During a recent visit to the Springfield Armory National Historic Site Museum in Springfield, Massachusetts, Small Arms Review was granted access to the area of the museum where weapons not on display are stored. Only 16-percent of the museum’s collection is currently on exhibit.

One might wonder why some of the more unique, one-off firearms are not on display. I have asked this question of several museum curators over the years, and the answer is always the same. The average military museum visitor is interested in seeing a rifle or handgun that was issued to them, their father or grandfather. Most are not interested in one-of-a-kind prototypes.

High Standard T48 7.62mm FN FAL Rifle Serial Number HS-1

One of the rarest FN FAL rifles was manufactured by the High Standard Corporation, Hamden, Connecticut in 1954. The Belgian FN FAL rifle, as originally manufactured in Europe, was produced using the metric system of measurement. Canada, Great Britain and the United States all used the Imperial system of inches. Any rifle produced in these countries would need to adhere to their standard of measurement. One of the obstacles encountered with the Belgian rifle was that all the factory drawings were done using the metric system.

The Springfield Armory was busy with the T44E4 rifles and numerous other projects and decided to turn the task over to a commercial entity. Bids were taken for the project, and the contract was eventually awarded to the High Standard Corporation. As part of the agreement, High Standard was to manufacture at least 12 functional FN FAL T48 rifles from their final drawings. Harrington and Richardson received a contract and manufactured 510 inch-pattern T48 rifles for testing and evaluation.

Inland M1 Carbine Serial Number 1

The M1 carbine was manufactured during World War II, issued to primarily arm personnel who were not engaged in front-line infantry fighting. The carbine used a new 7.62x33mm cartridge with a 110-grain bullet at a muzzle velocity at approximately 1,970 feet per second. The carbine was designed to supply a more effective weapon to those who would normally be issued a handgun. The M1 carbine was manufactured by a large number of contractors. One of those contractors was the Inland Division of General Motors. In the museum’s holdings is the first production M1 carbine made by Inland, serial number 1, with two unusual characteristics: a “web” forward of the trigger guard and a corrugated curved butt plate. The first five tool room models of the Inland carbine were made by R.F. Sedley, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

T29 .30 Caliber Grease Gun Serial Number X38

The experimental T29 submachine gun was developed by the Guide Lamp Division of General Motors during the fall of 1944. The T29 is a straight blowback M3A1 “Grease Gun” chambered for the .30 carbine cartridge. The barrel is 14 inches in length; the overall length is 28.8 inches. Development was terminated with the introduction of the select-fire M2 carbine.

Savage Submachine Gun .45ACP Serial Number X-1

The experimental Savage submachine gun, caliber .45, was manufactured by Savage Arms, Utica, New York. Equipped with a folding spike bayonet, magazine and sling, this submachine gun shares many features with the production Reising M50 submachine gun and feeds from a 20-round Reising magazine. The weapon was designed in the 1940s by Eugene Reising for Savage Arms.

High Standard Submachine Gun .45 ACP Serial Number 7

The High-Standard Submachine Gun Caliber .45 was designed by Carl G. Swebilius of High Standard with the patents assigned to the corporation. The .45 caliber prototypes were made by High Standard; production UD42 9mm models were manufactured by Marlin for the United Defense Supply Corporation. Reportedly only seven weapons in caliber .45 ACP were made for submission to various testing boards.

Submachine Gun Thompson M1A1 .45 ACP Serial Number 1244194

Manufactured by Savage for the Auto-Ordnance Corporation, Bridgeport, Connecticut, this is a presentation M1A1 Thompson submachine gun with a polished blue finish. The serial number represents the total number of Thompson submachine guns; 1928, M1 and M1A1 models made by Savage. The weapon was donated to the Springfield Armory NHS by Savage Arms, Westfield, Massachusetts on October 17, 1978.

Swedish-K, 9mm Caseless Ammunition Serial Number 356615

A submachine gun that was introduced to the Navy SEALs at Fort Bragg and remained in their inventory through the Vietnam War, was the Swedish Model 45, also known as the m/45 or Swedish-K.

A Swedish-K submachine gun, serial number 356615, was converted by the U.S. Smith & Wesson Corporation to electrically fire caseless 9mm ammunition. The m/45 was followed by several S&W Model 76 submachine guns that were designed for caseless ammunition before the program was terminated.

Smith & Wesson Model 76, Caseless Ammunition Serial Number X219

Model 76 serial number X219 was one of several Model 76 submachine guns converted to fire caseless ammunition. The ammunition was fired electrically. Power was supplied by a 30-volt dry cell battery located in a compartment forward of the trigger guard. The magazine release lever was redesigned to clear the battery box. Note the on-off safety switch on the pistol grip (barrel is missing from the weapon).

U.S. Rifle, M1 Caliber .30 Serial Number 1

Manufactured by Springfield Armory, Springfield, Massachusetts in May 1934, this is the first model shop semi-automatic, gas-operated (gas-trap) M1 Garand rifle with 8-round clip feed mechanism. Manufactured by semi-production, tool room methods in the Model Shop at Springfield Armory under direct supervision of John Garand. The cost to the government for the 80-model shop M1 rifles was $1,831.00 in 1934, or $32,268.51 in 2018 dollars.

U.S. Rifle, M1 Caliber .30 Serial Number 81

This M1 was manufactured by Springfield Armory, Springfield, Massachusetts in 1937. It is the first series production model M1 gas-operated, semi-automatic rifle with 8-round clip feed mechanism. Parkerized finish with many small parts blued. This is the first production line M1 manufactured in 1937 at a cost of $214.54. Serial numbers 1 to 80 were tool room models.

U.S. Rifle, T20 Caliber .30 Serial Number 1

The T20 was manufactured at Springfield Armory, Springfield, Massachusetts in October 1944. Experimental gas-operated, select-fire rifle, essentially a modified M1 adapted to a 20-round detachable BAR box magazine. The receiver was made .3125-inch longer than a production M1 to solve a problem feeding from the BAR magazine. The weapon was designed to fire from open bolt in the full-auto mode; closed bolt in semi-auto mode. The open bolt feature did not adequately solve cook-off problems.

Muzzle velocity was 2750 feet per second and cyclic rate of fire 500rpm. Weapon has an overall length of 44.5 inches, a barrel length of 24 inches and weighs approximately 10 pounds without accessories. Development of the T20 model was terminated in January 1945 with recommendations that minor changes and strengthening of various components be made. A rifle incorporating these minor design changes was designated as the T20E1.

Remington T22E2 .30 Serial Number 1

Concurrent with Garand’s work on the T20 rifle, a competitive contract was awarded to Remington Arms Company to develop an improved M1 rifle. Remington’s prototypes were designed around a standard length M1 receiver. Like the T20, the T22 used a BAR-style 20-round magazine. Manufactured and developed by Remington Arms, Ilion, New York. The T22E2 was essentially an M1 converted to select fire and modified for a detachable box magazine.

Belt-Fed German Fallschirmjagergewehr, FG42

After World War II ended, the idea to develop a new U.S. general purpose, light machine gun was renewed. A captured World War II German weapon, a late model FG42, was examined and adopted as a base design. The FG42 (Fallschirmjagergewehr, or Paratroopers Rifle) was a limited production, shoulder-fired, rifle caliber weapon intended solely for the German paratroop forces, produced from stampings and welding.

The mechanical solution for the conversion was engineered by the Bridge Tool & Die Works, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1946. The resulting weapon is a conversion of the Type 2 FG42 German paratrooper rifle with the belt feeding mechanism of the Maschinengewehr 42, a German, belt-fed general purpose machine gun, fabricated from sheet metal stampings. The Bridge Tool & Die conversion weapon is a gas-operated, blowback type combination—air-cooled; bipod supported; with forward handgrip and rear shoulder stock. The receiver cover is marked WaA 147.

T33 Clarke Arms Rifle Serial Number 8

The Clarke Arms Company of Boston entered their T33 series rifles in the U.S. Ordnance Department’s lightweight rifle competition. The T33 rifle development program was begun in March 1949. The weapon was a lightweight, selective full- and semi-automatic rifle. The purpose of the lightweight rifle program was to replace the M1 rifle. This project was suspended in late 1950, because the weapon lacked sufficient ruggedness and demonstrated poor performance under adverse conditions. The Clarke Arms Company dissolved on December 22, 1954.

T44 Rifle Serial Number 1

The first 7.62mm T44 rifles were built on .30 caliber T20 receivers. Spacers were used in the receiver to adapt the T20 receiver for the shorter 7.62mm cartridges. A new short receiver, specifically designed for the 7.62mm round, was introduced on the T44E4 model.

First Production M14 Rifle Serial Number 2000

The first U.S. M14 rifle off the series production line at the Springfield Armory in 1957 was serial number 2000. The presentation grade rifle was finished in a high polish blue with a fine black walnut wood stock.

M14E2/A1 Rifle Prototype, Springfield Armory M14 Serial Number 6488

The M14 rifle as issued, was very difficult to fire accurately in full-automatic. As a result, many were issued with selector locks, limiting their operation to semi-automatic-only. In attempt to design an M14 that could effectively use its full-auto feature, the USAIB/M14 was conceived at Fort Benning, Georgia, by Captain Durward D. Gosney. The Springfield Armory M14 Serial Number 6488 was fitted with an in-line pistol grip stock, wooden foregrip, muzzle stabilizer and commercial rubber recoil pad. In this configuration, the M14 demonstrated that the automatic fire accuracy requirements could be consistently achieved.

Due to size limitations, only a small portion of the unique firearms stored at the Springfield Armory Museum are featured in this article, as are the brief descriptions. Watch future issues of Small Arms Review for more in-depth articles and photos on many of these weapons.

Special thanks to Curator Alex MacKenzie and the entire museum staff.

For more information about the museum:

Springfield Armory National Historic Site
One Armory Square, Suite 2
Springfield, MA 01105-1299
Phone: 413-271-3976 Website: nps.gov/spar

It was hot and unusually humid in Springfield, Massachusetts during the summer of 1953. Yet, it was not nearly as sweltering as most of the summers he had endured back in his home state of Alabama. Weather aside, LTC Roy E. Rayle took an early liking to his new assignment. His wife and two young sons were in love with the beautiful on-post housing supplied by the Army, and his new job was challenging, exciting, and important. He was to direct 350 people in the Research and Development of small arms at the Springfield Arsenal. He had leadership training from the Army and a degree in Mechanical Engineering from Georgia Tech. He felt well prepared for any challenge.

In his first job briefing, the Colonel in charge updated him on the status of the programs now under his control. It was a glowing report, with no major challenges on the horizon. Two Springfield Armory-designed guns in trials at Ft Benning were reportedly doing very well. The T161 machine gun and the T44 rifle were both undergoing user tests there. These two would later be designated the M60 machine gun, and the M14 rifle, respectively. Assuming successful trials, these would become the first small arms in U.S. history chambered for the new 7.62mm NATO round. Rayle’s predecessor had decided not to send a representative to the test site for technical support and feedback. As a result, not much had been heard from Ft. Benning since the testing began. Everyone assumed that the tests were going well. Going so well, in fact, that his new boss spent most of their meeting time reviewing the other developmental weapons now under Rayle’s direction.

LTC Rayle enjoyed a blissful honeymoon that lasted a full two days. Suddenly, the Armory received an urgent and most disturbing phone call from U.S. Army Ordnance’s Chief of Small Arms Research and Development, Colonel René Studler. TheT44 was performing poorly in testing. A Pentagon representative was already on his way to the test site and Springfield Armory was to immediately dispatch a representative to Ft. Benning. Who would they send? The new guy, of course, LTC Roy Rayle.

Once at Ft. Benning, it didn’t take Rayle long to figure out the major problem. The T44 was having cartridge feeding issues that stemmed from too much friction in the magazine. Rayle asked them, “How much time do we have to fix the problem.” He didn’t like the answer. Only eleven days of testing remained. Results had to be tallied and submitted to Army Field Forces headquarters at Ft. Monroe, VA. Ft. Benning had been directed to follow a rigid timeline.

It wasn’t only the gun that was having a problem. Since his arrival there, Rayle sensed a certain animosity from the test crew. It wasn’t toward him necessarily, but rather it was directed toward Springfield Arsenal. After he examined the T44 test weapons more closely, he understood why. The rifle was far from production ready. T44 receivers had been made from an earlier prototype, the T20E2 that used the longer M1 round (.30-06). To reduce the bolt travel in the rifle for the shorter 7.62mm NATO round (.308 Winchester,) filler blocks had been placed inside the receiver. The fix worked well enough. That is, right up to the point where the blocks loosened and caused malfunctions. This was only the beginning. Designers at the Armory had taken other shortcuts that made it blatantly obvious the T44 was little more than a cobbled-up prototype. In stark contrast was the rifle submitted by the competitor. The entry from Fabrique Nationale (FN) of Belgium was a well-made and well-thought out design. FN’s rifle was designed for in line firing that directed the recoil load straight into the shoulder. This greatly aided the shooter in controlling the weapon’s hefty recoil. The rifle we know today as the FAL was then designated by the Army as the T48. It featured smooth feeding, and a simple operating mechanism that was easy to field strip and service. The general consensus at Ft. Benning was that the Belgian design was far more mature than the T44 and better prepared for user tests at Ft. Benning. The test crew welcomed the amiable on-site FN representative and viewed his presence as part of FN’s commitment to winning the competition.

The Belgians had spent their own money on the development of the T48, making numerous design changes in answer to every whim of the American military. They converted their original design from the .280 British round and developed a simple top loading magazine charging clip that the Americans demanded. FN spared no expense in producing test prototypes for the Army and arranged for their top designer, Mr. Ernst Vervier, to be on standby at the test site to oversee weapon repair and to answer questions.

American regulations made the testing unfair to FN. As the Belgian company was foreign owned, the company was not allowed to obtain any of the information from the classified test results. FN was allowed to know how their own T48 was doing, but no information was provided as to how the T44 was faring. In spite of this, FN’s Managing Director, Mr. René Laloux, somehow knew a great deal about how the testing was going, stating at the end of this sequence of testing, “….between the two rifles, T44 and T48 FN, the final conclusions were in favour of the F.N. rifle.”

Before Rayle left Ft. Benning, the Colonel in charge pulled him aside to receive one more embarrassing admonishment. This time it was for the shabby performance by Springfield Armory on the T161 machine gun prototypes. Like the T44’s, these were failing miserably, too. There were failures to feed, broken firing pins, and ruptured cartridges that spewed debris all over the test cell. The weapon was not only performing poorly, but engineering support was lacking. What about that tripod Springfield sent for the machine gun tests, the Colonel demanded? His test crew was expecting a new design but received a cobbled up tripod instead. What was the Armory doing with all of its time and money? Rayle had no answers and none of it was his fault, of course, but now he was in charge of R&D and he now owned all the blame. Rayle was not even three weeks on the job and his two major programs were already in big trouble. It was an embarrassment; for him, and for the Springfield Armory.

LTC Rayle returned to Springfield on 20 July, anxious to get his team working on solutions to the T44’s problems. He began with a briefing on the history of the weapon. It was not a happy tale. The original design intent was to develop a .30 caliber rifle weighing no more than 7 pounds that offered semi and full automatic fire. Design goals included: reduce coil, accommodation of a new short round, and firing from a detachable box magazine. The purpose of the new rifle was to replace the M1 Rifle, the BAR, the M2 Carbine, and the M3A1 .45 caliber submachine gun. Four weapons and three different calibers replaced by a single weapon. This would greatly improve logistic support in the field. Since the end of World War II, numerous rifle designs had been developed and trialed until only the T44 remained.

“Who is the engineer in charge of the T44?” Rayle demanded. There was no single answer. The project started and stopped so often and priorities shifted so much that there really wasn’t one individual who followed the program from the beginning to now. John Garand had been responsible for some of the early designs, and Earl Harvey for some of the others. Garand had retired only a couple of weeks before Rayle came to Springfield, and was no longer available to the team.

The rifle’s status was a confusing mess that was compounded by the military’s “big picture.” How was the war with Japan brought to an end? It was with the atomic bomb, of course. There was a new thinking and general consensus by the military’s top brass. Wars would now be fought and won with nuclear weapons. Small arms would only be needed for a short cleanup with rifle wielding soldiers. What rifle did they need? For a totally demoralized enemy, almost any firearm would do.

As Rayle planned the direction forward, more bad news arrived. Classified Ft. Benning test results had been leaked to Newsweek magazine. The 20 July 1953 issue featured an article claiming that the Belgian T48 was far ahead of the American T44, and predicted it would soon be announced that FN was the winner. Those at the Armory doubted the veracity of the report. Long afterwards, they learned that the Newsweek article was totally accurate. Ft. Monroe had secretly decided the FN T48 was the winner. They also decided to allow the T44 to continue with the next scheduled round of testing in Arctic conditions, only to serve as a yardstick to gage how much better the T48 would perform in cold weather conditions.

At the end of August, Rayle gathered his group together and offered them three options: The first one was to build up some repair parts to refurbish the guns after testing and submit the guns for trial in the same configuration. The second was to address the gun’s major problems so the rifle would not be a total embarrassment to Springfield Armory. The third option was to use the remaining three months to fix everything that was broken. This included testing in both ambient and Arctic conditions with the objective to beat out the FN candidate.

Much was at stake. First and foremost was the avoidance of a huge loss of face for the United States, should a foreign weapon win the competition. Chief of Ordnance, General Ford, was already taking hits from the recent episodes of poor performance of Springfield designs. The decision of Rayle’s team was unanimous. They would pull out all the stops in order to win the Arctic competition. From what he knew of the two designs, Rayle recognized this would not be an easy task. The T44 had to overcome major design problems while the major issues with the FN gun were mostly metallurgical problems. From his engineering background he knew these could easily be solved by material or process changes.

Rayle was no stranger to solving difficult technical problems on a tight schedule. He once undertook a wartime assignment where his job was to discover the cause of mid air bomb collisions. The subsequent detonations, which occurred soon after release, were responsible for downing the very aircraft that dropped them. Rayle worked around the clock, conducting analysis, as well as filming and retrieving dropped bombs. He expeditiously determined the cause and verified the solution. Many bomb crews owe their lives to his timely solution.

To solve T44’s problems he decided on a direct approach, so he listed all of the technical problems in accordance with their severity. Once identified, they would be addressed one by one. Right away it became evident that he would need personnel and manufacturing capacity. Even though he had 300 people working for him, redirecting some of them to the T44 improvement would be detrimental to the schedule for the project they were working on. It wasn’t just warm bodies he needed either. He required top notch design talent – someone with expertise at the level of John Garand. Garand had earlier been approached, but refused after he learned that returning to work at the Armory would require him to give up his retirement pay. Getting Garand back this way was out of the question.

Rayle found a solution that solved both problems at once. A nearby machine shop, Mathewson Tool Company, was well known to the firearms industry for its excellent manufacturing capability. Their reputation was due, to a large extent, to the manufacturing prowess of its owner, Dave Mathewson. Rayle’s solution was simple. Mathewson would get a contract to produce any new T44 components that were needed and John Garand would work for him as a consultant. Garand could still collect his Army retirement along with a paycheck from Mathewson.

The T44’s number one problem was feeding cartridges from the magazine. They all knew that proper feeding is the primary key to the development of a reliable semi or full automatic weapon. Examining the test records, the Springfield team realized that rounds fed poorly from new magazines and much better from ones that were worn in. Their magazine improvement program included some spring and configuration design changes, but the major improvement was the application of what was then a relatively new development; a dry film lubricant called molybdenum disulphide. The new coating provided lubrication while the magazine was new and wore off at the same rate as the magazine wore in. Problem solved!

The buttstock was reinforced to improve it for grenade launching. For the Arctic testing, an enlarged trigger guard was developed to accept a gloved trigger finger. New designs were verified by testing in ambient, dusty, and cold conditions, until acceptable function was achieved. More than once, they found that parts that worked in ambient conditions were totally unreliable at low temperature. Rayle was impressed by the technical expertise of his team. Engineering technicians carefully conducted each test, taking careful notes and changing one thing at a time, so they knew if each individual fix was effective or not. By mid December the much-improved T44’s were sent to Alaska, meeting up with the T48’s that had been sent from the FN plant in Liege, Belgium. This time, Rayle decided, the Springfield team would send technical representatives to support the testing, replacing them every two weeks so that a new pair of eyes were available for a fresh look to address every problem that occurred. Rayle had recalled previous mistakes, and was determined not to repeat them.

As testing got underway, the T44’s were not problem free, but worked much better in the cold conditions than the T48’s, which suffered from a loss of power. These problems were reported to FN who once again dispatched their design expert, Ernst Vervier to witness the problem and hopefully provide a solution. Unfortunately, Mr. Vervier could only come up with one on-site solution to cure the sluggish operation. His only option was to enlarge the gas port to give the weapon more power. Determining the proper gas port diameter on any weapon is a very tricky undertaking, usually requiring extensive testing. Mr. Vervier was well aware of the risk associated with changing it, and knew it was a sword that cut both ways. It solved the immediate power problem but the higher bolt velocity worked all of the components harder causing an increased number of broken parts. Vervier tried to explain them away as normal parts life issues, but the malfunctions stood, counting against the T48 on the competition scorecard.

In spite of the redesigns, there were still plenty of problems with the T44. Those miserable filler blocks that shortened the T20 receiver were continually working loose and grenade launching was still problematic. At the end of February, it was clear that the T44 had come out ahead and was announced the winner of the cold weather testing. Cautious military commanders at the Pentagon recoiled a bit from this latest development. Had they been too hasty in discounting their own American entry? To the joy of Rayle’s team, Ft. Monroe announced that the next round of testing would again include the T44. Possibly this time it might be considered as a serious contender.

Rayle’s visit to command headquarters at Ft. Monroe was a disappointment. Rather than showing any enthusiasm for the success of the American weapon, most of the discussion centered on the Americanization of the T48. It was if the recent T44 success had never happened. The entire U.S. defense industry was based on English inch-system dimensions. With no easy way to introduce a metric-designed weapon into U.S. production, it would be necessary to convert the entire T48 drawing package to the inch-system. At the same time, it was also important to convert the European format drawing into one more recognizable in the U.S. The good news was that the Canadians were interested in helping with these tasks, since they had already decided to adopt the FN design as their service rifle.

To his dismay, he learned that Springfield Armory was to assist in the metric conversion. Now his R&D department faced a huge challenge. It would be necessary for them to do a near perfect job with the conversion. Should even one component be manufactured incorrectly as a result of the conversion, the failure would likely be viewed as an effort to sabotage the competitor. And how would anyone know? Easy. Competing right alongside the U.S. made T48 would be the same metric guns made at the FN factory in Belgium to assure the American conversion was flawless.

Rayle could not let anything jeopardize the non-metric T48 design and subsequent testing. The Armory was already in trouble with Congress and some branches of the military, accused of being wasteful, inefficient, and some even said incompetent. Springfield Armory had no friends in the U.S. firearms industry either. Concerned firearms manufacturers had insisted on a meeting with him, displeased that Springfield Armory was taking work they believed could be more efficiently performed by private industry. A mediocre conversion job could sound the Armory’s death knell.

Rayle went back to Springfield prepared for the direction forward. He would farm out the metric conversion to U.S. industry. The industry would be totally unbiased and if anything, supportive. This would be an opportunity for them to tool up for U.S. production of what might become the next U.S. service rifle. Harrington and Richardson won the contract for the conversion and the production of 500 inch-system T48 rifles.

Undaunted by these new developments, the luxury of additional time and the recent miracle they pulled off with the Arctic testing gave Rayle the time he needed to beat the T48 in the next round of testing. In June of 1954, Dave Mathewson delivered the first T44E4, a rifle with a proper length receiver that had been designed with the aid of John Garand. The T44E4 looked good and was a full pound lighter than the T48.

Excited about the work done by Mathewson and Garand, Rayle took the rifle home that same night to examine it more closely. Sitting in the kitchen with the rifle in his lap, Rayle thought back on the ease at which the FN rifle could be field stripped. “The T44E4 was easy to strip too,” he thought. Or was it? He disassembled the T44E4 a couple more times to convince himself. Then a better idea came to him. Relying on her unfamiliarity with firearms, he asked his wife to leave the dishes for a moment in order to try her hand at it. She succeeded for the most part, but floundered, when trying to remove the bolt.

The next day Rayle called Dave Mathewson and recounted the previous night’s field stripping exercise. Dave agreed to look into it, and sure enough the next models delivered had extra cuts to facilitate disassembly. After thirteen each of the T48’s and T44E4’s were delivered, the guns were sent in opposite directions. Arctic testing would continue in Alaska while Ft. Benning would be supplied five of each type for user testing. By the spring of 1955, it was concluded that the weapons had an equal number of deficiencies, but the Board had a clear preference for the T44. At the conclusion of testing in November 1955 the malfunction rates were: T44–1.4%, inch-system T48–2.4%, and FN made T48-2.4 %.

Design refinements of both weapons and testing continued through most of 1956 with the final report indicating that either rifle was suitable for Army use. The lighter weight, ease of manufacture, non-adjustable gas system, fewer components, and slight edge on reliability gave the Board reasons to make their choice the T44E4. Official notification was not made until June 1957, but by then Rayle had been reassigned as the Ordnance Adviser to the First Field Army of the Republic of China, in Taiwan.

The teams led by LTC Roy E. Rayle had overcome great odds, beating out one of the finest service rifles ever developed. Without his engineering and leadership skills, the history of U.S. small arms would look quite different than it does today.

By Frank Iannamico

The service life of the famous Belgian designed Fusil Automatique Leger or FN FAL 7.62mm rifle has eclipsed for most of the ninety-plus nations that adopted the weapon during the 1950s. As a first line infantry weapon, the old workhorse FAL has largely been replaced by more modern small-arms.

Back during the 1980s new Belgian made FN FAL semiautomatic rifles, designated as the LAR (Light Automatic Rifle), were imported specifically for the U.S. civilian market. While the Belgian made rifles were extremely accurate and very well made, they were quite expensive; costing nearly twice as much as a semiautomatic Colt AR-15.

The world wide retirement of the FN FAL rifle has provided many parts and part sets for enthusiasts, and has created a substantial market for U.S. made receivers. FN FAL rifles built on American made receivers have been reasonably priced and extremely popular.

A Brief FAL History

During the post World War II era many of the allied nations began to search for a modern infantry rifle to replace their aging small-arms, many of which were long-obsolete bolt action rifles. The NATO alliance, formed in 1949, was set up largely to discourage an attack by the Soviet Union on the non-Communist nations of Western Europe. The NATO members decided that one of the joint military items that needed to be standardized was small arms ammunition. The action was taken to prevent the supply problems all nations had encountered during World War II and Korea. The selection of a service rifle was left up to each individual country: most chose the FAL.

The Belgian FAL rifle was designed by a Fabrique Nationale factory design team headed by Dieudonne Saive. The original FAL prototype rifle introduced in 1948 was chambered for the midrange 8mm Kurz round first fielded by German forces near the war’s end. Subsequent prototypes were chambered for the experimental British .280 cartridge.

The controversial NATO standard cartridge selection program ended with the adoption of the U.S. developed 7.62×51 cartridge in January of 1954. Anticipating the NATO adoption of the U.S. endorsed 7.62×51 round, efforts by Dieudonne Saive and Ernest Vervier began as early as 1952 to adapt the FAL rifle for the U.S. cartridge. The resulting 7.62mm weapon was considerably longer and heavier than earlier variations.

From 1952 through 1956, many of the NATO alliance countries began to seriously consider the Belgian rifle. Canada was the first NATO country to officially adopt the FAL rifle in July of 1953. Since the FN FAL rifle was built using the metric system, the Canadian Government was the first to address the challenge of converting the drawings from metric to inches. Later that year, the United States ordered 3,000 standard and 200 heavy barrel metric FAL rifles from Fabrique Nationale in Belgium. The Belgian made rifles were designated as the T48. While the United States began work on making an inch-pattern U.S. manufactured FAL rifle, the Belgian made T48 weapons were issued to the U.S. Army for field testing. During 1954 Great Britain also ordered a number of the FAL rifles chambered for the new 7.62 NATO cartridge for testing.

A meeting was held at the Office of the U.S. Chief of Ordnance on 10 May 1954 in order to brief representatives of the Springfield Armory on the policy for the T48 rifle program. On 26 May 1954 Armory officials attended a conference held at the head office of Canadian Arsenals Limited. The purpose of the Canadian meeting was to participate in what was called the American-British-Canadian Program (A-B-C) to convert the metric FN FAL drawings to American Standards. The group distributed translated drawings and manufacturing data to prospective contractors who were invited to submit bids for production studies. It was established that engineering information would be exchanged between the United States, Great Britain and Canada with Canadian Arsenals Ltd. acting as the clearing house. Spare parts requirements for a normal one-year maintenance program were compiled for the 500 T48 rifles to be manufactured in the United States.

After a brief study it was determined that converting the metric Belgian drawings to inches would not be an easy task. Other concerns were U.S. Ordnance specifications for materials, heat-treating procedures, manufacturing tolerances and other manufacturing operations. Personnel from the U.S. Springfield Armory were originally assigned the job of converting the FAL manufacturing drawings. However, since the Springfield Armory was busy with the T44E4 rifle development and numerous other projects, it was decided to turn the job over to a commercial entity. Bids were taken for the project and the contract was eventually awarded to the High Standard Company. As part of the agreement, High Standard was to manufacture twelve functional FAL T48 rifles from their final drawings and were to be delivered by September of 1954. The U.S. FAL, the T48, adopted the Canadian improved magazine design that included a reinforced magazine lip. This modification made to all inch-pattern FAL rifle magazines, made the magazine non-interchangeable with metric FAL rifles. The first U.S. made T48 FAL rifle was fired at the Springfield Armory on 9 May 1955. Despite the fact that there was no formal contract between Fabrique Nationale and the United States, the company granted the U.S. at no cost, the complete rights to produce the FN T48 rifle domestically.

After all of the conversion drawings were completed, the Harrington and Richardson Arms Company and International Harvester both submitted bids to manufacture the T48 rifle. Harrington and Richardson was eventually chosen to produce the T48 rifles while the Springfield Armory would manufacture the competing U.S. T44E4 design. The Hand Arms and Equipment Unit of the Armory was ordered to prepare Ordnance drawings, provide manufacturing information and technical data to the Boston Ordnance District, for use in administering the contract number DA-19-020-ORD-3436 for the caliber .30 T48 rifle to H&R.

A representative from the Springfield Armory attended a four-day conference held from May 16-20, 1955 at the Royal Small Arms Factory in Enfield, Middlesex England. The conference, initiated by the British government, was the first in a series to promote cooperation and eventual tri-partite NATO standardization of the Belgian FN FAL rifle. The general feeling was that since the NATO countries had (reluctantly) adopted the U.S. 7.62mm cartridge, they expected the U.S. to reciprocate and adopt the FAL rifle. Then, not only would NATO have a common cartridge, but a common service rifle as well.

Officials from Fort Benning reported that the Belgian made T48 rifles were experiencing functioning problems under dusty conditions. Similar problems were encountered with the FAL rifles during desert testing by Great Britain. To address the problem, a small delegation of Americans who represented the U.S. contractors, visited the Royal Arms Factory in England and the Fabrique Nationale factory in Liege, Belgium. The problem was traced to the FAL’s close manufacturing tolerances between the bolt carrier and the receiver. The Belgium engineers suggested the incorporation of “sand cuts,” or zig-zag grooves machined into the bolt carriers. This eventually solved the problem.

After the first 100 U.S. made T48 Harrington and Richardson FAL rifles were ready in September 1955, 10 were randomly selected for testing at the Aberdeen Proving Center. The Harrington and Richardson T48 rifles experienced a few initial problems with small parts failing and stoppages. After these problems were addressed and solved, testing resumed. Early manufacture Harrington and Richardson T48 rifles were unable to qualify in the accuracy test. This problem was traced back to excessive machining tolerances on the barrels, partially as a result of a drawing conversion error.

A final head to head full-scale test of the T48 versus the T44E4 was scheduled for the spring of 1956. However, instead of an out and out test, only a brief trial was conducted. The testing took place concurrently at Fort Benning, Georgia and the U.S. Marine Base at Quantico, Virginia.

There was a great deal of skepticism on behalf of those involved in the testing about the United States Army adopting a foreign designed infantry weapon for its forces. Many felt that the U.S. Ordnance Department was simply going through the motions of testing the FAL rifle to appease the other NATO members, who were pressuring the U.S. to adopt the Belgian rifle. On the other hand, there was great political pressure from the U.S. Army and the Springfield Armory to adopt the U.S. designed T44E4.

After the trials were completed, Fort Benning reported that both rifles were suitable for army use, failing to decisively choose one design over the other. The U.S. Marine testing at Quantico reported that the Springfield Armory’s T44E4 rifle entry held a slight edge. It seemed as though no one was prepared to select one rifle over the other, as it was becoming a very sensitive political issue.

After a thorough study of all the test reports, which lasted nearly a year, the U.S. Ordnance Department finally came to the conclusion that the U.S. designed T44E4 rifle possessed the following advantages;

1. The T44E4 rifle was a full pound lighter than the T48.
2. The T44E4 contained fewer parts and had a single-port gas system that didn’t require adjustments.
3. The similarities between the T44E4 and its predecessor, the M1 Garand rifle, would ease both training and manufacturing requirements.

Despite pressure from the other NATO countries for the U.S. to adopt the Belgian designed T48 rifle, on 1 May 1957 Secretary of the Army Wilbur H. Bruckner announced that the T44E4 and T44E5 were being adopted as the Standard U.S. service rifles as the M14 and M15 respectively. An Ordnance Committee meeting held on 14 November 1957 finalized the adoption of the M14 and M15 rifles as Standard.

The Belgian FAL rifle, in slightly varying configurations, was eventually adopted as the standard infantry rifle by over ninety countries. The FAL would become the most prolific rifle among the NATO alliance, and made in far larger quantities than any other 7.62mm rifle.