense lines of Filipino and American soldiers had fallen to the invading Japanese Imperial Army, the remaining soldiers scattered to smaller units and formed resistance groups to continue the fight. One particular American soldier, Ensign Eliff D. Robertson (USNR), while hiding on the small island of Leyte in the Visayas islands, came up with the idea of an improvised shotgun that could be put together from readily available materials that required no special tooling. Common water pipes used by villagers in building their wells were used for barrels, nails and ordinary pieces of wood completed the main elements of this highly sanitized battle gun. Thus was born the “Slam Bang” guerilla gun. The barrel is loaded with a single round, and then inserted into a larger tubing. To fire the weapon, the operator simply has to pull the barrel a few inches to the front and quickly slam the loaded barrel against the end plug containing the fixed firing pin consisting of a nail. There is no built-in extractor in the weapon, and the normal firing practice when time was short was to simply reverse the barrel, load the other end and fire the second shot. The empty shell was pushed out by the projectiles during the discharge. After the war, the guerilla gun called “Paliuntod” was briefly offered in the US commercial market by a company founded by the inventor himself in 1946, called Richardson Industries. The weapon never achieved any commercial success.

Not far from Leyte was the port island of Cebu. A guerilla fighter named Simeon A. Cortes contributed much to the development of small arms in the Philippines. He was born in Mandaue, Cebu and the region became noted for its underground firearms workshops. This small town builds any and all types of firearms, ranging from Smith & Wesson and Colt revolver clones to full automatic shotguns. During WW II, Cortes invented homemade 81mm mortars for use by the Cebu underground forces that were fighting the Japanese and were under the control of Col. Harry Fenton and Lt. James Cushing (USMC). He also built various bolt-action rifles, pistols and machine guns from scrap salvage gun parts. In 1942, he developed a simple process to convert to full auto the M1 .30 carbines that were delivered by submarines for the resistance fighters from Australia. After the war, Cortes sought an early discharge from the military and reopened a gun shop in his local town of Mandaue in 1945. His exemplary service as a chief ordnance officer with the resistance, as well as his inventiveness, made him the most sought-after firearms technician in the region.

The demand for Cortes built firearms in Cebu soon skyrocketed to a point where he could no longer deliver gun orders on time prompting him to train interested parties. Soon his shop was staffed with dozens of apprentices who were more than willing to learn the trade even without pay. Most of these gun makers-in-training were young men in their high school years building guns after school and on weekends. Acquaintances or relatives studying or working in big cities like Manila would then bring these locally produced guns to the cities to be sold in the black market to finance the young apprentice’s upcoming college education. At first, the flood of home made guns in the region become a concern to the local government. However, due to almost non-existent criminal activities in the area (except for unlicensed gun making), Governor Durano soon found a way to legalized the trade in his home town and it became a popular cottage industry. This move has made his territory of Danao famous as the center of “Paltik” guns – the innovators of US made gun imitators. Today, Danao province has hundreds of small workshops creating every type of firearms ranging from .22 caliber to .50 BMG in semi or full auto variants. Danao artisans were quite talented; even beating their US counterparts in creating the first .233 revolver as far back as the 1980’s and revolutionary box-fed full auto 12 gauge shotguns long before the Close Assault Weapon (CAWS) for the US military project materialized. Durano’s home turf is one of the country’s largest international port cities catering to both commercial and tourists shipping. The port is one of the regular stops for Japanese cargo ships which often barter electronic goods or watches for imitation guns, primarily the Colt and Smith & Wesson revolver copies. The smuggled weapons were then sold at a very high price in the Japanese black market and many were known to end up in the hand of the Yakusa (Japanese Mafia). Japan totally prohibits civilian firearm ownership, making the Danao Paltik guns the most viable alternative to the genuine US made counterparts, which are highly prized among Yakusa warlords.

Early Workshop Submachine guns

Early underground workshop-built submachine guns were highly inspired by the U.S. Army issue Thompson and M3 Greasegun submachine guns. A few were patterned externally after the M1 .30 Carbine in pistolized configurations in straight blow-back operation and not gas operated. Most popular are the Tommy gun and M3 Greasegun configurations. These guns have fewer parts; requiring a minimum of tools and simpler to build out of soft metal tubing and sheet metal improvised from oil drums. Barrels are mild steel rods that are normally 4 to 6 inches in length. The barrels are rifled with improvised cutters that are shallow and uneven. Accuracy is poor even at 15 yards. They do work relatively reliably up to about 500 rounds. Then malfunctions become common as the soft components start to wear out such as the firing pin, extractor, sear and springs. Most of these guns are made in caliber .45ACP and utilized the original Greasegun or Thompson magazines, which are usually supplied by the client who purchases the magazines from local military or police officers. The same basic style and construction applies in the making of the smaller .22 submachine guns. The .22’s, however, last longer and shoot more accurately than their big-bore cousins especially if the customer supplies the maker with a commercial barrel, magazine and recoil spring such as those manufactured by Arms Corporation (Armscor) of the Philippines. Armscor was the first government licensed manufacturer in the country and was established in the 1950s.

Current Home Made Submachine Guns

The present crop of home grown burp guns comes in many calibers, sizes and configurations. Although some models can still be encountered in the older Thompson and Grease gun patterns, caliber options now play a big role in the manufacturing. The .45ACP has now been restricted for military use only. The .30 M1 Carbine round has been obsolete in the police and military inventory since the adoption of the Ml6 rifle in 1980. Owners of carbines have since had their guns converted by Danao paltiksmiths to 9mm in pistolized format with a modified gas operated mechanism. These converted carbines were mostly redesigned to accept high capacity pistol magazines as used on imported commercial pistols made by Smith & Wesson, SIG, Para-Ordnance, Tanfoglio and others. In the older models, styling and quality of workmanship may vary from shop to shop depending on the available tools and experience of the maker. Each gun made is different from the other; being 80 percent hand made with final configuration of the gun totally shaped by hand using assorted files. Later guns exhibit some sort of uniformity as the artisans started learning the art of casting. The frame of the gun is the most difficult to create by hacksaw and file and took longer time to shape by hammering the sheet metal to form the desired shape. Today, the construction technique is simplified. The sheet metal part of the receiver is formed in an improvised die. Internal inserts are still riveted and brazed leaving a visible yellow line on joints. This observation still holds true even with the current revolver and pistol clones that these workshops build today in their well equipped workshops. The most notable feature in the current home made SMG’s are the grip pattern and the overall construction. Guns made in the same area often have similar grip styles and constructions. This is because of cooperation among several shops delegating the manufacture of various components to sub-contractors in order to speed up the manufacturing process to be productive and profitable.

Submachine guns produced by Durano’s workshops are normally chambered for 9mm, .38 Special. and .22 LR calibers. These are the most easily obtained ammunition for civilians. In the old days, magazines used were military issue obtained in the black market from corrupt military personnel. Today, Danao workshops make their own stick magazines with a normal capacity of 30 rounds. Some clients opt to be able to use their pistol magazines in their submachine guns and are ordered in that format. In some cases, others supply factory barrels expecting better accuracy and stronger material to minimize blow-ups, as experienced with mild steel barrels made by the local artisans. The German MP-40 styling is quite popular among the gun makers complete with “Made in Germany” markings. This sometimes fools the intended buyers which, in most cases, are rural farmers and illiterate landowners who are not familiar with such things. Wealthy customers who are ordering submachine guns in the province are now taking advantage of the vast availability of gun parts from mail order companies, many of which are coming from the US as brought in by licensed gun importers. While the basic frame or receiver is still made in Danao, these high class special order guns contain real factory made bolt, barrel, springs and trigger mechanisms. The end product is greatly improved and, as is the case, each gun is made differently in accordance to the customer specification. The most requested format is the Ingram MAC-10 in either 9mm or .22 LR. The .22 machine pistol is a scaled down version of the famed Ingram M11, popularly known locally as the “Sanvik.” It takes a 15- or 20-shot Armscor box magazine delivering 1,800 rpm in full automatic. The Sanvik was also made in a silenced version and were known to be used by rebel assassination cells responsible for the killing of many top ranking military personnel and politicians in the country between 1980-1990.

Conclusion

Underground firearms manufacturing in the Philippines has been a flourishing industry for the past 40 years. The illegal activity briefly ceased during the declaration of Martial Law by the late President Ferdinand Marcos in 1972. There were over a quarter of a million illegally manufactured weapons confiscated or turned over to the military during its weapons sweep in that year with almost 60 percent of the weapons being made in Danao. Other regions who are also known to produce Paltiks of lesser quality are the provinces of Ilocos (President Marcos’ own province), Cavite City, a suburb of Manila and the Muslim regions of Mindanao; the creators of the dreaded Kris and Barong fighting sword.

The present administration in the Philippines has been lenient in the civilian ownership of firearms despite the threat of terrorism by Muslim insurgents in its southern borders. Sport shooting competitions among locals flourished and earned the country some of the finest IPSC shooters ever to defeat Americas best in the likes of Jethro Dionisio and the Levanza sisters. The gun industry has flourished as well with the addition of a new, fully government licensed gun manufacturing establishment in Danao to compete with Armscor in the local market.

Although home made guns remain a major concern in the government sector, the problem has grown to a point where control is no longer an issue as drugs and terrorism became a priority over petty gun makers. Ironically, arsenal made automatic weapons entering the country illegally has now flooded the black market that used to be dominated by Danao products. Today, as more organized gunrunners control the show by bringing in the likes of Chinese Kalashnikovs, M-14’s and UZI clones, these are the hottest selling item in the illegal trade. These military copies are eagerly sought after by terrorist funded rebel insurgents and Muslim fighters in the south. While Danao’s cottage industry’s growth has slowed down by the entry of the smuggled foreign made military weapons in the black market, it is quite likely that Paltik guns will continue to find a market among less hostile clients. From its humble beginning in WW II, the Paltik gun had its own share of glory among guerilla fighters who effectively used them against the Japanese army when there was a short supply of equipment. The cottage industry provided a means of livelihood to thousands of poor people who would otherwise starve to death and enabled them to send their children to acquire a higher education. Equally important, the Danao specials served many rural police departments and village leaders during the turbulent era of 1960 to 1980. It was these decades from which was the peak of rebel campaigns and corrupt government and military officials’ activities plagued the nation. Home made weapons have played a very important role in the Philippine society in both war and peace, in the past, and in the present. The concern of widening terrorist indoctrination and recruitment in more remote areas of the country has worried the authorities. With short supply of equipment and lack of funding to arm the local civilian home defense forces, the automatic weapons and imitation guns of Danao have become a viable alternative. These weapons remain in service among rural chieftains and village militias under the blessing of the military. They will no doubt continue to do so for many more years to come.

The author wishes to express special thanks to Engineer Gene Cordero and Senior Special Agent Diego Gutierrez of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), both residents of Manila, and to Jack V. Krcma of Toronto, Canada for photos and information which made the completion of this article possible.

By David M. Fortier

Since the Communists came to power Chinese small arms development has always been “A riddle wrapped in a mystery behind the Bamboo Curtain”. All we in the West suspected was that the Chinese military was mostly armed with domestic copies of various obsolete Soviet designs. While there is truth in this, the rest of it may surprise you. The Chinese began extensive research and development on domestic designs as early as 1958. This led to the 1st (Type 63 and Type 74) and then 2nd (Type 81 and Type 87) generations of Chinese small arms. In the last 20 years, especially since the Open Door policy, China has made significant progress in small arms development. This has culminated in the design and adoption of their unique 5.8x42mm weapons complex. A system, they claim, that outperforms both the current NATO 5.56×45 SS109 and Russian 5.45×39 7N6 cartridges.

China historically had relied on foreign designed weapons to equip her vast armed forces. Germany in particular was a major player in China from the turn of the century until signing the Anti-Comintern Pact with Imperial Japan in 1937. After 1937 another country’s influence was strongly felt in China, that of the Soviet Union. As early as 1932 the Soviets began supplying weapons to the Communist forces in China. Over time this aid greatly expanded. However, relations began to sour between the Chinese and Soviets after the Korean War and took a nose dive after Khrushchev came to power.

Using their experience with the Soviet designs, the Chinese undertook extensive research and development work beginning in 1958 to improve their small arms. It was based on their combat experience with full power battle rifle cartridges, as well as the less powerful 6.5 Arisaka and 7.62×25 sub-machineguns. They recognized the potential of the new intermediate 7.62×39 cartridge and admired the reliability of the Kalashnikov design. However they were not impressed by the AK-47’s accuracy or ergonomics. To fit their tactical needs they wanted a rifle as reliable as the Kalashnikov but with increased accuracy. It was intended to be used primarily in the semi-automatic mode for ammunition conservation. They also felt it must be useful with a bayonet for hand to hand combat. This was due to their doctrine calling for fighting very close to an opponent to negate his superiority in artillery or air support.

The result of their efforts was a weapon that outwardly resembled the Soviet SKS-45 carbine. Internally however it was quite different from Simonov’s design. It was adopted for service in 1963 and designated simply Type 63. The Type 63 rifle (incorrectly identified in the West as the Type 68) and the Type 74 Squad Auto represent the First Generation of domestically designed Chinese small arms. Not a battle rifle nor true assault rifle, it was outclassed by the M-16 during combat operations in Vietnam. It remained in service up until approximately 1974.

Seeing the changes in modern warfare, the Chinese went back to the drawing board. The Second Generation of Chinese small arms is seen in the Type 81 weapons series. The goal of the design team of the Type 81 rifle was to provide a modern assault rifle with the reliability of the Kalashnikov but with superior accuracy and ergonomics. After studying in detail the Soviet SVD Dragunov sniper rifle (Chinese Type 79) the Chinese came away quite impressed with its system of operation. They eventually used a modified short stroke gas system and a bolt/carrier system gleaned from it. It should be remembered however that the bolt/carrier system of the SVD is itself derived from the Kalashnikov. The culmination of their work was a rugged and reliable rifle with a few features not offered on the Kalashnikov. Unlike the AK-47/AKM the Type 81 features a bolt holdopen, a selector lever accessible by the operator’s thumb, an integral capacity to launch rifle grenades, and an adjustable gas system. The Type 81 weapons series includes the standard rifle weighing 7.49 lbs, a 7.7 lbs folding stock model, and an 11.4-pound squad auto. These three weapons maintain a high degree of interchangability with 64 parts common between them. Overall they are a well thought out and reliable design chambered for the venerable 7.62×39 cartridge.

However just as the Chinese were quick to appreciate the 7.62×39 intermediate cartridge they were also quick to take notice of the 5.56×45. As soon as the M-16 rifle appeared in Vietnam, the Chinese noted the advantages of the 5.56×45 cartridge. They appreciated that it allowed a compact and lightweight weapon, produced a low recoil impulse, was controllable on full auto, and allowed a larger basic load of ammunition and supplementary equipment. This increased a soldier’s survivability on the battlefield. What the Chinese were not impressed with was the reliability of the M-16 rifle itself, compared to their experiences with the AK-47.

Noting the advantages of the small, high velocity round, they began extensive research and theoretical studies based on their combat observations of the war in Vietnam. Their goal was no simple one. They desired to find the ideal caliber to satisfy the Chinese military requirements for use in assault rifles out to medium ranges (400m) as well as in the supporting role of a machinegun (up to 1000m). Their intention was not just to build a series of weapons based on an existing cartridge but rather to build a weapons complex using the ideal cartridge. This “Universal caliber” had always been a Holy Grail for which many have sought but none had found.

After extensive calculations they concluded that the ideal caliber would be 5.8mm, 6mm, or 6.2mm. They then designed a vast assortment of prototype cartridges for use in comparison testing. This is similar to our own SAW project which tested over 1000 configurations in calibers ranging from 5.56 to 7.62. Our final result was the 6x45mm SAW round which was never adopted due to logistical reasons. This shows that the U.S. and Chinese designers came to a similar conclusion as to the ideal caliber. Based on their test results the Chinese came to the final conclusion that the 5.8mm best fit their needs. The result is their new small caliber, high velocity 5.8x42mm cartridge. Designed from the ground up to fit the needs of their weapons complex, this cartridge is produced in 3 different ball loadings: a standard loading for use in assault rifles, a heavy projectile loading for use in their GPMG, and a specialty loading for use in sniper rifles.

The standard loading features a 64-grain FMJBT projectile with a 22.6-grain AP core loaded into a copper washed steel case. The overall cartridge length is 58mm, case length is 42.2mm, and the projectile is 24.2mm long. The cartridge case somewhat resembles the Russian 5.45×39 in that it is tapered; however, the case neck is shorter. It bears no outward resemblance to the 5.56×45. While straightwall cases like the 5.56 are inherently more accurate, tapered cases aid feeding and extraction. The projectile also exhibits a substantial sectional density, although not as great as that of the 5.45×39. Muzzle velocity from the Type 95’s 18.2-inch barrel is 3,050 fps. Out of the Type 95 Squad Auto’s 21.9-inch barrel it clocks 3,182 fps. The Chinese have tested their new cartridge extensively against both the 5.56×45 SS109 and the Russian 5.45×39 7N6. They claim their 5.8x42mm outperforms both cartridges with penetration superior to the SS109, a flatter trajectory, and a higher retained velocity and energy downrange.

Although the Chinese had developed their ideal cartridge they still had one major hurdle to overcome, the Chinese military. During the last Sino-Japanese war the Chinese had made extensive use of captured 6.5 Arisaka rifles and machineguns. From their combat experience they felt that this cartridge performed poorly, lacking penetration and killing power. They felt this was especially true when it was used from machinguns firing at long range. Recent combat experience, on the other hand, had proven the effectiveness of 7.62×39 assault rifles and 7.62x54R GPMG’s and sniper rifles. Due to this the Chinese military wanted nothing to do with a small caliber cartridge intended for use in machineguns as well as rifles.

So in order to convince the military, the Chinese Armament Bureau produced a quantity of transitional 5.8×42 assault rifles. These were based upon the Type 81 and were designated the Type 87. They were then submitted to the military for extensive testing and field trials against the existing 7.62×39 weapons. During these trials the 5.8×42 weapons outperformed the 7.62×39 weapons in every way. They proved superior enough for the Chinese military to adopt the new cartridge for use in the next generation of Chinese small arms.

With the problem of a suitable cartridge out of the way, during the late 1980’s the Chinese set to work designing the weapons to use it. The result of their work is not just a new assault rifle but an entire weapons complex. This includes an assault rifle (Type 95), Light Squad Auto (Type 95), Sniper rifle (Type KBU88), and surprisingly, a belt fed GPMG (Type QJY88). Obviously following the current trend in small arms development, they chose to use the bullpup configuration (except for the GPMG).

I was told that in designing the Type 95 they again took a long hard look at the SVD Dragunov design. This can be seen in the Type 95’s 3 lug rotating bolt, carrier, and adjustable short stroke piston gas system which is similar conceptually to the SVD’s. The main features of these new weapons are their extensive use of high tensile aluminum and modern high impact synthetic materials coupled with improved human engineering. In addition they feature cold hammer forged barrels for superior accuracy. The design emphasizes keeping as close as possible the distance between:

1. The center of gravity of the whole weapon and the center of gravity of the axis of the barrel.
2. The center of gravity of the bolt assembly and the axis of the gas piston.
3. The center of gravity of the barrel and the axis of the gas tube.
4. The center of gravity of the bolt carrier and the center of gravity of the whole gun.

They state, “This design brings a combined effect of compact structure, minimizing the supplementary force of inertia, ensuring a stable and smooth movement of the bolt carrier, minimizing the overall weight of the rifle, increasing shooting accuracy, and promoting reliability.” It is also interesting to note that they claim a reliability rate equal to that of the Kalashnikov. That in and of itself would be quite a feat.

These weapons were designed to use the following accessories:

1. Fixed or variable power telescopic sights with quick detachable mount.
2. Their latest star light night vision scope with quick detachable mount.
3. Quick detachable 35mm grenade launcher that mounts to the forend.
4. Multi-purpose bayonet which can be used as a bayonet, field knife, wire cutter, or a dagger.

While I personally do not care for bullpup style rifles, the Type 95 appears ergonomic and well balanced. The rear sight is mounted on an M-16 style carrying handle, which also accepts optical sights. The front sight assembly reminds one of the familiar AK unit. The charging handle is located inside the carrying handle, AR-10 style, and is ambidextrous. Feed is from 30 round synthetic magazines. The Type 95 Squad Auto shares the same bolt assembly, trigger assembly, upper and lower receiver, and magazines with the rifle. For its fire support role it’s equipped with a longer, heavier barrel to which a bipod is directly mounted. To increase its practical rate of fire, 75 round drum magazines are issued for it, although the standard 30 rounders will also work. In my experience Chinese drums are usually quite noisy though, as they allow the rounds to slap back and forth. Weighing in at just 8.7 lbs it is more of a machine-rifle, along the lines of the L86A1 British Light Support Weapon, rather than like our own M249 SAW.

For reaching out and touching someone, there is the KBU88 sniper rifle. It’s equipped with a 25.1” hammer forged barrel, and the carrying handle has been replaced with a 3-9x variable telescope. The optics feature an illuminated reticle with aiming holdover points in 100 meter increments. Fold down backup iron sights are also provided. An integral folding bipod, with legs individually adjustable for height, is attached to the barrel just in front of the handguard. Feed is from 20 or 30 round magazines. When tested against the Type 85 7.62x54R sniper rifle (SVD Dragunov) the KBU88 outperformed it in accuracy, higher hit probability at long range, was quicker to get into action, had less recoil, had a larger ammunition load capacity, and was lighter in weight -thus increasing the mobility of the sniper. We would consider it a Designated Marksman’s Rifle, rather than a true sniper rifle. In this role it would prove quite useful on the modern battlefield.

The latest member of the 5.8mm family is the QJY88 GPMG. This project began in July 1989 and after extensive testing in freezing cold, hot desert, windy, and sandy conditions to eliminate defects, it was formally adopted in July 1999. Feed is from 200 round belts. The feedway is equipped with 3 rollers, and the feeding pawl also has a roller, to minimize friction during feeding and to aid reliability. It’s equipped with a bipod for use in the LMG role but can also be tripod mounted for sustained fire use. The tripod is equipped with a recoil-absorbing device to enhance accuracy and quickly converts for A.A. use. For long service life the core of the barrel is hardened more than the rest during heat treating. Also a special pattern of rifling is used and the chrome plating carefully kept to .18-.28mm to increase barrel service life. The Chinese claim it to be very simple, reliable, and mobile due to its light weight, coupled with long range and a high hit probability.

So the question is, exactly how well does this new Chinese 5.8×42 round stack up against our 5.56×45 and the Russian 5.45×39? The Chinese have tested their new cartridge extensively against both the 5.56×45 SS109 and the Russian 5.45×39 7N6. They claim their 5.8x42mm outperforms both cartridges with penetration superior to the SS109, a flatter trajectory, and a higher retained velocity and energy downrange. I was recently able to get my hands on some documents containing some of their test results. Testing was conducted using a 5.45×39 AK-74 and 7N6 ball ammunition, a 5.56×45 FNC and SS109 ball and P112 AP, and a Type 95 with 5.8×42 ball. Accuracy testing was conducted out to 600m between the three weapons. Projectile Time of Flight was recorded out to 800m. 3.5mm NATO spec hardened steel plates were shot at 640m and 700m. A 10mm hardened steel plate was shot at 310m. Finally, anesthetized livestock between the weight of 26-44 pounds were shot at a distance of 90m. All the information recorded from these tests is contained in the accompanying charts. For comparison I also included one chart on the performance of typical military rifles against NATO 3.5mm steel plate from tests performed by the USMC Firepower Division in Quantico, VA in the early 1980’s.

The Chinese test results indicate that their new 5.8x42mm cartridge is intended to provide an increase in effective range and penetration. The difference is that it is now possible for the high velocity small bore military cartridges to place fire at medium ranges without the weight and recoil penalties of the older full power cartridges. While obviously lacking the punch of a 7.62×51 at long range the 5.56×45 has none the less proven itself to be capable of superb accuracy at 600m. This has not been lost on the Chinese. Their 5.8×42 ball round is designed to surpass the performance of the 5.56×45 SS109, including at long range. That the Chinese wish to be able to extend the practical effective range of their small arms can also be seen in the Type 95’s ability to easily mount optical sights. While we don’t yet have any specifics on the dedicated sniper load for the KBU88 sniper rifle, that it outperformed the 7.62x54R SVD out to 1000m speaks for itself.

Against steel plate the 5.8 easily outperformed the 5.45 7N6 ball loading as well as the 5.56 SS109. It equaled the penetration of the 5.56 P112 AP loading while providing greater retained energy. It should be remembered though that the 5.45 7N6 loading has a mild steel core and a more even test would have been to use the newer 7N10 High Penetration round. While the 5.8 retained more energy and velocity downrange, there is a downside to a light weight, small diameter projectile with high penetration. Such rounds can zip right through a man without doing significant damage. This was first seen on the Italian Front during World War I when it was common for soldiers hit through the lungs at long range by 6.5mm rounds to recover in a matter of weeks. Recently American troops witnessed this first hand in Mogadishu when close range hits on rebels with SS109 ammunition produced no immediate visual results. This was verified in the livestock testing performed by the Chinese. Here the 5.45 7N6 load showed what it was designed to do and produced significantly larger wounds than either the 5.56 SS109 or the 5.8×42. However the range here was short, only 90m. While the Chinese were impressed by, and commented on the tremendous close range wound capacity of the 5.45 7N6 loading, they also stated that by 600m its accuracy, penetration, and wound capability had dropped off significantly due to its lightweight 52 grain projectile. However they also felt the 5.45×39 to be a very economical cartridge to manufacture. The Chinese were impressed by the 5.56×45 SS109 and felt that it was effective up to 600m. However they felt that it had the disadvantages of high chamber pressures, and because it utilized brass cartridge cases, was not economical to produce.

While the 5.8 was superior in penetration to the 5.56 SS109, the same was not true of accuracy. That the new Type 95/5.8x42mm combination was more accurate than the 70’s vintage Russian AK-74/5.45x39mm combo is really no great surprise. While the AK-74 is more accurate than the 7.62×39 AKM, at the time of its design Soviet doctrine relied on massed automatic fire rather than accuracy. By switching to a short stroke gas system, the Chinese intended to gain an increase in accuracy over the Kalashnikov while maintaining the same level of reliability. It appears that they have accomplished this. However the FNC/5.56x45mm combo easily outshot the new Chinese system. Straightwall case designs, such as the 5.56×45, tend to be more accurate than tapered case designs such as the 5.45×39 and 5.8×42. The trade-off being that tapered cases feed and extract easier. While troops complain about the M-16A2, it can not be faulted for its accuracy. Also keep in mind when looking at the Chinese data that the average muzzle velocity of an SS109 round out of an M-16A2 is higher than that listed for the test FNC. However they are within NATO SS109 spec’s which call for a 61.7 grain bullet at 3025fps 25m from the muzzle. While the 5.8 exhibits higher retained velocity and energy in their test results compared to the 5.56 SS109, the difference is small.

Why did the Chinese bother with developing an entirely new assault rifle cartridge when they could have simply adopted the 5.56×45 is a question I’m sure many will ask. The only reason I’ve been given is that the PLA has a defensive doctrine and if China were invaded their unique caliber weapons would prohibit an attacking force from utilizing captured weapons against the PLA. I will let you decide for yourselves on the effectiveness of this new cartridge based on the accompanying data. How China’s new 5.8x42mm series of weapons fares in service or combat remains to be seen. One thing is certain though, the Kalashnikov’s service with the PLA appears to be coming to an end. While the Type 95 was officially adopted in 1995 and is standard issue with the Hong Kong garrison force, it will be some time before it is in wide spread issue simply due to the size of the PLA.

Acknowledgments:

Much thanks to Dave Brown at Sierra Bullets for his patience and help making sense of the ballistic data in its original form and to Mark Vorobiev for a Russian point of view.

References:

Bolotin, David. SOVIET SMALL ARMS AND AMMUNITION. Finnish Arms Museum Foundation, Hyvinka, Finland. 1995.
Cutshaw, Charlie. THE NEW WORLD OF RUSSIAN SMALL ARMS & AMMO. Paladin Press, Boulder, CO. 1998.
Harris, C.E.. “The M-16A2: New World Standard For Infantry Rifles” GUN DIGEST, 40th Edition. DBI Books Inc, Northbrook, IL. 1986. SLIDE CAPTIONS

By Frank Iannamico

The Russians began development of a submachine gun as early as 1925. The idea spawned from the brief debut of the German MP18.I maschinenpistole that appeared just prior to the end of WWI.

The Russians first thought that the submachine gun would be ideal for arming field grade officers, replacing the inadequate Nagant revolver. The very first Russian prototype subgun was the 1927 pattern designed by Fedor Tokarev. The weapon closely resembled a carbine and was chambered for a slightly modified version of the 7.62 Nagant revolver cartridge. In 1928, the Russian Artillery Committee suggested that the weapon be rechambered for the more powerful 7.63 Mauser cartridge. There were quite a few other submachine gun designs submitted by Russian engineers through the 1920s and 1930s, although none were adopted, due in part to waning interest in the submachine gun concept. However, in 1934 a new, simple and reliable design by Vasiliy Degtyarev emerged. Degtyarev’s new weapon surpassed all previous designs that had been tested. The new submachine gun was officially adopted as M1934, 7.62 Pistole Pulemyot Degtyarev.

In 1935 approval was finally granted for a small production run of Degtyarev’s 1934 pattern submachine gun. The weapon was chambered for the newly adopted Russian 7.62×25 Tokarev cartridge (the cartridge was an almost identical copy of the 7.63 Mauser round). However, production priority of the PPD 1934 was very low, and by 1939 fewer than 2,000 examples had been produced. In the interim, Degtyarev continued to work on improving his design, introducing the M1934/38 weapon in 1938. The 34/38 model was simplified for ease of manufacture. The weapon used the same curved 25-round magazine as the previous 1934 model, and it had a very high rate of fire. Unfortunately for Degtyarev there was still some uncertainty regarding the value of the submachine gun as a military weapon. A policy change was implemented halting submachine gun production, and existing weapons were withdrawn from service and placed in storage.

In 1939 Russia signed a non-aggression pact with Germany, and agreed to assist them in their planned invasion of Poland. Their agreement not only had provisions to divide Poland, but also had other territorial and political arrangements for future “acquisitions”. After the German invasion of Poland, Finland and her neighbors declared their neutrality, although moves by Russia into Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania began to concern the Finns. The Soviets invited Finland to discuss the establishment of a Russian naval base in Finland as well as the ceding of several islands belonging to Finland. Finland sent the Russians a curt counter proposal that the Russians flatly rejected. The Finns did not believe that Russia would resort to war to obtain her objectives, and Russia anticipated that the Finns would concede rather than engage in a war against such a powerful enemy. The ensuing months would prove both their perceptions a fatal miscalculation. Russia soon began blaming the Finns for aggressive acts against Soviet troops along their border. (Hitler used the same tactic to justify the invasion of Poland). On November 29, 1939 Russian forces crossed into Finland at Petsamo, and launched a full-scale attack on Helsinki the next day.

The resolve of the Finnish people was strengthened by the knowledge that the Russians had launched a totally unprovoked attack on their country. The Russian Army would soon learn of the Finn’s fierce desire to keep from falling under Russian domination. Although the war was brief, the small, poorly equipped Finnish Army, led by Marshal Mannerheim, was able to inflict heavy casualties on the Russians by sabotage, ambushes and other similar actions. In their guerrilla style tactics the Finns made effective use of their 9mm Suomi submachine guns. The Suomi looked very much like the Russian PPD and utilized a large capacity drum magazine. Although the war ended with a predictable defeat of the Finns, the experience left quite an impression on the Russian military leaders. As a direct result of the “Winter War” against Finland, the Russians immediately began to take steps to get the submachine gun back into the hands of their troops.

Late in 1939 the Russian Supreme Military Council ordered the resumption of submachine gun production, and further ordered that the weapons be issued in large numbers to the Red Army. While still seeking ways to further improve the 34/38-pattern weapon, orders were received to design a large capacity magazine for the weapon. The result of the designer’s efforts was a 73 round capacity drum type magazine. The drum for the 34/38 had a short neck attached to the top, so that it could be adapted to the 34/38 without altering the weapon itself. The neck was necessary in order to reach the magazine well of the receiver through the forearm of the stock.

By February of 1940 Vasiliy Degtyarev had introduced yet another variation of his 34/38 design. The receiver and stock were redesigned so that the neck of the drum magazine could be eliminated. The new drum magazine had two short feed lips at the top; the one on the left was slightly shorter in order to clear the ejector that was mounted in the receiver. With the elimination of the neck, the capacity was reduced to 71 cartridges. The separate firing pin of the earlier design was replaced by a fixed pin, which was nothing more than a machined protrusion on the bolt face. Testing of the weapon exposed problems with the fixed firing pin design leading to a return to the original cam operated firing pin. The newly designed weapon was designated the PPD 1940 (Pistole Pulemyot Degtyarev). The PPD 1940 like its predecessors were designed before the technology and capacity for stamped sheetmetal weapons was fully developed. Like previous Russian weapons, all of the parts used in the PPD1940 were made of milled steel.

The PPD 1940 weighs 12 pounds with a loaded 71 round drum, and there was no box type magazine designed for the gun. Like many Soviet weapons, the barrel featured a chromed bore for easy cleaning when used with corrosive ammunition. The rear sight on the early models was a tangent style, calibrated for targets from 50 to 500 meters. PPD 1940 weapons manufactured in 1941 were fitted with a simple two-position (100 and 200 meter) “L” sight. The front site was adjustable for windage by drifting it from right or left as required. A detachable spring steel cover was designed to protect the front sight, but these were often lost and are usually missing from the weapons. The PPD1940 is a select fire weapon, the mode of fire is chosen by moving a paddle type lever located above the trigger guard. The paddle of the lever is stamped “1” for semi-automatic and “71” for full-automatic fire. The full auto rate of fire is an exhilarating 850-950 rounds per minute. The weapon’s safety was located on the cocking handle of the bolt. To operate the safety the bolt handle is aligned with a notch in the receiver and the safety slide pushed inward. The bolt can be locked to the rear or in the forward position. Although the well-known PPSh submachine gun was chosen in 1941 to supersede the PPD, the earlier PPD had a few advantages over the PPSh. The PPD ejected the spent cases out of the receiver’s right side, while the PPSh ejected them straight up directly in front of the operator’s face, often resulting in the hot brass hitting the shooter. The case ejection of both weapons is quite violent. The PPD 40 also had a wooden foregrip to protect the operator’s hand from an overheated barrel shroud.

In 1940 81,118 PPD 1940 submachine guns were manufactured. An additional 5,868 PPD 1940’s were produced in 1941 before the weapon was superseded by the PPSh 1941 submachine gun. While many Soviet bloc countries eventually manufactured the PPSh 1941 submachine guns, the PPD series were only manufactured in Russia.

Although transferable Russian PPD 1940 submachine guns are somewhat rare today, they are seen offered for sale from time to time. Even rarer are the original PPD 40 71-round drum magazines that are exclusive to the weapon. However, the inexpensive, and currently plentiful PPSh drums, can be readily adapted for the PPD 40. The conversion can be very easily accomplished by using a Dremel or similar tool and simply cutting a small notch in the rear of the left feed lip, to clear the ejector that is riveted inside the receiver. The 35-round PPSh stick magazines will also work in the PPD 40 when the left feed lip is similarly altered.

The drum magazines while fun to empty are, like most drum magazines, a pain to load. The PPD/PPSh drum must be wound before the cartridges are placed into it. To load push the button in the back of the drum housing, and at the same time push the latch on the front cover downward, and remove the cover. Now wind the rotor counter-clockwise until the follower is at the end of the cartridge track. The cartridges can now be placed into the track. After all 71 rounds are placed into the drum, replace the cover. Depress the button on the rear of the drum to place tension on the cartridges, and allow the retaining latch to be re-secured. The drum is now ready for use. Caution must be used while placing the cartridges into the drum, because of the spring tension on the follower. If the tension is inadvertently released while the drum is being loaded, the unwinding mechanism could cause some serious damage to your fingers.

Field-stripping of the PPD weapon is very basic and easy. First remove the magazine and visually inspect the weapon to insure that it is not loaded. Then simply unscrew the cap on the rear of the receiver and remove the recoil spring and bolt. If the receiver end cap is too tight, it is often necessary to remove the stock in order to get a sufficient grip on the cap that will allow you to remove it. To remove the stock, take out the two screws in the trigger guard. Rotate the fire-select lever so that the lever is facing outward, to allow the trigger guard to be removed. Turn the lever against the stock and remove the stock from the receiver. This will enable the rear receiver cap to be easily removed from the receiver.

The PPSh 1941 (Pistole Pulemyot Shpagin) SMG design that replaced the PPD series in 1941 was made from simple sheet metal stampings and could be manufactured very efficiently with a minimum of machine tools, and skilled labor. The wide scale use of the PPSh 41 in WWII eclipsed all earlier designs.

While the Russians had first shunned the submachine gun, they became the largest users of the weapons during WWII, with over six million issued. The submachine gun is often credited with having a great impact on repealing the German invasion of the Russian homeland in 1941-44. By the war’s end in 1945, images of triumphant Russian soldiers carrying submachine guns in Berlin became a lasting symbol of victory for the Russians.

Gemtech’s Mossad suppressor blends gracefully with the lines and proportions of the Uzi. Part of the reason is that the rear of the can duplicates the design of the Uzi’s barrel nut, so installation couldn’t be easier or more positive: simply remove the barrel nut and replace it with the sound suppressor. Part of the reason is that the suppressor extends back over the barrel to the receiver, which minimizes overall system length. And part of the reason is that the can is so light that it neither inhibits the speed of target acquisition nor adds to shooter fatigue. Clearly, such graceful integration with the weapon has significant functional as well as aesthetic merit.

Manufactured from precision CNC machined high tensile strength aluminum alloys, the Mossad has an overall length of 11.5 inches, a diameter of 1.38 inches, and a weight of just 12.5 ounces. Mounting the suppressor is very quick and requires no modification of the weapon. Simply remove the barrel nut and replace with the suppressor, which is locked into place by the spring-loaded barrel nut retention latch that engages the slanted teeth on the rear of the suppressor mount. This makes the Gemtech suppressors much safer to use than cans that simply screw onto a threaded barrel.

Performance

I tested the performance of Gemtech’s Mossad suppressor on a Group Industries clone of the Uzi submachine gun fitted with an FN bolt, using a variety of Black Hills Ammunition including 115 grain RN FMJ, 147 grain flat point FMJ subsonic, and a new specially designed submachine gun subsonic round that features a 147 grain round nose FMJ projectile. The standard 9x19mm subsonic round found in the Black Hills catalog features a flat point projectile with velocity optimized for pistols. This makes perfect sense because the vast majority of customers buying 147 grain ammo are agencies using the FMJ subsonic round as an affordable, ballistically equivalent training load to 147 grain hollowpoint duty ammo used in their pistols. This FP ammo is not desirable for use in submachine guns for several reasons. Since submachine guns have greater barrel lengths than pistols, conventional Black Hills subsonic ammo frequently generates a loud ballistic crack in subguns, negating the value of adding a silencer to the weapon if stealth is the goal. Furthermore, FP or HP ammo doesn’t feed reliably in weapons that feed like Ingrams and Uzis because of the abrupt feed ramps found in these submachine guns.

The new subgun ammo from Black Hills features a round nose for reliable feeding and a slower velocity for effective suppression in submachine guns over a more practical range of temperatures and barrel lengths. This new RN subsonic is not found in Black Hills literature but is being made available as a special service, and must be ordered directly from Jeff Hoffman, the president of Black Hills Ammunition. It is in stock as this was being written. This 147 grain RN FMJ ammo is highly recommended for all silenced submachine guns. (Contact Jeff Hoffman, Black Hills Ammunition, Inc., Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 3090, Rapid City, SD 57709-3090; phone 605-348-5150; fax 605-348-9827; URL http://www.black-hills.com).

I used a single lot of G&L 147 grain FMJ subsonic ammo for benchmark sound testing for much of the 1990s. It proved ideally suited for use in suppressed submachine guns in terms of projectile velocity, accuracy, reliable weapon function, and gracefulness when fired with a sound suppressor. This G&L round also works well in pistols. G&L ammunition is no longer available. Therefore, I began using the new Black Hills 147 grain RN FMJ as my subsonic 9x19mm reference standard when it became available in 1999. So that we all can get a feel for comparing recent with older research, this study provides comparative data using both the G&L and Black Hills subsonic 9x19mm ammo. Finally, I tested the Mossad with Israeli Samson 158 grain subsonic ammunition, which is used by the Brits for CT (counter-terrorist) operations and is imported into the States by Cole Distributing, Inc. (Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 50271, Bowling Green, Kentucky 42102; phone 270-622-3569; fax 270-622-3757; URL http://www.cole-distributing.com/).

The first thing that impressed me during the course of the testing was that the Mossad eliminated muzzle flash and muzzle climb, and it cut felt recoil in half. Furthermore, I was gratified that the suppressor never loosened during the course of the testing, unlike some suppressors that I’ve screwed directly onto threaded Uzi barrels. I was quite pleased with the satisfying sound signatures produced by the Mossad with both vintage G&L subsonic as well as the new 147 grain RN FMJ submachine gun round from Black Hills Ammunition. I was flabbergasted when I used the formidable 158 grain +P+ Samson subsonic round, for I would never have expected this much suppression from a compact muzzle can on an open-bolt gun. Clearly the advanced baffle design likes the ultra-fast powder of the Samson fodder, for this round produced far and away the quietest sound signatures (see Table 1) and the best net sound reduction (see Table 2). In fact, using the powerful Samson fodder made the Uzi with Mossad quieter than the venerable MP5SD. It is safe to say that this is outstanding performance.

Why was the Gemtech silencer the quietest with the most powerful round? The answer relates to the nature of the silencer’s design. The internal baffle structures use asymmetric surfaces to direct gas flow away from the central core of the silencer and other structures to increase turbulence. All of this is pressure driven. The higher velocity gases produced by the Samson round actually enable the structures inside the Mossad to work more efficiently.

It is also noteworthy that the Mossad dropped the SPL of supersonic ammo to well below the international safety limit of 140 dB, above which hearing damage is likely when a person is subjected to impulse sound while not wearing a hearing protection device. There are certain tactical applications, such as the anticipation of opponents wearing aramid fiber body armor, where the more slender supersonic projectiles make more tactical sense than subsonic rounds.

Final Thoughts

All of these numbers are interesting, but what do they mean in the real world? In order to see just how stealthy Gemtech’s Mossad could be in the real world, I fired a pair of Samson 158 grain FMJ rounds into the ground followed by a pair of BH 147 grain RN FMJ rounds with the selector set to R for repetition (i.e., semiautomatic), while my wife and teenager were watching TV inside a house of standard frame construction. I was three armspans outside of the back door, and they were three armspans inside. Neither lady heard a thing, so I’d say that the Mossad is sufficiently stealthy for missions faced by the armed professional in the real world or by the private individual who is simply interested in some sport shooting without disturbing the neighbors.

Gemtech’s Mossad suppressor blends gracefully with the lines and proportions of the Uzi because it was designed expressly for this weapon. Its very light weight enables rapid target acquisition. The sophisticated baffle stack delivers plenty of sound suppression and outstanding service life. By selecting the right ammunition, the Mossad can make the open-bolt Uzi quieter than HK’s impressive closed-bolt MP5SD, while delivering a much heavier projectile at a much greater velocity. The Mossad virtually eliminates muzzle flash and climb, and cuts felt recoil in half. This sophisticated suite of outstanding features makes the Uzi an effective and stealthy tool for the modern tactical and sporting environments. I can recommend Gemtech’s Mossad sound suppressor with enthusiasm.

For more information on suppressors, contact Gemtech (Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 140618, Boise, ID 83714-0618; phone 208-939-7222; fax 208-939-7804; URL http://www.gem-tech.com).