by Pierangelo Tendas

From 1969 to 1988, Italy bore the brunt of the wave of political terrorism that hit Europe as a whole: bombings, shootings, kidnappings, robberies, and attacks against law enforcement, politicians, and magistrates by both extreme left-wing and extreme right-wing militant armed groups ended up killing over 400 people and wounding well over 1000. On top of this, the 1970s saw the rise of international terrorism, particularly by radical Middle Eastern groups; from 1973 to 1989, attacks by Palestinian terrorists against Italy and Italian assets all through the world killed 66 people and wounded more than 130.

Just like their counterparts more or less all over the world, the Italian firearms industry went on to study numerous solutions that could integrate the lessons learned from both the experience of law enforcement operators and that of the militaries in the recent conflicts around the globe – last but not least, the American experience in Vietnam – into practical solutions to tackle this kind of threat. Some would be more commercially successful than others, although, as in many other cases, more often than not, the most interesting products would be the brainchild of this or that underdog.

Headquartered in the city of Turin, the Società Italiana Tecnologie Speciali S.p.A. company (“Italian Company for Special Technologies, Ltd.”), best known by the acronym SITES, was established and led by two engineers – Roberto Teppa and Claudio Gritti, with a third engineer, Franco Manassero, acting as the CEO – spent some time evaluating the pros and cons of existing firearms in an attempt to create what would be the best all-round sub-machine gun for all law enforcement uses… from patrol (most law enforcement back in the day, and still today, relying on SMGs as their patrol long guns in lieu of the shotguns and semi-automatic carbines more popular in the U.S.) to close protection, from special operations to counter-insurgency.

The first iteration of their project, called the Spectre Model 2, was first showcased in 1983 and began production in 1985. By 1988, a few modifications concerning the manufacturing specs of certain components were implemented; the changes are detailed in our article by J.M. Ramos published on SAR V4N8 (May 2001), Volume 4. The result, dubbed the Model 4 – or SITES Spectre M4 for short – was manufactured by SITES from 1988 to 1998, with some variants still being assembled as late as in 2001.

Italian Innovation

In the highly competitive field of small arms manufacturing of the 1980s, the SITES Spectre was a blend of tradition and innovation. Built around a stamped steel receiver, with a trigger group assembly manufactured out of the same materials and very little synthetic components outside of the pistol grip and its foregrip, the Spectre wasn’t a featherweight by a long shot, weighing in at 2.9 kilograms (about 6.4 pounds) when empty.

What made it absolutely unique was its technical layout. Teppa and Gritti wanted the SITES Spectre to be ready to deploy and operate at a moment’s notice, without sacrificing performance, reliability, or safety. As strange as it seems, they did so by doing without a manual safety. The SITES Spectre was the world’s first sub-machine gun – and as of today, it remains the only mass-produced SMG – to employ a SA/DA trigger with no external safety, replaced by a decocker.

A half-moon selector, located right above the trigger guard on both sides and activated by the shooter’s index finger, only provided two positions – “S” for semi-automatic, and “F” for full-automatic. An ambidextrous lever located at thumb reach over the pistol grip could be activated to decock the gun, requiring a deliberate, long trigger pull to fire off the first shot, with all subsequent shots being fired in single-action. This made accidental or negligent discharges of the SITES Spectre basically impossible while still keeping the gun always ready for action.

The SITES Spectre was a hammer-fired, delayed-blowback, closed bolt design, with a peculiar two-part bolt and a dual recoil spring. When a round is chambered, the front portion of the bolt, which also houses the firing pin and the extractor, moves forward while the rear portion remains locked back, engaged to the sear, and acts as a hammer, to be released on the striker when the trigger is pulled. Both components travel rearwards together after the SMG is fired, but once the empty case is extracted and ejected, only the front portion slams back forward, loading a fresh round in chamber while the rear portion engages the sear and stays locked back until the trigger is pulled again. The timing of the interaction between these two separate masses creates the opening delay that makes the SITES Spectre safe for use in all calibers it was built for – but we’ll talk about those later.

Additionally, the two-part bolt was advertised as a “forced convection” device, a safety feature against overheating: the alternate movement of the two components would pump air around the chamber and the barrel, reducing the temperature of the system during sustained fire and thus the danger of a cook-off. That may seem redundant – a closed-bolt firearm is definitely more prone to cook-off than an open-bolt firearm, but a sub-machine gun is hardly the kind of weapon that will likely experience a cook-off – but, if anything, the bolt design also had the advantage of reducing moving masses at any given time, thus making the SITES Spectre extremely stable and controllable, with very low felt recoil and muzzle climb, and reliable even with high or very high-pressure ammunition (it was rated for 9mm Luger up to +P+ by the Italian military and government entities that procured it.)

Readily Ambidextrous, Suppressor-ready

Aside from the previously mentioned ambidextrous selector and decocker, the only other controls on the SITES Spectre are the non-reciprocating charging handle and the magazine release catch.

The former is located on top of the receiver and consists of a flat polymer lever with two serrated studs on both sides. An improvement from the first-iteration Model 2 (which featured an UZI-style cocking knob), the charging handle of the SITES Spectre M4 can be operated by the shooter’s index finger and thumb, with either hand, and doesn’t interfere with the sighting plan, nor with the position of the buttstock.

The magazine release is a flat button located within the trigger guard, just behind the magazine well, and by pushing it with their trigger finger, the shooter releases the hook that retains the magazine in place. Both controls can be operated by left-handed or right-handed shooters, making the SITES Spectre one of the very first fully ambidextrous firearms of modern times.

The SITES Spectre M4 fed through proprietary quad-stack, single-feed magazines manufactured out of sheet metal, inspired (at least in concept, if not officially) by the Finnish Suomi KP/31 “coffin” mags, and offered in two capacities – 30 and 50 rounds. The 30-round magazine was as tall as a pack of cigarettes, while the 50-round mag was as long as a standard 30- or 32-round mag used by any other SMG of the time. Reduced masses made the SITES Spectre more easily concealable – a plus for law enforcement operators working close protection details – while still packing enough ammunition to engage in sudden, high-intensity firefights and get the upper hand.

The SITES Spectre was fitted from factory with a 13 cm (5.11-inch) barrel, with a rather unusual sinusoidal rifling; similar in concept to the Sabatti MRR Multi-Radial Rifling pattern of modern manufacture, the SITES Spectre’s sinusoidal rifling consisted essentially of polygon rifling with softer edges between lands and grooves, which the bullet was thus allowed to fill better, acting as a gas seal as it traveled through the barrel, allowing very little (if any) gas to escape around the lands and maximizing propulsion efficiency.

Upon request, the SITES Spectre M4 could be obtained with a slightly longer, threaded barrel that would take a purpose-built silencer, manufactured entirely out of steel and dubbed the EM-F2. The sinusoidal rifling and the “gas seal effect” it achieved made the EM-F2 suppressor particularly effective, even with supersonic loads.

The SITES Spectre came from factory with an up-folding sheet metal stock, held in the closed position by a metal clamp that engaged the top ventilation holes of the barrel shroud and was thus very easy to deploy and not nearly as uncomfortable as other sheet metal stocks of sub-machine guns from the same era. The stock was cut on top – a reminiscence of the Model 2 pre-production model, where the stock had to have clearance for the UZI-style cocking knob – and even when closed, provides unobstructed view of the sights, specifically a fixed polymer rear sight and an elevation-adjustable front post, zeroed from factory for a 50-meter range (about 164 feet).

The SITES Spectre M4 strips very easily: with the chamber clear, hammer down, and magazine removed, the user only needs to open the stock and pull out the passing pin that integrates the rear sling swivel – which can be installed to the rear or left side, by the way – in order to remove the receiver end cap with the recoil springs and guide rods and slide the two-part bolt out. At this point, the entire trigger group assembly is removed from the bottom of the receiver. Additional stripping includes the removal of the barrel, which requires the use of a hex key to loosen the barrel retaining block nut.

Multicaliber… But Not Exactly

The SITES Spectre M4 was initially advertised as being available in three calibers: 9mm Luger, 45 ACP, and later, 40 Smith & Wesson. In reality, virtually all the select-fire Spectres still in existence are in 9mm Luger, and their recorded cyclic rate in full-automatic fire ranges between 850 and 900 rounds per minute, with the utmost level of reliability; the issues with the selector experienced by a well-known Guntuber with a full-automatic SITES Spectre in early August this year are to be attributed to the wear and tear and lack of maintenance of the individual firearm being tested rather than to inherent engineering or manufacturing issues.

The ergonomics of the SITES Spectre M4 were very reminiscent of those of the Beretta PM-12S, Italy’s main service sub-machine gun of the day. The Spectre might have been considered significantly superior due to the closed bolt operation and ambidextrous capabilities, but its lack of widespread acceptance and adoption among Italian government, military and law enforcement customers came down to the Italian authorities’ long-rooted reluctance in subjecting their personnel to extensive retraining. This, and in the fact that SITES was, after all, a small company, incapable of meeting the production volumes that a major government contract would entail.

This said, certain special units within the Italian military and law enforcement communities did procure significant quantities of the SITES Spectre M4, which was deployed as late as during the Italian participation to ISAF and the circa 2015 Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. Confirmed international customers include Switzerland, France, and in the early 1990s, the South African Defence Forces and the governments of the freshly independent Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

SITES also manufactured three semi-automatic variants of the Spectre M4 for international commercial sales to civilian shooters and private security personnel, dubbed respectively the “Falcon,” the “Spectre HC,” and the “Ranger.”

The SITES Falcon was the civilian version of the Spectre M4 as sold in Italy; chambered in 9×21 IMI but also available in 40 Smith & Wesson and 45 HP (45 ACP would remain banned for civilians in Italy until the year 2000 and 9mm Luger wouldn’t be made legal until the year 2022), the Falcon was an outright Spectre M4, with the lack of select-fire capabilities but retaining the original foregrip and upfolding sheet metal stock.

The Spectre HC was the version for the U.S. civilian market, available in 9mm Luger, 40 Smith & Wesson, and 45 ACP, and imported first by FIE Inc. of Hialeah, FL then by American Arms, Inc. of Garden Grove, CA.

In order to comply with the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act, the Spectre HC came equipped with a manual safety located where the fire selector on the Spectre M4 would be, and of course didn’t feature either the upfolding stock and the foregrip of the original, which largely reduced its ergonomics. The Spectre HC was banned by name by the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and by similar state laws passed around the same time, in effect killing the presence of the SITES Spectre on the U.S. market.

Last, the SITES Ranger was a pistol-caliber carbine version for the Italian civilian market; manufactured in a handful of samples in 9×18mm Police, then solely in 9×21 IMI, the SITES Ranger was essentially the same as the Falcon, only with a slightly longer, unthreaded barrel. In order to comply with the Italian laws of the time, the stock of the SITES Ranger was locked in the open position and the 30-round magazine was pinned to a maximum capacity of 10 rounds (the same as the SITES Falcon, pistol, its magazine was similarly pinned to 15 rounds); but by “pinned” we mean literally, as the company used simple non-rebated passing pins that Italian shooters could, and often did, remove with a simple pin punch, returning the magazines to the original capacity and the stock to full function.

A 16-inch barrel PCC version of the Spectre was advertised briefly on the U.S. market, but, to our knowledge, not many were actually imported. FIE imported approximately 1,500 Spectre HC pistols, all in 9mm Luger, while American Arms imported a gross total of 4,000 samples, over 3,500 of which were in 9mm, only 300 in 40 Smith & Wesson, and less than 100 in 45 ACP.

When SITES closed permanently in 1998, the existing stock of parts for the Spectre M4 and its civilian counterparts was picked up by Claudio Gritti, who moved to Lugano, Switzerland, and established his own company – Greco Sport S.A. – which continued to assemble and sell them until 2001. The legacy of the Spectre M4 lives own, however, with BCM Europearms of Italy still working on the PM4 Storm pistol, which we wrote about on SmallArmsReview.com back in June.

The Standschützen Hellriegel submachine gun could be considered the most notorious “mystery firearm.” Even before it’s infamous inclusion in the videogame “Battlefield 1”, internet sleuths were already looking into the almost non-existent archival material of it, that is, a whopping three photographs.

But what can these photographs tell us about this intriguing weapon? I believe that my colleague Frederick Clifford and I have identified some potentially breaking news about the Hellriegel, and by investigating other leads like the Standschützen members list, we can figure out who might’ve been the inventor, who he was related to, and other potential clues to solve this mystery.

The Who

The title given to this sub-machine gun in the official pictures is “Maschinengewehr des Standschützen Hellriegel” or, in English, Machine Gun made by Standschützen Hellriegel. The Standschützen were a type of regulated militia in the Austrian Alps, any male over seventeen was compelled to join a shooting range and train at least four times per year. Our most likely candidate is Dr. Richard Hellriegel (sometimes spelled Hellriegl). Full name, Richard von Hellriegel zu Rechtenfeld, who served as the medical officer of Standschützenbattalion Kitzbühel. His name is the only “Hellriegel” that has been found in the Standschützen archives, which would mean that he is our only option. Not much is known about Dr. Hellriegel. After the First World War, he became a priest and was arrested by the Gestapo later in World War Two, twice, but never convicted of any crime.

The What

There are very few pictures of the Hellriegel, though they do provide some important details about how this unique SMG worked. First, we have the two “buffer” tubes on the rear of a large receiver which thins out around where the chamber must be located. Second, we have the two types of magazines, one of which is a sort of linked/chute belt system held inside a drum magazine which does not attach to the gun itself, the other is a more conventional stick magazine, which looks to be single fed. The drum magazine seems to have a capacity of around 160 rounds, meanwhile, the box magazine seems to have accommodated 20 rounds. The gun also had a water-cooled jacket, some sort of tube underneath which also served as an ad-hoc front grip.

The photographs also depict some accouterments that went with the gun, there was supposed to be an assistant loader which carried a backpack with the drum magazines inside. Speaking of which, two people are seen in the photographs, one seems to have been a Zugsführer, a rank equivalent to Master Corporal. Sadly, his assistant’s rank isn’t clear, and only appearing in one of the photos. The Zugsführer seems to be wearing a special rig, possibly as a way to carry the drum magazines in the move, something similar being made after the First World War by Heinrich Vollmer.

Unfortunately, since no documents or any other material aside from the Hellriegel photographs exist, all we can do is speculate. That being said, here are two long theories and two short theories I’ve discussed with my colleagues.

Theory 1: The Visini-Fuchs connection

Franz Fuchs has often been referred as the creator of the Steyr P.12/16 machine pistol, however, according to new research done by Josef Mötz and Joschi Schuy in their book “Die Weiterentwicklung der Selbstladepistole II,” this has been proven false. No documents pertaining to the development of the P.12/16 machine pistol mention Fuchs, this possibly being made up by Lothar Sengewitz.

But what if he didn’t make it up? There are reports in old newspapers of the time of a few “Visini-Fuchs” semi-automatic rifles being captured on the Russian front. Looking deeper into this claim, we found a patent from Mr. Friedrich von Visini of a gas-operated semi-automatic rifle submitted in 1913, it features some peculiar design elements, such as two buffer tubes on the rear of the receiver to accommodate two large recoil springs, something very similar to what we find in the Hellriegel photographs. Fuchs co-signed the Visini patent and since he was in the Standschützen, he could’ve easily met with Hellriegel and discussed some plans to modify Visini’s design into a submachine-gun type weapon.

Theory 2: Dating the Hellriegel

It’s been well accepted by now that the Hellriegel dates to 1915, making it one of, if not, the first submachine guns ever developed. However, by analyzing the images in more detail and with some clarification on the writing in the back of one of the photographs, I believe the Hellriegel to be more appropriately dated to at least July of 1918.

To clarify, the Hellriegel has two sets of pictures, the National Library set and the State Archive set, the latter was sent to the War Press and is dated 1918. The other set came from the War Press itself and is the evidence we have for the 1915 date. That being said, the images dispatched to the War Press, and now in the possession of the State Archives, must have come before the National Library set, which disproves the 1915 date of the pictures. Even further, the description on the official ÖNB website claims that the back of the picture reads Okt. 15, not 1915 as it was previously thought.

More evidence that supports this theory is that there were plans for an Austro-Hungarian submachine gun trials occurring at the end of the war, the Schwarzlose SMG (this detail could explain the two different patterns of Schwarzlose SMG that still exist) and the previously “adopted” Sturmpistole M.17 were planned on being tested together in a few different calibers. This could coincide with the Hellriegel submachine gun tests we know of.

Theory 3: How did the left side look?

The only photos we have of the Hellriegel show only the right side of the gun, however, on one of the photos, specifically of the gun laying right-face-up on the table, you can see something on the left side which is propping the gun up slightly, could this be a mirrored bolt handle… or, some sort of safety perhaps?

Theory 4: Caliber

The last and shortest theory is what ammo was used in the Hellriegel. From analyzing the photos, I noticed the very peculiar primer the rounds had. They appear uncharacteristically large compared to other rounds of the era. I ended up landing on the 8mm Roth-Steyr cartridge, which also has a very big primer and the overall dimensions fit the gun well. Plus, it was technically the official “pistol” cartridge of the Austro-Hungarian empire, since they adopted the Roth-Steyr M.7 pistol as their standard sidearm.

How You Can Help

The First World War ended on November 11th, 1918. With that, many restrictions and demilitarization efforts very likely resulted in the destruction of the Hellriegel prototype. However, there is still a lot we can theorize and understand about this unique piece of firearms history.

I propose to you, the reader, that together we can solve these firearm mysteries. If you have any leads or additional information that I did not mention in this article, I urge you to send me an email at sircoutin@gmail.com.

When it comes to weapons and the name “Ingram” is mentioned, one usually thinks of the notorious MAC-10 which is well-known from action movies. But until then it was a long way and much of Ingram’s history is little known. With his early submachine guns, he achieved only moderate success. As well, with the set-up of a production facility in Peru.

As in many countries, surplus military weapons were available at reasonable prices in the United States in the early post-war years. During this time, the entrepreneur and amateur gunmaker Gordon B. Ingram tried to gain a foothold in the competitive arms market with a cost-effective submachine gun. In May 1949, he founded the Police Ordnance Company (POC) based in El Monte, California. As the name implies, the weapons were intended for police forces and other armed state organizations. With production maturity of the first submachine gun, the company relocated to Los Angeles.

Ingram’s “Model 6” looks like an MP Thompson at first glance. That was intentional, because for the potential customers it should be a familiar sight. In terms of production technology, however, the weapon was much simpler, and, thus, priced far below the competition. The housing consists of a steel tube with screwed end cap. The trigger assembly is in a box-shaped sheet metal housing that also forms the magazine well. The only safety option is a recess in the housing into which the handle of the cocked bolt can be hooked. The weapon therefore does not offer any special innovations. It’s blowback-operated and fires from the open bolt, in which the bolt is held fully rearward by the sear when cocked. The shooter can choose between single and fully automatic fire, depending on how far the trigger is pulled. The weapon was offered from 1949 in three configurations: The “Police” version had a wooden foregrip like that of the Thompson 1928 and a barrel with cooling ribs, the “Guard” version, however, a plain wooden forearm and a heavier barrel without cooling ribs. The “Military” version in turn had additional protected sights, eyelets for a carrying sling, and a 10-inch spike-shaped bayonet, which was stored inside the forearm in reversed position when not required. Ingram considered drum magazines to be too complicated, which is why he offered only a box magazine for 30 cartridges.

The Police Ordnance Company was able to sell a larger number of the Model 6 in various designs until 1952. But the big commercial success never came. Even the improved Model 7 with manual fire selector sold badly. Gordon Ingram had actually speculated that the simple design would make his weapons attractive, especially for smaller states with lower budgets. But only the Cuban navy and the Thai army bought a small number of weapons.

Looking for more customers, the POC salesman R.B. Morten established contact with the Peruvian government. After the war, Morten studied at the University of San Marcos and now had good connections with businesspeople and government agencies in Peru. The Peruvian army had great interest in Ingram’s submachine gun. Soon after the presentation of the weapon, the idea of ​​a domestic weapons production came up. The Peruvian government drafted a procurement plan with the military leadership and, after brief negotiations with the Police Ordnance Company, represented by Wilson Sologuren Perez, a contract was signed in 1951: the first 500 weapons were to be manufactured by the POC in Los Angeles. Another 1,500 weapons were then to be made by Fabrica de Armas Los Andes S.A. in the Peruvian port city of Callao. Until then, the POC would get all the necessary tools and machines and import them to Peru. In addition, the POC was responsible for setting up the factory and organizing serial production. Peruvian workers had to be instructed in the operation of the machines and the technique of the weapon’s manufacture. The weapon design corresponded to the Military Model 6 in.45 ACP, but with slight adjustments to the local manufacturing possibilities. The Peruvian National Police first wanted weapons in 9x19mm, but the military’s interests took precedence. According to the contract, one delivered unit included a submachine gun with one 30 round magazine, a woven fabric sling, and a bayonet. The latter was practically unsuitable for a fight, though it may rather have served to intimidate demonstrators and insurgents.

The price per unit for the weapons to be manufactured in Los Angeles was agreed at $100. This included the packaging in wooden transport crates, which were lined with zinc for possible long-term storage in the South American climate. For the weapons to be produced in Callao, the price per unit was 1,000 Peruvian Soles. For mutual protection, an irrevocable letter of credit amounting to 1,500,000 Soles and a term of 12 months was deposited with a Peruvian bank immediately after signing the contract. The first third had to be paid after arrival of all machines at the factory. Within a period of 120 days, serial production should start and after 750 manufactured weapons, the second instalment was to be paid. By the payout of the last installment, the remaining 750 weapons had to be completed. Overall, the deadline for the contract was eight months from the start of series production.

The other points of the contract related to the time afterwards. Thus, the capacity of the factory should be designed for the possibility of at least 1,000 weapon-per-month follow-on production. In addition, the construction of a cartridge factory was planned. The Police Ordnance Company had to advise on this project from planning to commissioning. The Peruvian government reserved the right to export the weapons and ammunition produced in Peru to any other country except the directly neighboring countries of Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia, and Chile.

One interesting aspect is security: the Peruvian government was responsible for protecting the entire factory, administrative buildings, test shooting range, and other facilities. The costs of police and possible military operations were not allowed to be charged to the Police Ordnance Company. In case of war, the POC had to concentrate fully on the production of submachine guns and neglect all minor work.

Gordon Ingram personally traveled to Peru and spent over a year completing the assignment. The U.S.-made weapons were delivered quickly, but then the first problems arose. Ingram had determined the necessary machine requirements, but the import company supplied machines that partly did not correspond to its description. For example, instead of the versatile, easy to maintain sine bar rifling machine, a far less suitable broaching machine was used, whose broaches, after wear or breakage, could only be obtained at a high price from a particular company in the United States. And Morten’s Peruvian partner in Lima suddenly confronted him with an unjustified $5,000 sales commission claim. The case came to court in Los Angeles and after a short negotiation was decided in favor of the POC. But the loser fought back – he used a feud between Peruvian President Manuel Odría and the Minister of War to influence relations against the Police Ordnance Company. Shortly before the completion of the last run of weapons, Ingram received a letter out of the blue telling him that he was not going to be paid for his last month’s work. A reason was not mentioned. But Ingram sensed that serious trouble was brewing and left Peru shortly thereafter. The contractually guaranteed last instalment was never paid.

Gordon Ingram had not become rich through this deal. Also, sales in the U.S. continued to be very low. At the end of November 1954, the Police Ordnance Company went out of business. A former colleague, John Arnold, bought (in cooperation with the National Ordnance company) all the machinery and the weapon parts in stock. He immediately traveled to Peru and visited the factory Los Andes. He probably hoped for new business relationships, but nothing came of it. Irritated by his unexpected appearance, the police told him to leave the country immediately or he risked arrest. This concluded the last chapter of Ingram’s adventure in Peru.

Overall, the Fabrica de Armas Los Andes produced about 8,000 submachine guns in .45 ACP. The 9mm version requested by the police never went into production in Peru. All weapons show the Peruvian crest behind the ejection port on the top of the receiver and differ in some details from the American model. While the Model 6 from U.S. production is available on the collector’s market today, the Peruvian model is quite a rarity.

Ingram Model 6 Technical Data:

The Aussies have their own way of doing things and Army Private Evelyn Ernest Owen’s clever improvement over the cheap and crude but mostly serviceable STEN submachine gun is definitely a case in point.

In order to encourage SAR’s readers to do further research, what’s presented here is a selection of archive photos depicting a few highlights of the simple, reliable and effective Owen Machine Carbine’s distinguished service with Australian forces from 1942 into the 1960s.

The Owen was developed and manufactured in Australia and is distributed throughout Southeast Asia. It is unusual in that it has a quick-detachable barrel. The Owen can be found with several different types of buttstocks. This submachine gun is recognized by its top-mounted magazine, prominent barrel lock, and compensator on the muzzle.

Department of the Army Pamphlet 381-10, Weapons And Equipment Recognizing Guide, Southeast Asia, March 1969

18 May 42. A dapper Evelyn Owen (right), the 27-year-old inventor of the Owen Gun, discusses its features with D. West, a sight setter and gun tester at the Lysaght factory where Owen’s invention is being mass produced.

Internal workings of the first production model of Owen’s innovative subgun are revealed in this instructional chart.

18 May 1942. “The various parts of an Owen Gun fit together by simple bayonet catches. Since the guns are precision made, a damaged part may be replaced in a few seconds.”

18 May 42. New South Wales, Australia. With her practiced eye intent on detecting even small flaws, this inspector makes sure a newly manufactured Owen Gun is worthy of rough combat service.

26 April 1945. New Guinea. Private R.F. Gaudry, 2/3 Infantry Battalion, in a forward pit at Kalimboa Village. By then, more than two years after introduction, the Owen has proven to be tough, reliable and effective under the harshest battle conditions.

25 January 1945, Bougainville Island. The Owen’s mechanical and operational simplicity made it well suited for primitive native troops who joined the fight against Japanese invaders. Sergeant R.J. Trott, Armorer of “A” Company, 1^st New Guinea Infantry Battalion, inspecting the barrel assembly of Private Koro’s Owen Gun.

6 May 1944, Queensland. Taking note of the inevitable when soldiers would tape mags together for fast reloading in combat action, Private L.N. Shoemark of the 2/2ND Infantry Battalion demonstrates the new improved double magazine for the Owen Gun. It was tested by the unit and adopted after being modified by Captain Andrew Watson, “C” Company Commander.

10 September 1945, Tarakan Island, Borneo. Major A. J. Anderson, General Services Equipment Field Section, 9^th Division, demonstrating and Owen Gun fitted with a new type of silencer which is to be issued to 2/23RD Infantry Battalion.

14 May 1953. Royal Australian Regiment (3RAR) Private Eddie Wright of Albert Park, Victoria, uses a pull-through to clean the detached barrel of his Owen gun.

November 1966-11. Captain Brian Ledan, 5 Battalion the Royal Australian Regiment (5RAR), pointing to a dent in his Owen sub machine gun made by an enemy bullet during action in Operation Ingham. The sturdy subgun is likely to have sustained the hit without failing.

July 1967 Queensland. “Stand to!” 8 Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment Corporal Les Lindsay is alert with his Lithgow-made F1 sub-machine carbine. About 1500 troops are intensively training before they depart for service in Malaysia later this year. Sporting the now-familiar top mounted magazine, the F1 is a “new and improved” version of the venerable Owen and British Sterling.

11-9-1943, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. The US Ordnance Department found the unusual Australian Owen to be of more than passing interest. Note in the technical photo of the left side of the gun that the selector tab of the semi and full auto sub is rotated down in the full auto position. Credit: US Army Ordnance Training Support Facility

A Brief History of Ingram and MAC

Gordon Bailey Ingram was born in Los Angeles, California on 30 December 1924. Ingram conceived a series of submachine guns that eventually led to his Model 10.

Ingram’s first .45 caliber submachine gun was made in 1946 and was designated the Lightening Model 5. Since there already were M1, M2 and M3 U.S. submachine guns, Ingram started with the designation M5, skipping M4 in case the Ordnance Department was planning to introduce another weapon.

During 1949, the somewhat successful Ingram Model 6 was introduced. Ingram also designed submachine guns, Models 7, 8, and 9, of which few were built. They were all similar in design to his Model 6.

In 1964, Gordon Ingram began to concentrate on a basic inexpensive weapon aimed primarily at the third-world market. While working at the Erquiaga Arms Company in California, Ingram made the first prototype of his Model 10 submachine gun. The M10 was radically different from any of Ingram’s previous designs. The Model 10 was designed to produce a high volume of fire at close range, and does so quite reliably.  

After leaving the Erquiaga Arms Company, Gordon Ingram attempted to find a major arms company to manufacture and market his Model 10 submachine gun. Ingram contacted over twenty domestic and foreign arms companies; all declined his offer.

Mitchell L. WerBell III’s primary business was designing and manufacturing sound suppressors. When WerBell learned of Ingram’s Model 10 submachine gun, he realized the compact weapon, fitted with one of his SIONICS suppressors, would be perfect as a concealable weapon with plenty of firepower.

After a deal was struck between WerBell and Ingram, the name of the company was changed from SIONICS to the Military Armament Corporation. In order to expand business operations further, the under-financed MAC organization was taken over by Quantum Ordnance Bankers Inc. Quantum was a group of investors that pumped millions of dollars into the company.

Shortly after the Quantum takeover of MAC, a bitter struggle broke out over policies, procedures, and operations. WerBell and Ingram were both forced out of the company. Quantum management then permanently changed the name of the Ingram submachine gun, to which they held all rights, to the MAC submachine gun (Military Armament Corporation). The Model 10 and Model 11 (renamed as “M10” and “M11”) receivers with Ingram’s name on them were pulled from the production line and placed in storage. Receiver production continued without the Ingram name, which was replaced by the name “MAC” on all M10 and M11 submachine guns. All weapon manuals, literature and advertising had the Ingram name replaced with MAC.

Company mismanagement and proposed government contracts that never materialized eventually forced the Military Armament Corporation into bankruptcy during 1975. The assets of MAC were auctioned off in June of 1976. Gordon Ingram passed away on November 4, 2004, with little personal or financial success from his submachine gun efforts.

The MAC Lives On…

Today, the Ingram Model 10, or MAC-10 as it’s more popularly called, is a very well-known submachine gun. The Model 10 and its variants have been produced under a number of names including the original Military Armament Corporation (Georgia), RPB Industries, Inc. SWD Incorporated, Military Armament Corporation (Texas), Jersey Arms Works and by Section Five LTD of Great Britain.

The MAC Models 10 and 11, and SWD’s M11/Nine, had always been at the lower end of the popularity scale with NFA enthusiasts. Their fast cyclic rate, while exhilarating, resulted in poor accuracy and tedious magazine loading. Over the years there have been several attempts by companies and individuals to tame the MAC’s cyclic rate and make them more ergonomic.   

The Inspiration

Organized submachine gun competitions, originated around the 1970s. Early contests were largely dominated by those wielding Thompsons, which soon gave way when HK 94 to MP5 submachine gun conversions became available. The MP5 soon became the submachine gun of choice for serious competitors. One disadvantage to the MP5 was their high price.

As in many endeavors, those with the best (read ‘expensive’) equipment usually prevail. However, Americans love an underdog, which what the MAC-type series of guns would certainly qualify as when attempting to compete with MP5 submachine guns in a contest environment. This is probably the mindset that began the evolution of MAC-type guns to be competitive. The first known transformation into a competition weapon was of an SWD M11/Nine, and was by individuals from the Triad Action Shooter’s Klub or TASK. Their earliest modifications included a wooden buttstock, a muzzle brake, and a red-dot sight.

The original TASK M11/Nine design continued to evolve becoming more ergonomic and reducing the cyclic rate to approximately 500-550 rounds per minute. In capable hands, with these modifications, the underdog M11/Nine was able to record times that could compete with, and often beat, the MP5, M16/9mm and UZIs in the Modern and Open division events. The (relatively) inexpensive MAC-type submachine guns modified for competition opened up participation in the matches for those who could not afford an expensive weapon to be competitive.      

Enter Lage Manufacturing LLC

Richard Lage bought his first machine gun, a SWD M11/Nine in 2000. After shooting it for less than a year, the novelty wore off and he wanted to find a way to slow it down. It wasn’t long until Mr. Lage decided to convert his M11/Nine to the very popular TASK Slow Fire configuration, he made some improvements and created the Lage MAX-11/9 for the TASK conversion. There were only 22 of the MAX-11/9 upper receivers produced.

Mr. Lage’s efforts continued, resulting in a very successful line of upper receivers and accessories under the Lage Manufacturing brand, all designed to reduce the M10, M11 and SWD’s M11/Nine submachine gun’s cyclic rate and improve their ergonomics, some models were configured to use the 71-round Suomi drum magazines.

The Latest and Greatest

After the success of his line of upper receivers, Richard Lage had a number of requests for a rifle caliber upper receiver for the MACs. Retaining the recoil of the .223/5.56 round in a short MAC receiver was a challenge. Such a conversion had been attempted before by Alliance Armament with their 556 S.A.B.R.E. The unit was heavy, bulky and it did not sell very well. Before long the S.A.B.R.E. upper was dropped from production.

Lage was hesitant to embark on such a project, believing that after a labor-intensive development process there was a possibility that the BATF would not approve it. In addition, Richard was basically a subgun guy and wasn’t excited about a rifle caliber MAC. A customer and MAC enthusiast by the name of Mike Burrows had designed a .223 upper receiver for the M11/Nine. He offered it to Lage to develop and put in production, in exchange for four production upper receivers. With the initial groundwork done by Mr. Burrows, Richard submitted the prototype to BATF for approval, if approved, he could start refining the upper for production. BATF approved the upper receiver for the M11/Nine in 90 days. However, the MAX-11A1/15 and MAX-10/15 was submitted in July of 2019 and wasn’t approved until December 2021!

Initially, an AR spring and buffer in the buttstock of the conversion was used to handle the recoil of the 5.56mm cartridge. This was called the external AR Recoil Mechanism (ARRM). This required drilling a hole in the back of the receiver to allow a rod from the bolt carrier to push on the buffer and spring assembly in the stock. Many potential customers were reluctant to modify an expensive registered receiver, thus the concept was not well received and dropped from production. Lage also developed an upper with a completely self-contained recoil mechanism inside of the receiver. This Internal Recoil Mechanism (IRM) did not require any alterations to the receiver. Both have features that are covered in U.S. Patent 10,794,647 B2.

The Lage .223/5.56 conversions are designated as; the MAX-11/15 for the M11/Nine, MAX-M11A1/15 for the M11/.380, and the MAX-10/15 for the 9mm and .45 Model 10. The handguard of the upper receiver conversion is made of 7075 black anodized aluminum 20-inches in length, with a Picatinny rail on top for mounting optics, and M-LOK mounting points on the sides. The system uses standard AR magazines. The barrel is 10.5-inches in length, chambered for 5.56 x 45mm/.223 ammunition. Rifling twist is 1:7, muzzle threads are 1/2-28 with a M16A1 style flash suppressor. An Odin Works adjustable gas block is installed on the barrel to allow the gas system to be tuned for specific ammunition. A non-reciprocating charging handle is located on the left side. A shell deflector is provided for left-handed shooters. At the rear of the upper is a rubber gas seal to keep blowback gas away from the operator’s face when firing with a sound suppressor. The Lage system fires from an open-bolt and allows both full-auto and semi-auto operation. The cyclic rate is approximately 790-950 RPM. Weight of a MAX-10/15 mounted on a MAC 10 receiver with buttstock and loaded 30-round magazine is 9 pounds, 7 ounces.

The upper is not considered a firearm, so no license is required to purchase one. They are for submachine guns only and will not convert a semi-auto MAC to full-auto.

What would Gordon Ingram think of Lage’s conversions? I think he would be impressed.

Resources

• “The MAC Man: Gordon B. Ingram and His Submachine Guns” available from Chipotle Publishing LLC.
• Lage Manufacturing, LLC
• Special thanks to Richard Lage for his contributions to this article.

Despite Its High Cost, Millions Were Made for the U.S. and the Allies in WWII

The Thompson submachine gun was conceived by U.S. Army General John Thompson as a weapon to assault and clear out enemy trenches during World War I. Thompson formed the Auto-Ordnance Corporation to develop his submachine gun. World War I ended before the weapon went into production. After the post-war design was finalized, Auto-Ordnance, which had no facilities for mass production, subcontracted with Colt to manufacture the Thompson submachine gun. A total of 15,000 Thompson submachine guns were produced by Colt from 1921 to 1922. Sales were very disappointing; for all intents and purposes the concept was a failure though criminals of the day recognized the Thompson’s value. Police departments began to purchase Thompsons just so they would not be outgunned by gangsters. Many gangland shootings made the headlines in all the newspapers; the Thompson submachine gun was getting a very tainted reputation.

By early 1939 when it appeared World War II was imminent, the Thompson submachine gun was nearly 20 years old. An entrepreneur by the name of Russell Maguire sensed that there would be a need for weapons when war came. Through some dubious tactics, Mr. Maguire was able to gain controlling interest in the floundering Auto-Ordnance Corporation.

World War II was a more fluid conflict than World War I had been. It would be a war where the submachine gun would play a significant role. Despite the design being over 20 years old, it was the only proven weapon that could be fielded quickly. However, once again Auto-Ordnance had no manufacturing capabilities. A forward-thinking Russell Maguire contracted with the Savage Arms Company to manufacture the Thompson for Auto-Ordnance. The first Thompsons made by Savage were similar to those made by Colt. Savage delivered the first completed guns to Auto-Ordnance in April 1940. Savage also manufactured many parts to supply Auto-Ordnance’s own factory in Bridgeport, Connecticut, that began manufacturing the M1928A1 model in August 1941.

The British Army, despite their resistance to what they referred to as “gangster guns,” was one of the first customers to order Thompsons. At this point, the United States had not yet entered the war. The United States was forced to enter World War II after the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The U.S. Army began quickly growing, and weapons were needed to arm soldiers and Marines.

The U.S. government had on several occasions voiced concern over the .45 caliber submachine gun’s high price, which was costing the government the same as a Browning belt-fed machine gun. Savage and Auto-Ordnance were both aware that the Ordnance Department was seeking a less expensive submachine gun to replace the Thompson.

In November 1941, the engineering staff at Savage began conducting a study of how the M1928A1 model Thompson could be simplified. The engineers were looking for ways to decrease cost and increase production. Consuming much of the manufacturing effort was the receiver, more specifically, the rails inside of the receiver that the bronze Blish lock traveled on. The three-piece bolt/lock/actuator of the 1928 model was also labor intensive to manufacture. The engineers at Savage doubted that the locking device was necessary.

A Less Complex Submachine Gun

In late February 1942, a “simplified” prototype Thompson submachine gun conceived by Savage was ready to be submitted to the Ordnance Department for testing. The bolt assembly was a very simple rectangular block of steel. This allowed the receiver to be redesigned for easier manufacture and its width reduced. The inside of the receiver simply had a rectangular channel milled into it to accommodate the bolt. The bolt had been redesigned with two sear notches. This allowed the weapon’s safety lever to be engaged when the bolt was in the forward position on an empty chamber. Since drum-type magazines had proven unsuitable for military use, the new receivers eliminated the lateral slots on the sides of the magazine well for accommodating them.

Savage shipped the new weapon to Russell Maguire at the Auto-Ordnance Corporation headquarters. The Savage Corporation told Auto-Ordnance that it was submitting the redesigned Thompson, “Without any claims for compensation, reimbursement, royalty or patent interest.” The Auto-Ordnance engineering staff examined the new design and then submitted it to the Ordnance Department in March 1942. The new Thompson was sent to Aberdeen Proving Ground for testing and evaluation. After a few government recommended alterations to the prototype were made, the new Thompson was recommended for adoption as “Submachine Gun, Caliber .45 M1” on March 24, 1942.

The pilot rod for the recoil spring was simplified for easier manufacture and was held in place by a new type buffer. The M1’s pilot rod was made longer than those for the 1928 design to completely contain the spring. The M1’s pilot rod and buffer lessened the possibility of damaging the recoil spring during assembly and disassembly; a problem often encountered with the 1928 models.

The M1 featured a smooth barrel without the radial cooling fins or a threaded muzzle for a compensator. The rear sight installed on early production M1 Thompsons was the same simple unprotected “L” type. This design proved to be easily damaged and was replaced by a similar sight but with protective side “ears.”

By July 1942, Savage began delivery of the first new Thompson model, now designated as the M1 Submachine Gun. The Auto-Ordnance Bridgeport and Savage Arms factories both began production of the Thompson M1 model in July 1942. However, due to many technical problems experienced by the Bridgeport factory with the change over from the M1928A1 model, the actual manufacture of their M1s was delayed by several months.

While in July 1942, Savage had turned out 48,000 guns, Auto-Ordnance was struggling to meet its scheduled production mark. Contributing to the production delays were problems in deliveries of materials, equipment and tooling authorized by the government for M1 production.

After the M1 production finally commenced at Auto-Ordnance’s Bridgeport plant, more problems were encountered. The Springfield Ordnance District refused to accept any of the Auto-Ordnance Bridgeport-manufactured M1s because of the increase in their full-auto cyclic rate over the M1928A1 model. Officials from Washington, the district ordnance office and Auto-Ordnance engineers conducted studies and tests, all failing to provide a correction for the condition. Finally, on December 9, 1942, official notice from the Ordnance Department in Washington gave the district permission to waive the rate-of-fire requirement and accept the Bridgeport M1 guns. In the interim, the M1 Thompsons being produced at Savage were being accepted in large quantities by the Rochester Ordnance District without any problems.

The M1A1 Model

The Savage Arms Company continued attempts to further simplify the design by experimenting with a fixed firing pin model. The prototype was originally fitted with an M1 type bolt with a firing pin fixed in an extended or “in battery” position. The firing pin, spring, hammer and hammer pin were omitted. Later the “fixed” separate firing pin was eliminated and replaced by a fixed “firing pin” machined onto the bolt face.

The Springfield Ordnance District was notified that manufacture of a fixed firing pin bolt for use in the M1 submachine gun was authorized. In order to distinguish between submachine guns equipped with separate firing pins and fixed firing pins, the submachine guns fitted with the fixed firing pin would be designated as “Gun, Submachine, Caliber .45, Thompson M1A1” (A1= Alteration 1).

By the time the Springfield Ordnance District began accepting the M1s made at the Bridgeport plant, the new Thompson M1A1 model had replaced the M1. Most of Auto-Ordnance M1 Thompsons were then upgraded to the M1A1 configuration and the A1 designation added by hand stamping “A1” on the receiver.

On earlier models, the forward motion of the bolt was stopped by the front of the bolt cavity in the receiver, a major factor in determining the length of the chamber. To increase reliability the cylindrical protrusion at the front of the M1A1 bolt was increased by .028-inch. With the longer front shank, the bolt’s forward motion was stopped by the cartridge seated in the barrel’s chamber unless the chamber was empty. The redesign ensured that the fixed firing pin would strike the primer with greater force, reducing misfires. However, the downside to the fixed firing pin design was that it increased the chance of an out of battery discharge of a cartridge.

The cost for Savage to manufacture an M1 was $23.44. On February 24, 1942, Savage agreed to a contract to manufacture the M1 model for Auto-Ordnance at the cost of $36.37 per unit, providing Savage with a profit of $12.93 per gun. Auto-Ordnance then charged the U.S. government $43.00 for an M1 model and $42.94 for the M1A1 version, although the prices and profits varied slightly from contract to contract.

Serial Numbers

Unlike the 1928 Thompsons, the manufacturer’s initials, “AO” or “S,” were not used as a serial number prefix on the M1 series. To identify who made a particular M1 or M1A1 Thompson, the manufacturer stamped their code letters on the bottom of the receiver where the front grip mount is fitted. The letters used were “S,” which indicated Savage manufacture, or “A.O.C.” for weapons made at the Auto-Ordnance Bridgeport plant. As on the previous M1928A1 model, the Auto-Ordnance Corporation name and Bridgeport address are present on the receiver’s right side, regardless of who manufactured the weapon. Another change noted in the M1/M1A1 Thompson was the spelling of the word “caliber” on the receiver. The word was changed from the early spelling of “CALIBRE” to the U.S.-recognized spelling, “CALIBER.”

Savage-manufactured M1 and M1A1s were stamped with the Army Inspector of Ordnance’s initials of the Rochester, NY, Ordnance District. AIOs of the Rochester District were Lt. Colonel Ray L. Bowlin, using stamp “RLB,” and Colonel Frank J. Atwood, using stamp “FJA.” The Bowlin RLB marking is found only on the early M1 Thompsons. All Savage M1 and M1A1 submachine gun receivers and frames were also marked with the encircled “GEG” acceptance stamp of Auto-Ordnance’s civilian inspector at Savage’s factory, George E. Goll.

M1 and M1A1 Thompsons produced at the Auto-Ordnance plant in Bridgeport, Connecticut, would have the acceptance stamp of the Army Inspector of Ordnance of the Springfield District. Very early M1s would be marked with the stamp “WB”—Colonel Waldemar Broberg. Later production would be marked with the “GHD” stamp—Colonel Guy H. Drewery.

There have been many M1A1 trigger frames documented that do not have serial numbers. During repairs and rebuilds, the frames and receivers were often mismatched. This caused a lot of confusion when the weapons were stored in racks, and the frame number was mistakenly recorded instead of the receiver serial number. U.S. Ordnance specification AXS-725, dated January 7, 1943, called for a serial number to be marked, “Only on the receiver.” Subsequently, M1A1 frames manufactured after that date had no serial numbers applied. Arsenals were instructed to obliterate or remove serial numbers from the frames of the M1/M1A1 Thompsons. Due to the depth of the markings, the practice was soon discontinued.

M1’s and M1A1’s Final Days

In January 1943, the Ordnance Department announced to the Auto-Ordnance Corporation that the Thompson was going to be replaced by the newly developed U.S. M3 submachine gun. After the Ordnance Department’s official adoption of the M3 submachine gun, Thompson production was scheduled to be concluded in July 1943. Plans were made to begin tapering off production of the weapon. In April 1943, 62,948 M1A1 guns were manufactured; this was reduced to 55,000 in May and 51,667 in June. This left only 5,000 guns remaining to be manufactured in July 1943 from existing contracts. Authority was then received from the Ordnance Department in June to procure an additional 60,000 weapons by the end of August. Before the end of August, more orders for the Thompson gun were received from Washington. A total of approximately 119,091 additional Thompson M1A1 models were to be manufactured, providing continuance of production through December 1943. At the end of December, there were enough parts remaining to assemble approximately 4,500 additional guns. In January 1944 authorization was granted to complete the remaining guns by February 15, 1944. Production briefly resumed in February, completing a total of 4,092 additional guns. On February 15, 1944, the very last M1A1 Thompson submachine gun was accepted by the government via contract W-478-ORD-1949.

The Savage Arms Corporation manufactured an estimated total of 464,800 M1 and M1A1 model Thompsons, while the Auto-Ordnance Bridgeport plant turned out an estimated 249,555 M1s and M1A1s. A presentation-grade M1A1 Thompson was made by Savage. The serial number represented the total number of 1928 and M1/M1A1 Thompson submachine guns made by Savage: 1,244,194 from April 1940 until February 15, 1944. The number does not include the Thompsons made by Auto-Ordnance’s Bridgeport factory.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Article excerpted from the book American Thunder III, available from Chipotle Publishing LLC.

Special thanks to Curator Alex MacKenzie and the entire staff at the Springfield Armory National Historic Site.
Springfield Armory National Historic Site
Springfield, MA
413-271-3976
www.nps.gov/spar

Covert Ops Led to Experimental Smith & Wesson Model 76 Submachine Gun

During the 1961-1975 Vietnam War, the United States Navy had begun to procure submachine guns for use by its SEAL teams; a special operations force operating in-country. SEAL teams often used foreign submachine guns for their more covert operations for plausible deniability. Unhindered by any political, official standards or requirements for their proposed submachine guns to meet, the SEAL’s weapon of choice was the reliable and accurate 9mm m/45, Swedish K submachine gun. One of the Navy requirements for a submachine gun class weapon was the ability to drain water quickly from the receiver.

Problems with the military procurement of the Swedish submachine guns were eventually encountered due to Sweden’s long-standing position as a neutral country, along with their outspoken protest of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

During the early spring of 1966, the U.S. Navy Department contacted Smith & Wesson representative Mr. George Ersham to inquire about the possibility of the U.S. company designing and manufacturing a weapon that would be similar in concept and operation to the Swedish K. By the fall of 1966, the Development Section of Smith & Wesson received an official written request from the Department of the Navy for the development of a new 9mm submachine gun. Corporation officials met with SEAL Team One at the Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, in San Diego, California, to discuss the project. During the meeting, Smith & Wesson officials were provided with a list of the characteristics desired in the proposed submachine gun. The rival Colt firearms company had the military market virtually sewn up at the time. Mr. Gunn recognized that a lucrative military order could help sustain his company’s future well into the 21st Century.

Mr. Dwayne Charron of the Research and Development Section of Smith & Wesson was chosen to head up the project. Mr. Charron was well qualified for the task, having a lot of experience with the development and design of many of the company’s firearms. The model designation assigned to the submachine gun project was the number 76. It was nothing other than a control number, having no other significance.

The X-Series Submachine Guns

Smith & Wesson routinely assigned a letter “X” prefix to experimental or preproduction projects. After a project had been developed and tested, blueprints were sent to the Engineering Department where final tolerances and dimensions were used to draw production blueprints. Firearms made from the prints were used to manufacture tool room models of the proposed gun. Those guns were designated with a letter “T” prefix for “Tool Room.” The letter “T” was occasionally used on a production weapon that had been modified.

The first experimental samples of the Model 76 were completed in the fall of 1966-1967 and were assigned serial numbers X-185 through X-219. The early X-185 gun lacked a buttstock and sights. On gun X-186, a folding stock and sights were added. Two X-prefixed guns, X-186 and X-219, were later modified for the caseless ammunition project. To make the weapon as light as possible, there was one prototype gun; X-188 was made with an aluminum alloy receiver. Later there was a request issued for nine additional aluminum receivers; these were serial numbered X-210 to X-218. Most of the receivers were not assembled into functioning weapons. Apparently, there were problems, and the aluminum receiver concept was abandoned.

By January 1967, a prototype weapon was completed and ready for extensive field-testing. At this point the magazine for the 76 project had not been developed, so modified Swedish K magazines were used. Due to cost considerations, it was decided not to key the barrel for consistent indexing with the receiver. This saved a few machining processes to the barrel and receiver. The weapon that was designed by the engineers at Smith & Wesson looked somewhat similar to the Swedish submachine gun it was to replace, but there were a number of differences. Primarily, the Smith & Wesson submachine gun was lighter in weight, more ergonomic, slightly smaller in size, handier, featured a more positive safety, and it was select-fire.

The T-Series Submachine Guns

During May 1967, the first 10 Tool Room submachine gun models had been assembled. They were assigned serial numbers T-1111 to T-1120. During testing, a few failure-to-feed stoppages occurred. The problem was traced to an oversized magazine housing and was easily solved by inserting a U-shaped piece of steel to align and secure the magazine.

The X and T models of the M76 were fabricated in a number of configurations for testing and evaluation purposes.

The production of the first test lot of 100 guns commenced on June 24, 1968. Each gun had a four-digit serial number with a “T” prefix. The “T” prefix indicated that the guns were completed in the Research and Development Department’s Tool Room and not regular production pieces. The serial numbers of the early pre-production models were marked on the left side of the magazine well. The “T” series models were often configured differently. Most of the T series guns lacked the barrel jacket as seen on production guns. The method of securing the barrel to the receiver was different on guns that lacked a barrel jacket. A barrel retaining catch was utilized, similar to that of the U.S. M3 submachine gun. The strut arms of the early stocks were straight while the later production models curved around the back of the receiver tube. The sides of the plastic grip were smooth. A total of 105 T prefix weapons were built by the Research and Development Department from November 1966 to April 1971. Most of the T-series weapons studied during the research for this article had a medium gray parkerized finish while most of the U-prefix production submachine guns were parkerized with a gray-green finish.

As the Tool Room models were refined, the factory began to fabricate fixtures and gages and provide drawings to outside vendors for components that were not made in-house.

After preliminary testing, a small lot of 100 Smith & Wesson T-series submachine guns were produced for further testing in-house and in the field. During the early months of 1968, the final design of the weapon began to materialize. After a few last-minute minor design changes were implemented, the weapon went into production as the Smith & Wesson Model No. 76–9mm Submachine Gun. In addition to the Navy contract, the Smith & Wesson Company had planned to offer its new American submachine gun to U.S. law enforcement agencies, for replacement of its aging Reising and Thompson weapons.

To facilitate manufacture of the M76 submachine gun, Smith & Wesson opened a completely new manufacturing facility called the Annex. Also, commonly known as Department 10, the 10,000-square-foot building was located on Stevens Street, in Springfield, Massachusetts. The new Smith & Wesson division began operations during 1968, specifically to manufacture the submachine gun. Department 10 had 20 employees in 1968 and was headed by foreman Lou Jarvis. While some parts were machined in the main plant, most of the welding and assembly was performed in the Annex building. Upon final assembly, the completed submachine guns were then transported back to the main plant for a final inspection before packaging and shipping.

The U-Series Production Model

The Model 76 submachine gun design was a basic, simple, but durable weapon primarily made from heavy sheet metal stampings. The receiver tube was produced from heavy 120-inch-thick seamless steel tubing. The inside of the thick receiver tube was broached (often-called “sand cuts”) to help prevent stoppages from sand or any foreign debris that may collect inside the receiver. The appendages: the sights, magazine housing and sling attachment points were heliarc-welded to the thick receiver tube.

The fixed sling loops were intended to employ the common U.S. issue M1 carbine sling. The ejector was also attached to the receiver tube by two vertical welds. The fixed magazine well was flared at the bottom for fumble-free insertion of a magazine. The trigger, trigger bar and sear were in a removable sheet metal housing that is located under the receiver tube. The trigger guard is also a simple steel stamping attached to the trigger housing by a single rivet. For use in Arctic climates, the trigger guard can be rotated out of position allowing the weapon to be operated with gloves or mittens. The Model 76 was following the concept of the World War II British Sten and U.S. M3 submachine guns: simple and cheap.

The 8-inch barrel can be easily removed for cleaning or replacement via a knurled barrel nut. A heavy, tubular shroud with 28 cooling ports was later introduced in order to protect the operator’s hands from an overheated barrel. The threaded barrel nut was incorporated as part of the shroud. The sights are calibrated for a 100-meter range and are nonadjustable. The Model 76 is capable of both semiautomatic and full-automatic fire, by means of an ambidextrous M16-style semiautomatic-automatic-safe selector lever.

The buttstock folds and locks to the left side of the receiver as to not interfere with the cocking handle if the weapon is fired with the stock folded. The Smith & Wesson 76 is finished in a military-style, medium gray-green phosphate; the M76 has an overall length of 20.25 inches with the stock in the folded position. With the stock extended the length is 30.38 inches. Loaded weight with a 36-round magazine is 8.67 pounds.

The first six production guns have unique serial numbers beginning with a letter “U” followed by six digits. These submachine guns were numbered U001001 through U001006. In June 1968, regular production began starting with serial number U101 until production ended with submachine gun serial U6100, built July 5, 1974.

The serial numbers of the production guns were marked on the right rear side of the receiver tube. There were a reported 6,000 production Model 76 weapons manufactured. A few minor variations appear in the production models. During 1969, the barrel jacket was changed from seamless tubing to a less expensive design made from a piece of flat sheet metal, which after cooling holes were punched into it, was rolled into a tube and welded along its seam. Another minor detail noted on some guns are two holes in the front of the magazine housing; the purpose of these holes is for a jig to hold the piece in place for a welding operation.

During July 1974, production of the Model 76 was terminated. The decision was made due to declining demand for pistol-caliber submachine guns, which were being replaced in law enforcement and military organizations by modern assault rifles.

The original retail cost of a Smith & Wesson Model 76 submachine gun in 1969 was $76.50. Today, all models of the Smith & Wesson M76 submachine guns are considered Curio & Relic firearms by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The United States Navy purchased a number of the Model 76 submachine guns and classified them: Navy Mark 24 Mod 0, NSN 1005-01-013-6050. Each of the weapons was issued with four magazines. The SEALs also requested that Smith & Wesson design a suppressor (silencer) for “their” Model 76s, to reduce the weapon’s report and muzzle flash. Smith & Wesson’s Dwayne Charron designed the Smith & Wesson M76 suppressor as a complete unit that would easily replace the weapon’s standard barrel.

The barrel inside of the Smith & Wesson suppressor has a series of ports to reduce the velocity of standard 9mm ammunition to subsonic levels and to eliminate the sound generated when the bullet exceeds the speed of sound after leaving the barrel. Mr. Charron received patent number 3,713,362 on June 30, 1973, for his suppressor design. Production of the suppressors built by Smith & Wesson was limited to a few units.

Above: An early Patchett machine carbine, with its stock in a folded position. The first Patchetts were designed during World War II.

Classic Submachine Guns, Carbines and Pistols Refined

The Patchett Submachine Gun

The Sten machine carbine (the term “submachine gun” was not used by the British until 1954) was hurriedly conceived during the early stages of World War II, as Great Britain, seriously short of weapons for defense, was facing an invasion by the German Army. The Sten was a rather crude, but reliable and deadly weapon. After the threat of invasion subsided, work began on developing a more refined submachine gun.

George Patchett was an experienced gun designer who went to work for the Sterling Armament Company during World War II. Mr. Patchett designed a fair number of prototype weapons based on his ideas. By 1943, George Patchett’s submachine gun was developed enough to be tested by the military. Designated as the Patchett Mark I machine carbine, the weapon used a number of parts from the Lanchester machine carbine. The Mark I’s magazine housing was attached at a 90-degree angle to the receiver and fed from Sten or Lanchester magazines. After testing, the Patchett Mark I was considered suitable for service, but with plenty of Sten Mk II and Mk IV submachine guns still in service, there were no large orders for the Patchett forthcoming. Undeterred, development of the Patchett continued with the introduction of the Mk II model in 1946. One of the primary features of the Mark II was its magazine housing oriented at an 82-degree forward angle, to accept Patchett’s new double-feed, curved magazine—a vast improvement over the Sten magazine. Finally, during 1953, the Patchett Mark II was adopted as the Gun, Sub-machine, 9mm L2A1. During 1955, the Mark III model was introduced. The Patchett name was dropped and replaced with the name Sterling. The official designation was the Sterling Submachine Gun Mk III, L2A2. The Sterling company continued further development of the weapon resulting in a final version designated as the Sterling Mk IV L2A3.

The Sterling Mark IV L2A3 submachine gun was produced in Great Britain by Sterling and the Royal Ordnance Factory at Fazakerly. Submachine guns produced at Sterling had serial number prefixes using the letters “KR,” “S” and “US.” Fazakerley weapons used the prefix “UF.” Production began during 1955-1956 and ceased at Fazakerly in 1959, Sterling in 1988. The Sterling Mark IV L2A3 remained in British service until 1994.

Sterlings destined for British military service had a Sunkorite 259 satin black painted finish. Commercial Sterlings had the black crinkle finish. The British use of the term “commercial” is a bit misleading. Sales to Commonwealth and governments, other than the British military, were considered “commercial” sales. The Sterling was also licensed for manufacture in Canada as the C1 submachine gun and India as the SAF Machine Carbine A1.

For the police market, Sterling introduced a semi-automatic-only version of the Mk IV L2A3 submachine gun called the “Police Carbine.” The Police Carbine was also available to civilians in countries such as South Africa. Sterling ads boasted, “The Sterling submachine gun has been modified for use by police and civilians in troubled parts of the world,” and the “Perfect weapon of self-defense for those obliged to take such precautions.” The Police Carbine operated the same as the submachine gun, firing from an open bolt. The semi-automatic-only function was made possible by adding a block to the selector lever, preventing it from being rotated to the A (automatic) position. It was soon discovered that the Police Carbine could easily be converted to select-fire by removal of the block or installing a submachine gun selector lever. Police Carbines can easily be identified by their serial numbers that began with a letter “P.”

The U.S. Market

During the 1980s, a new breed of firearm was introduced to the U.S. civilian market; copies of military submachine guns and rifles. The big difference was the clones were semi-automatic-only and had to adhere to strict provisions set by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to make them difficult to convert to full-automatic.

Rifle Caliber

Popular U.S. offerings for the market were Colt’s AR-15 rifle, a civilian version of the U.S. military M16, and the Springfield Armory, Inc. M1A copy of the M14. However, both the aforementioned rifles were available before the 1980s. The M1A rifles went into production in 1971; the Colt AR-15 in 1964. Both became popular when many enthusiasts discovered them in the monthly periodicals of the day, followed by special editions of 1980s magazines focusing entirely on the new breed of semi-automatic firearms and the quickly growing accessory market that soon followed.

Many of the semi-automatic firearms were imported. Companies like Heckler and Koch (HK) offered copies of their .223 caliber HK33 as the HK93 and the .308 G3 as the .308 HK91. Other popular firearms were FN’s Belgian-made SAR (FN FAL), China’s AKS rifles and Austria’s Steyr AUGs. Some of the imports were quite expensive, a few costing twice as much as a Colt AR-15.

Pistol Caliber

U.S.-manufactured pistol caliber semi-automatics included the West Hurley Auto-Ordnance M1927A1 Thompsons, MAC-10s, SWD’s M11/Nine, Nighthawk carbine and Wilkinson Arms Linda pistol and Terry carbines.

Foreign submachine gun copies included the Heckler and Koch MP5 designated in semi-automatic-only guise as the HK94; Action Arms imported semi-automatic models of the famous UZI submachine gun. Some of the lesser known imports of the 1980s were the British Sterling Mark 6 carbine and Mark 7 pistol, semi-automatic copies of the British Mk IV L2A3 submachine gun.

As per the ATF requirements after 1982, the semi-automatics had to operate from a closed-bolt position.

The introduction of the semi-automatic clones occurred prior to May 19, 1986. This allowed the legal registration and conversion of the firearms into machine guns. After May 19, 1986, the laws were changed making full-auto conversions illegal except for what would be known as restricted post-May dealer samples. Many AR-15s, UZIs, AKs and HK94 carbines were converted prior to the cut-off date. One select-fire conversion that was seldom seen was the desirable British Sterling Mk IV L2A3.

Sterling Mark 6 Carbines

The British-made Sterling Mark 6 carbines were imported by Parker Arms and Armscorp of America. However, the majority of the carbines were imported by Lanchester USA of Dallas, Texas. The suggested retail price of a Sterling Mark 6 was nearly double that of the popular UZI carbine in 1983. Due to their high price, limited advertising and availability, only a small number of the Mark 6 carbines were sold in the U.S.

The primary differences between the Sterling Mark 6 carbine and the Mark IV L2A3 submachine gun were the carbine’s 16-inch barrel and its closed-bolt operation. The receiver itself was similar to its submachine gun counterpart. The overall length of the Mark 6 Sterling is 35-inches with the stock extended and 27-inches with the stock folded. The carbine uses the same 34-round magazines as the submachine gun.

Sterling Mark 7 Pistol

The Sterling Mark 7 was a pistol variation of the Mark 6 carbine without a buttstock. The Mark 7 featured a 4-inch barrel extending through an 8-inch long barrel shroud. The pistol came with a 10-round magazine.

An import ban enacted in 1989 ended most of the importation of foreign semi-automatic rifles and carbines.

Police Automatic Weapons Services (PAWS)

Oregon Class II manufacturer, Bob Imel, had an interest in the British Sterling Mk IV L2A3 submachine gun design. To produce a U.S.-made copy of the Sterling, he formed the Police Automatic Weapons Service better known by the initials “PAWS.” During the 1970s Imel began to manufacture parts and receivers many years before the original surplus British Sterling part sets became available. The results of his efforts were the PAWS ZX-5 submachine gun in 9mm and the ZX-7 in .45ACP. The PAWS guns were only slightly different cosmetically than the Sterling Mk IV L2A3 submachine guns. The 9mm ZX-5 was designed to accept unmodified Sten magazines, in place of original Sterling magazines, due to cost and limited availability at the time. Because of the magazine-well configuration that was oriented 90-degrees to the receiver, the PAWS ZX-5 cannot accept original Sterling curved magazines. The .45 caliber ZX-7 model uses modified M-3 Grease Gun magazines. There were only a few hundred transferable ZX submachine guns made and registered, in .45 and 9mm, before production ceased with the enactment of the May 1986 McClure-Volkmer Amendments to the Gun Control Act, banning the manufacture and registration of transferable machine guns.

After the 1986 ban, Mr. Imel decided to create a semi-automatic carbine version of the PAWS submachine gun, in both 9mm, the ZX 6 and .45 ACP the ZX 8, with the parts left over from his machine gun production line. At that time the market for semi-auto submachine gun clones was flourishing. He started with an ATF-approved receiver design that was similar to and built to the same standards as his submachine guns but that used a closed-bolt design. The carbines came fitted with a 16.5-inch barrel and an UZI-type barrel nut. The blow back carbines weighed 7.5-pounds unloaded and were approximately 35-inches long with the stock in an extended position.

Prior to the 1986 machine gun ban, a number of submachine guns were constructed from part sets. Although the receivers could not be imported, it was legal (AFTER ATF approval) to assemble and register a machine gun with a new U.S.-made receiver. Many World War II submachine gun receivers were made of tubing for ease of wartime manufacturing. One of the most popular was the British Sten Mk II, primarily due to a large number of inexpensive parts. Another popular “tube gun” was the German MP40. Made in smaller numbers were the subguns like the Swedish K due to a limited number of spare part sets.

Submachine gun part sets from the Mk IV L2A3 Sterling were conspicuously absent only because the weapon was still in service with the British and many other countries. Although there were a very small number of original Sterlings in the U.S., most were dealer samples. The desirable Sterling submachine gun was seldom encountered in collections or on the firing line. It wasn’t until around 1994 that Sterling part sets began to be imported. However, eight years after the machine gun ban, there were relatively few registered receiver tubes available that had not been assembled into guns.

Stan Andrewski, a Class II manufacturer from New Hampshire, discovered that Sten Mk II receiver tubes shared many of the same dimensions as the Sterling Mk IV L2A3 submachine gun, except for the position and width of the cocking handle slot. The Sten’s slot is located at 50 degrees on its receiver, while the Sterling’s slot is located at a 60-degree position and is narrower than the Sten’s. Mr. Andrewski believed that the Sten-to-Sterling conversion had merit and sought permission from the Firearms Technology Branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for the conversion. Although ATF eventually granted permission for the Sten-to-Sterling conversion, narrowing of the cocking handle slot was not permitted. This hurdle was overcome by modifying the cocking handle, so the interior portion engages the bolt while the exterior handle travels in the 10-degree offset slot. This is achieved by cutting off the handle section itself and then MIG welding it back at a slightly lower position. The cocking handle has flange added to it, so it fits properly in the wider slot and retains the bolt at the correct angle. The cocking handle and cocking handle block are modified by drilling a hole in each, so the plunger protrudes through them to secure the cocking handle. This makes it a little harder to remove the cocking handle because the plunger must be depressed with a small diameter pin punch, while at the same time pulling outward on the cocking handle sometimes requiring a third hand to accomplish. Due to Mr. Andrewski’s efforts, a number of transferable Sten guns were reconfigured into Sterling submachine guns. Florida Class II manufacturer Don Quinnell also began performing the conversions. Finally, after many years, a transferable “Sterling” submachine gun was available!

Since the initial conversions were approved in 1997, a small number of virgin pre-1986 registered DLO, and a few Wilson-made receiver tubes have surfaced with a Sterling-spec narrow cocking handle slot, allowing an unaltered cocking handle to be used. This quickly resulted in the Sten-tube conversions with the wider cocking handle slot to be snubbed by some and bestowed with the rather condescending nickname “Stenlings.” However, in reality, both are still just “tube guns,” in turn probably slighted by the handful of fortunate owners of “real” British-made Sterling Mk IV L2A3 submachine guns.

With a large number of Sterling parts kits (less receivers) being imported, it was only a matter of time before someone would begin assembling the parts into a semi-automatic carbine. To comply with U.S. laws, the carbines had to have a barrel with a minimum length of 16 inches. Wise Lite Arms of Boyd, Texas, produced a semi-auto carbine and pistol version of the classic Sterling. The carbines were assembled using a mix of newly made U.S. parts (bolt and barrel) and parts from demilitarized Sterling Mark IV parts kits. The Wise Lite carbines operate from a closed bolt to comply with U.S. laws. The pistol version lacking a butt stock has a 4.5-inch barrel.

There aren’t a lot of original accessories available for Sterlings, other than slings, magazine pouches and bayonets. Spare parts kits can still be found; however, many of the kits were bought by fans of the “Star Wars” films. The weapons carried by the Storm Troopers in the films were Sterlings modified for a futuristic look.

(Dan’s note: most of the original “Star Wars” used Sterlings were deactivated to UK standard and sold on the market in the UK.)

Circa 1950, a U.S. soldier strikes a threatening pose with an M3A1 “grease gun.”

By Frank Iannamico

Brief History of the M3/M3A1 Grease Gun

Even before U.S. troops encountered the German’s revolutionary stamped sheet-metal MP40 maschinenpistole during World War II, the Army was searching for a new cheap, easy to manufacture submachine guns. On February 6, 1941, a requirement was set by the Small Arms Development Branch, Technical Division of the Ordnance Corps for the replacement of the Thompson submachine gun. The U.S. Army tested over twenty foreign and domestic submachine gun designs in search of a suitable replacement for the Thompson. After an exhaustive evaluation program, the U.S. Army accepted a submachine gun design by Hyde-Inland, briefly adopted as the M2 submachine gun.

While the Hyde-Inland submachine gun was being readied for series production, another George Hyde submachine gun design was under development. The prototype was designated as the select fire T15. The design used no critical metals and required a minimum amount of time consuming machining. Except for a few parts, the weapon was made from simple sheet-metal stampings. The bolt assembly rode on two steel rods that were secured by two holes punched into the rear of the receiver. The front of the rod/bolt assembly was secured in a steel plate, held in place by the barrel, which was simply screwed into the front of the receiver. The bolt would slide on the two steel rods, never touching the inside of the receiver. This kept the moving parts impervious to dirt, making it an extremely reliable design.

As the project progressed, there were a few changes implemented: a low cyclic rate and a full automatic-only operation. An additional requirement was set for an easy conversion to the 9mm cartridge that was common in Europe. The new prototype weapon was designated the T20.

U.S. Army Ordnance R&D officer Réne Studler recruited General Motors to assist with the T20 development. Fredrick Sampson, Chief Engineer of GM’s Inland Division, was assigned to the project. After the successful, thorough testing of the T20 prototypes, the T20 was officially adopted as the U.S. Submachine Gun, Caliber .45, M3. The M3 T20 prototype had an overall score of 95 out of a possible 100 in the Aberdeen submachine gun trial, higher than any previous weapon tested. The new submachine gun was adopted by the U.S. Army on Christmas Eve, 1942.

On January 29, 1943, the Guide Lamp Division was given an order to manufacture 300,000 M3 submachine guns at an initial cost of $17.93 per unit, minus the bolt assembly. This cost would be amended several times during the life of the Guide Lamp contract. The contract for the M3 bolts was awarded to Buffalo Arms at a cost of $2.58 per piece. New M3s were being delivered to the army from Guide Lamp by the summer of 1943. The first M3 submachine guns were issued to Rangers, paratroopers, and armored crews. The U.S. Marine Corps would also issue the M3 by the war’s end.

At the peak of production, Guide was turning out a new M3 submachine gun every 2.4 minutes. A total of 605,694 M3 models would be accepted by the Army from 1943 to the end of 1944. The simplified M3A1 model was only produced in 1945 and 82,281 were built by Guide Lamp before production ceased in August.

The Ithaca Gun Company

The Ithaca Gun Company’s first involvement with the U.S. M3 submachine gun was when they were awarded a contract to manufacture spare bolt assemblies in 1953. The new bolts were needed to replace those that had become worn or otherwise unserviceable. Ithaca produced 90,136 replacement bolt assemblies for the M3 from 1953 to 1954 under Ordnance contract DA 30-115-ORD-355. On February 22, 1945, the Ordnance committee recommended that the M3 and M3A1 submachine guns replace all Thompson model 1928, M1 and M1A1 submachine guns in current service. This request was so the Army would not have four types of weapons for which to provide parts and maintenance. It was suggested that M3A1 submachine gun production be increased to meet the number of weapons that would needed to completely replace the Thompson. It was estimated that 151,311 additional M3A1 submachine guns would be needed by 1946. The war ended before the increased submachine gun production ever materialized. In a post-war memo dated March 27, 1946, it was stated that there would be a deficiency of 50,000 M3 and M3A1 submachine guns, even considering the reduced post-war requirements. As a result, the Thompson submachine guns were not to be taken completely out of the U.S. Army service at that time.

In the early 1950s during the Korean Conflict, the Ithaca Gun Company was contracted through the Rochester, New York Ordnance District to fabricate 70,000 new M3A1 submachine guns. The manufacturing would be authorized under contract number W-19-058-ORD-7894. Preparation for the manufacturing would be assisted by a technical data package documented by Guide Lamp during their manufacturing of the weapon. Delays in getting production started resulted in the Ithaca M3A1s being manufactured in 1955-1956, after the war in Korea had ended. The Ithaca manufactured M3A1s were nearly identical to the earlier Guide Lamp models (M3A1). The receiver markings were different and the parts were all coded ITG for Ithaca manufacture. The diamond-shaped “checkering” pattern impressed on the pistol grip of the Ithaca M3A1 also differs slightly from that of the Guide Lamp guns.

Parts were 100% interchangeable between the Ithaca and the M3A1 Guide Lamp models. During the Korean War, many replacement parts were manufactured by a number of private contractors. Springfield Armory and Rock Island Armory were also producing spare parts for both the M3 and M3A1 submachine guns.

In 1957, a long-awaited new infantry weapon and 7.62×51 caliber round were introduced. They were hailed as being the consummate service rifle and cartridge. The new weapon was the 7.62mm U.S. Rifle, M14. There were several configurations of the M14 planned. They were designed to fill the roles of several other small arms to include the M1 Garand rifle, M2 carbine, Browning Automatic Rifle, and the submachine gun. At this time the Thompson was declared obsolete, and the M3/M3A1 was reclassified as Substitute Standard. With the introduction of the M14 rifle, the Ithaca contract for producing the M3A1 submachine gun was canceled after 33,227 of the weapons were manufactured. The Ithaca M3A1 serial number range began approximately where the World War II Guide Lamp M3A1 serial numbers had ended. Ithaca M3A1 serial numbers ranged from 721330 to 754556. It is interesting to note that Ithaca’s entire production run was less than one average month’s M3 production from Guide Lamp during World War II.

There were several delays getting the M14 into production and the weapons were not issued until 1959. By mid-1963, there were only 393,437 M14 rifles produced and in the field. A majority of U.S. armed forces were still issued the M1 rifle, M1 or M2 carbines and M3/M3A1 submachine guns.

The grease guns continued to be issued during the Vietnam War. Spare parts continued to be produced for the M3 and M3A1 weapons, including new corrosion-resistant, chrome-lined barrels. The M3 and M3A1 submachine guns remained in service with many Army Reserve armored units until the late 1990s.

The slogan displayed on the front of the 1929 Commercial Price List and Catalog, Superior means for the protection of Lives and Property, is indicative of another marketing attempt by Auto-Ordnance Corporation (AOC) to sell the Thompson gun. One of their first catchphrases, The Most Effective Portable Fire Arm In Existence, had run its course. The old stand-by maxim, On The Side Of Law And Order, was still in use but AOC must have felt the need for something new in 1929 – eight years after the introduction of the Thompson submachine gun.

The 1929 catalog, as it has come to be known by collectors, was double the size of previous catalogs. It was filled with a lot of pictures and interesting information on the Thompson gun – all in all a very nice product. Most 1929 catalogs measure 12” x 9” but there is some slight variation in size with different printings, i.e., the E.E. Richardson (a well known AOC salesman) marked 1929 catalog.

This is a very desirable item for Thompson paper collectors, one that is hard to find and usually expensive when found. It is not uncommon for original 1929 catalogs in excellent condition to sell for over $500. The survival rate for the 1929 catalog does not appear to be anywhere near that of the 1936 Nassau Street catalog.

As with most things Thompson if there are not enough originals to satisfy demand, reproduction items will soon enter the market place. This is exactly what happened with the 1929 catalog. Reproductions sold years ago from Ray Riling Arms and Frontier Press are well known by Thompson enthusiasts. While both of these catalogs are professionally marked as reproductions by the printer, it is very easy for a paper collector to determine by the quality of print and pictures that these two reproduction catalogs are not original. However, these reproductions do fill a void in most collections and allow for reading without the possibility of damaging an original.

Such was the universe for the 1929 catalog – until recently. Last year, what appeared to be original 1929 AOC catalogs unexpectedly hit the market. The picture quality was excellent and it was obvious the catalog had some age. Touted as original catalogs by sellers, many of whom had probably never seen an original 1929 catalog, the price began to rise.

This author made a purchase and was very pleased when the package first arrived. However, upon careful inspection there was something about this catalog that seemed amiss. There were definite signs of aging around the corners and the staples had started to rust – but the color was just not right. The cover on an original 1929 catalog is more of a brownish color; the cover on these “new” 1929 catalogs is more of an off-white color. Fortunately, Small Arms Review writer David Albert lives only a short distance away. David is the co-author of the book, Thompson Manuals, Catalogs and Other Paper Items. He has a very extensive Thompson paper collection, including an original 1929 catalog.

A side by side comparison soon illustrated that this “new” 1929 catalog was not quite the quality of an original. To be certain, it was a piece of excellent work though the color difference of the cover was quite pronounced when the documents were laid side by side. In addition, the background color or shading (on the cover) is much more pronounced on the original catalog. Unfortunately, many Thompson paper collectors do not have ready access to a known original. And pictures from the best reference books allow only a preliminary comparison of the cover.

An investigation into where these “new” 1929 catalogs originated from proved interesting but was not definitive. Several sellers were contacted and a central theme in all stories soon developed: Atlanta, Georgia. Every story included reference to an estate sale and how the catalogs were stored in a “wooden crate” or “wooden box” and never released for sale. There were similarities to all the stories and the sellers were definitely not experts in the Thompson world. They were in the business of buying and re-selling items for a profit. All spoke freely and did not appear to be withholding information. The estate sale in one story involved a decedent in Florida who previously lived in upstate New York. Aside from the catalogs and a lot of sawdust, the wooden box purportedly contained several Thompson bolts, barrels and two receivers. The receivers were dispatched to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico and all the other parts sold. The wooden box featured a Thompson bullet logo and was later sold to a collector in the Atlanta area. A guesstimate from all the sellers as to the number of catalogs found was somewhere around 200.

The time had come to involve some professionals in the investigation who work with paper everyday; one a book binder specializing in the repair of older books and one a printer.

The book binder said the catalog was definitely older. It was not printed last week. He pointed out the rusty staples and places on the paper around the edges that were indicative of the natural aging process. He did not think it was printed in the 1920’s. However, he believed the catalog was at least 20 years old.

As any good investigator will tell you it is better to be lucky than good. I got very lucky with the printer because he is a letterpress printer that still prints with letterpress – not something commonly found today. After examining the 1929 catalog in question for 10 to 15 minutes, he stated without reservation it was a reproduction. He went on to say the original 1929 catalog was most likely printed with letterpress. He pointed out the way in which the catalog is laid out with all the inside borders is very indicative of using print blocks with the old style letterpress; a very common method of printing in the twenties.

Looking closely at the pictures in the catalog, the printer believed most if not all the pictures were second generation. He pointed out how the printing in the title, “Thompson Guns,” was a little light in places. He said the amount of ink it took to make the title completely black and deep in the original catalog would have had a negative effect on the Thompson gun on the cover picture (in the reprint), turning it very dark. When the cover was copied for reprinting, the title lost some of its definition and this is plainly visible in the reprinted cover. (The difference in the depth of the color in the title on the cover page was evident during the examination David and I performed, but we did not know how to quantify our suspicions; now we know.) The printer was positive this “new” 1929 catalog was printed using the more modern offset printing. He agreed the pictures in this newly found 1929 catalog were very clear and said whoever printed it most likely copied it from an original 1929 catalog. The reason a lot of modern reproduction documents are so bad is a 3rd generation (or more) document is used in the reproduction process. The catalog does show signs of natural aging. He said it could have been white paper when new and faded to the current off-white color but this is really just speculation on his part. He believes it to be an older catalog, most likely printed in the 1950s. He had no reservation saying it was 50 to 60 years old.

During the ensuing investigation several more catalogs were examined and procured. One catalog had an obvious printing defect on the cover; others had defects on the inside pages. If contemplating the purchase of one of these newer 1929 catalogs, be sure and examine all pages.

The original 1929 catalog as released by AOC does not reference the Model of 1928 Thompson, the U.S. Navy Model. This was soon corrected with a one page document titled, “(Insert for 1929 Catalog),” which showcased this very popular Thompson variation. Original 1929 catalogs on the market today can be found with or without this insert. There is no evidence whoever reprinted this newer 1929 catalog also reprinted this insert page, and they may not have known it existed.

The quest for all things Thompson sometimes will yield a new discovery and that is what makes every search worthwhile. An original 1929 Commercial Price List and Catalog is a great addition to any paper collection. Unfortunately, the number of surviving copies appears to be low and the prices high. This high quality 1929 catalog reprint will make a great addition to a collection and may actually become a collectable in its own right someday. But don’t be fooled into paying a high price right now. Or believing it to be an original!