“When it comes to dependability and terminal ballistics, Speer is the gold standard. That’s why Speer is a top choice of law enforcement and military professionals,” said Vice President of Government Sales David Leis. “Speer continues to supply our U.S. DOD and unified forces with superior products for their efforts in protecting U.S. global interests.”

Speer Gold Dot G2 offers the ultimate performance in duty ammunition, thanks to an exclusive nose design. Instead of a large hollow-point cavity, Gold Dot G2 has a shallow dish filled with a high-performance elastomer. On impact, the material is forced into engineered internal fissures to start the expansion process. The result is extremely uniform expansion, better separation of the petals, and more consistent penetration across barrier types through duty handguns.

Speer Ammunition can be found at dealers nationwide and online. For more information on all products from Speer, visit www.speer.com.

“The PLA (People’s Liberation Army of Communist China) is also exploring satellite jammers, kinetic energy weapons, high-powered lasers, high-powered microwave weapons, particle beam weapons, and electromagnetic pulse weapons for counterspace application.” US Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, 2008. The Chinese have already demonstrated their mastery of directed energy weapons (DEW) as a strategic spacewar capability by killing spy satellites in orbit. The PLA, aided by cynically mercenary experts from a catalog of nations including some US “allies,” is accelerating its program to develop and field ever more powerful and versatile DEW that are suitable for both strategic and tactical employment.

Same for the Russians – said by the Defense Intelligence Agency to have used vehicle mounted lethal power lasers in their Afghanistan debacle – who have been vigorously pushing the frontiers of science for decades in building efficient particle beam, laser and microwave weapons.

Serious discussion and planning throughout the US Department of Defense points to an official certainty that a range of advanced weapons beyond traditional kinetic energy types (hard projectile pushers) will be used by all combatant forces on the battlefields of the near future.

“Death Rays” Revealed

A useful introduction to the three major classes of DEW is provided here, courtesy of the Chinese themselves, who are clearly watching what’s being done in the West to parallel their own efforts.

“Directed energy weapons are new-generation weapons developed on the basis of the new concept of replacing conventional bullets with high-energy beams. Technically, directed energy weapons can be divided into three branches, namely (1) laser weapons, which can destroy or destabilize targets by using electromagnetic radiation energy beams with a wavelength of less than 1 millimeter; (2) radio-frequency weapons, which can destroy or destabilize targets with electromagnetic energy within the radio spectrum range (wavelength is more than 1 millimeter and radio frequency less than 300 gigahertz); (3) particle beam weapons, which are capable of destroying or destabilizing targets with neutral high-energy atomic particle beams (usually hydrogen, deuterium and tritium) or charged high-energy atomic or subatomic particle beams.” Zhang Yaping, Peoples Republic of China Astronautics and Missilery

As laser and microwave systems are most prominent among presently workable DEWs, it is essential to understand that both types are electromagnetic radiation but are different in their wavelength.

We’ll dispense with the scientific explanations and just say that many types of laser emissions are visible to the human eye but microwaves are not. Lasers begin burning the outside of an object while microwaves “cook” from the inside. More detailed information may be found in the resources listed at the end of this feature.

DEW Proliferation

China and Russia are not alone among America’s likely adversaries with current or emerging DEW capabilities. Numerous US government, military and industry documents that are readily available to anyone on the internet confirm the obvious.

A case in point is the December 2007 report to the US Secretary of Defense by the Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons. Even after being carefully scrubbed of classified information, its chapter on current and emerging threats reveals a chilling likelihood. Addressing vulnerabilities recognized in sophisticated electronic command and control systems – extending from orbiting satellites to tactical team individual radios – the task force zeroes in on the threat posed by laser systems and high power microwave technologies: “They are particularly susceptible to the types of directed energy systems that are believed to be feasible for a wide range of potential adversaries … including non-state actors.” (Emphasis added)

Translated from typically overcautious bureaucratese, this means that all levels of the US-Allied “digital battlefield” can be too easily rendered blind, deaf and mute by devices available now to many countries and their terrorist surrogates (non-state actors). Just one example of this may be found in Iran, which buys high tech weapons from Russia, China and elsewhere, then funnels them to al Qaeda and other “insurgent” forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What is going to happen when the free world’s many enemies begin employing DEW not only against US and Allied C3I (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence), but its soldiers as well?

Laser Sniping

We don’t need to wait until fully lethal DE weapons become widely available. Just enough power and range to blind will work just fine for those with no regard for the so-called laws of warfare and the civilized world’s condemnation.

This fits quite well the long-standing military maxim that inflicting incapacitating wounds is more tactically useful than killing the enemy because evacuating and caring for a badly wounded soldier distracts more of his fighting comrades from their primary battlefield mission.

Frying eyes with surprisingly low-powered lasers is a capability that is real and right now, a sobering thought for anyone whose job includes peering through weapon scopes, binoculars, AFV periscopes, and other optical devices.

The ZM-87, China’s Portable Laser Disturber, is a tripod-mounted weapon that can be carried and used by a crew of two. Its utility as a blinding weapon has been demonstrated in documented attacks.

Similarly, a laser “range finder” aboard the Russian spy ship Kapitan Man is known to have caused retina burns on a US Navy officer aboard an allied maritime surveillance helicopter in 1997.

The Federation of American Scientists reports that, “during the Iran-Iraq War, Iranian soldiers suffered over 4,000 documented eye casualties from Iraqi laser systems….” The injuries were described as retinal burns and hemorrhages, most of which were likely caused by deliberate antipersonnel use of the laser rangefinders in Saddam Hussein’s Communist-bloc tanks.

But that’s just the beginning. Ever popped corn in a microwave? Or used a magnifying glass to start a fire? Directed energy weapons are poppers and burners on a massive scale.

Uncle Sam’s DEW Programs

We are relieved to note that the United States and a few allies are well along the way in energy beam weapons programs, some dating back to the 1970s. Countering the very real threat of the Soviet Union’s massive arsenal of thermonuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles drove both high power laser and particle beam development. These reached a degree of practicality that readily transitioned in the 1980s to the Strategic Defense Initiative, popularly known as “Star Wars.”

In the decades that have followed, the strategic and tactical capabilities of these and other DE technologies have accelerated in work by a veritable alphabet soup of government and military programs. Just a sampling of these includes DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), SMDC (Space and Missile Defense Command), AFRL (Air Force Research Laboratory), and ONR (Office of Naval Research). Their many partners in the defense industry and academic institutions extend the roster of DEW players to virtually every state in the union.

Astronomical funding levels have paid off with astonishing capabilities. DEW in various forms are tracking and killing not only massive intercontinental ballistic missiles, but also multiple mortar rounds in flight. They’re melting electronic brains in the smartest of “smart weapons.” Shipborne DE systems can zap sea-skimming missiles. Airborne lasers can instantaneously fry individual terrorists with surgical precision that eliminates the usual “collateral damage” imagery that Al Jazeera and others delight in broadcasting.

Lasers

There are several different ways that the photon beams of lasers are generated in DEW, with major categories being chemical, free electron, bundled optical fiber, and solid state. This last is the simplest, typified by the battery powered pointer-illuminators now clamped to just about every M4 carbine in Uncle Sam’s military and extending to some experimental vehicle-mounted anti-materiel systems.

Included in the grouping of relatively low powered lasers are “dazzlers,” so called for their ability to distract and disorient their human targets using carefully controlled beam intensity that won’t cause lasting eye damage.

AFRL’s ScorpWorks has built a particularly novel dazzler with a name that invokes memories of the science fiction television series Star Trek. Their PHaSR (Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response) is a rifle-sized, non-lethal device in a futuristic housing. It projects two laser wavelengths with an effect “temporarily impairing individuals and their ability to see the laser source.”

Ground vehicle mounted systems are the next step up, quickly gaining in power and tactical potential. ZEUS, SMDC’s high energy solid state laser riding on a HMMWV, has been successfully field tested as a killer of IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) in Afghanistan. Effectiveness of this and similar pilot program systems has spurred development of more powerful and tactically mobile High Energy Laser Technology Demonstrators. These are already showing the ability to counter a wide variety of battlefield threats including rockets, artillery shells and mortar rounds.

A Bolt from the Blue

There is plenty of evidence that the demand for DEW is increasing throughout the US Armed Forces, driven in particular by current operational realities in the Global War on Terror. A compelling example of this may be found in US Special Operations Command’s (USSOCOM) Technology Development Objectives, briefed at NDIA’s Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict symposium in 2008.

Among other eyebrow-raising requirements is their intention to “pursue a greater variety of integrated, tunable weapons – non-lethal weapons with a tunable destructive potential – to accommodate a broad variety of missions while limiting collateral damage and casualties.”

Keep your eye on that part about “tunable destructive potential” because that’s the most exciting possibility for DEW of the near future. And some possibilities are already flying.

When vastly more power is needed for destructive lasing to greater range and effect, scientists have devised some supremely clever ways to create and hurl man-made “lightning bolts.” Particularly dramatic evidence of the progress of this weaponry may be found in the US Air Force’s Airborne Laser, flying now in a modified 747. Its megawatt-class Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) has repeatedly demonstrated the air-to-air capability of destroying ballistic missiles in flight.

This success has inspired US Special Operations Command to order an air-to-ground version, called the Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL), with an eye toward eventually replacing its fleet of aging AC-130 Spectre and Spooky gunships. Their conventional kinetic-energy weapons will be supplemented at first by a COIL, then completely replaced, enabling engagement of a variety of ground and air targets with previously unattainable precision and instantaneous effect. If the project stays on track, first operational use of the new ATL may occur before the end of 2009.

An apparently authentic Coalition Forces (CF) document, widely circulated on the internet, touts the many desirable characteristics of the ATL under its USMC name Precision Airborne Standoff Directed Energy Weapon (PASDEW). These include “application of graduated effects” (tuning the beam to less-lethal or selectively aiming the full power beam) for such important tasks as stopping vehicles by flash melting the tires.

It also predicts mind-boggling PSYOPS (psychological operations) advantages of the ATL and similar beam devices in uncharacteristically graphic terms:

“In an anti-personnel mode, DEWs can be compared to long range blow torches or precision flame throwers …. A precision engagement of a PID (positively identified) insurgent by a DEW will be a highly surgical and impressively violent event. Target effects will include instantaneous burst-combustion of insurgent clothing, a rapid death through violent trauma, and more probably a morbid combination of both. It is estimated that the aftermath of a sub-second engagement … will also be an observable event leaving an impression of terrifyingly precise CF attribution in the minds of all witnesses.”

Microwaves

While microwaves – radio waves of extremely short length – have been around since WWII, their use in weapons has only recently emerged. Unmatched in their ability to penetrate deep inside even heavily shielded electronic devices, microwaves can melt circuits and instantly turn a multimillion dollar gadget into a great big smoking box of junk.

And just as your ordinary microwave oven heats food, a tunable military HPM (high powered microwave) emitter can readily “dial-an-effect” on various targets ranging from tingling to toasting.

The tingling end of this range is of particular interest to DoD’s Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate for applications where the objective is to disrupt and disperse hostile crowds without resorting to messy traditional means like tear gas, rubber bullets and the like.

This alternative is nicely realized in Air Force Research Laboratory’s Active Denial System (ADS), a counter-personnel, non-lethal, directed energy weapon that projects a focused beam of millimeter waves toward a designated individual or group. An invisible beam, traveling at the speed of light, penetrates clothing and reaches a skin depth of about 1/64th of an inch, the equivalent of three sheets of ordinary copy paper. Test subjects report that an intense heat sensation results, growing intolerable within seconds and forcing the targets to instinctively flee.

Although another desirable attribute is not usually listed in ADS program promotional materials, the invisible internal effects of the invisible microwave beam actively deny hostile media the inflammatory video imagery that is their stock in trade. And don’t forget its tunable/scalable capability that just might tempt the on-site commander to fry the electronic circuitry of all video equipment anywhere in range.

The first mobile configuration ADS is characterized by a large octagonal antenna mounted on a sturdy HMMWV that carries its power and microwave generating apparatus. Development has matured to the point of deployment with USAF Security Forces and prime contractor Raytheon has recently delivered ADS II, a more powerful, enhanced and ruggedized version mounted on the massive HEMETT vehicle.

DE at JSSAP?

The Joint Service Small Arms Program (JSSAP), part of the Army’s enormous Armaments Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC), identifies and develops cutting edge concepts in weapons and ammunition to the point of transition leading to large scale fielding. In other words, these are the “go to guys” to find out what’s currently on conveyor belts that run ten years or more into the future.

JSSAP recently published a solicitation that welcomes “non-traditional technology” for next generation small arms systems. The following excerpt shows that serious proposals from the DE community are apparently welcome:

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SUPPORTING FUNDED R&D EFFORTS FOR LETHALITY AND ADVANCED FIRE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CONCENTRATIONS FY 2008 – 2010 W15QKN-08-R-0449 

2.7.9. New Concepts & Applications. This research area includes non traditional technology leading to leaps in capability, such as (1) non kinetic energy lethality mechanisms or energy systems that can be scaled from lethal to less than lethal; (2) warheads or projectiles that can offer lethal and less than lethal capability; and (3) systems that automate the target acquisition and take weapon aiming out of the hands of the soldier. Unique and untried approaches to defeating targets in defilade also fit within this technology/research area.

Joel Goldman heads up JSSAP, so we asked him to let us know what’s going on there with DEW. He pointed us in two directions, first to a fascinating working group that JSSAP had recently convened and then to another component of ARDEC that is specifically involved in such things.

Before moving on we spoke at some length with Goldman, who told us he’s been closely following developments in directed energy for quite some time. And his well-informed opinion on the central question of this feature: When will the first fully scalable, hand-held DEW be fielded?

“Based on the periodic technology assessments that JSSAP has conducted,” the 63 year old, government gun guru with 38 years service declared, “not in my lifetime.”

The Fusion of Science and Science Fiction 

In part of its search for far-reaching concepts that are worthy of serious consideration, JSSAP has periodically convened meetings to survey the state of the art of a broad range of technologies that might have relevance to small arms. Beginning in the mid-1980s, JSSAP has consistently involved science fiction writers in these brainstorming and assessment activities. The latest instance of this decidedly unconventional approach occurred as the first of a two-part activity held in March and early May 2008 in support of “Future Small Arms Technology Plan Development” efforts. In the first meeting, JSSAP brought together a select group of nine prominent science fiction writers to brainstorm the frontier of scientific possibilities. Their mission was to propose “leap-ahead technologies” and – with the help of select representatives from industry, academia, the national laboratories, and government – to assess their possible practical potential. 74 concepts resulted, sorted into five categories; intelligence gathering, human factors, survivability, battlefield impact, and firepower.

Their ideas, one of which called for tapping energy from the quantum vacuum, were then given a hard, cold look by a team of science, engineering and military experts during the second meeting. While at this writing the report is still in preparation and its specifics not available for release, Goldman told us that at least twenty concepts have emerged.

“These are viable, relevant and will find a place,” Goldman explained, “in a technology investment strategy for small arms systems capable of overwhelmingly defeating any enemy combatant of the future.”

As SAR is most interested in firepower, we tracked down a couple of participants who, in our opinion, bring particular credibility based on their professional work outside of sci-fi.

John Hemry, a retired US Navy lieutenant commander, is the author of the notable STARK’S WAR series and, under the pen name Jack Campbell, the LOST FLEET series. Speaking of his working group, he reports that “no one thought there would be huge or dramatic breakthroughs in small arms in the near future.”

Instead, Hemry’s own suggestions to JSSAP centered on target recognition and engagement. “The best way to enhance weapon effectiveness in the near future,” he believes, “is to improve the ability of the shooter to identify and target the enemy.”

Doctor Arlan Andrews, Sr., another member of the group, suggests a different track. Notable not only for service in the White House Science Office, Sandia National laboratories and more, Andrews founded an eclectic group of sci-fi writers comprising the SIGMA group. Now well into its second decade of advising government agencies and the military on what the future may hold, SIGMA is most recently known for work with the Department of Homeland Security on innovative ways to combat terrorism.

Andrews enthusiastically responded to SAR’s request for input on his suggestions to JSSAP, sending us a copy of his elaborate PowerPoint presentation to the working group. Entitled “Nanotech-Enabled Weaponry and Features,” it is worthy of a full article in itself. Alas, since it concerns devilishly smart kinetic energy weapons and variable power ammo – but no beam devices in sight – we’ll defer elaboration and go right for the reply he sent us in response to the title question of this article.

The good Doctor Andrews, refreshingly unconcerned it seems with diplomatic sensitivities and likely influenced by conversations with personal contacts in the academic branches of DEW, pulls no punches in his prediction on the US military’s first full-featured ray gun for individual soldiers:

“I would estimate that it will be a pulsed-energy weapon, probably powered by a backpack power system, looking much like today’s flame throwers. After successful small-scale operational tests by special operations forces in occupied Iran (the non-radioactive areas) ca. 2011, they will be more massively deployed by our troops along the perimeter of conflict between the USA and the irregular forces of the secessionist northern Mexican provinces, which is to say between Corpus Christi and the cartel-occupied cities of Laredo and Brownsville,” Andrews replied.

AEAD

Among ARDEC’s many components is one that Goldman advised was particularly relevant to this feature. He kindly assisted our journey back through official channels to contact his counterpart Ben Lagasca, head of Advanced Energy Armaments Division (AEAD).

Because SAR is fully supportive of the cautious process that keeps classified information away from freedom’s many foes, we offered to submit our questions via email. This was accepted and replies came back in kind. Some relevant excerpts:

SAR: At NDIA’s Small Arms Conference in 2000, ARDEC’s Harry Moore gave a presentation on the impressive potential of the Pulsed Impulsive Kill Laser (PIKL). Is this being applied to current DEW projects at AEAD?

AEAD: The Army SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) program/effort started in FY05 with Stellar Photonics was intended to build from the PIKL effort. With the advancement of solid state lasers it was believed that the potential existed to improve the PIKL technology known as Laser Supported Detonation (LSD) or Dynamic Pulse Detonation (DPD). Stellar was tasked to investigate the optimal parameters for creating LSD or DPD that could be useful for military applications. The study was unsuccessful (but) did evolve into possibly using the technology as a non-lethal visual deterrent. This effort is congressionally funded at approximately $1 million per year (out) to 2010, basic research to look at the potential of Synchronized Photopulse Detonation…. Stellar has constructed a prototype device and demonstrated their technology only in a lab environment. The Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD) has shown interest in this technology as a potential part of their non-lethal weapons program; however the effectiveness of the system has yet to be determined by Government or Independent evaluators.

SAR: Applied Energetics recently announced a $4.5 million contract with ARDEC for development and advancement of its proprietary Laser Guided Energy (LGE), “a transformational weapon technology by which a controllable high voltage electric charge can be precisely guided by a laser through the atmosphere to produce a range of controllable effects against a variety of potential military and security targets.” Comment on this being used to counter improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and any other applications.

AEAD: Applied Energetics has a lab demo scheduled for March 2009 developing DE technologies to defeat anti-material targets. AE has the patent on certain aspects of this technology and much of this work is classified.

SAR: ARDEC’s official web page linked at www.pica.army.mil lists an impressive range of “advanced technologies” said to be used in its DEW work. While most are self-explanatory, please comment on work with acoustics and nanotechnology.

AEAD: ARDEC works a wide range of advanced energy weapon systems across (its) many departments. (We) can only comment on the efforts of the Advanced Energy Armaments Division (which includes the Directed Energy Branch) to say that AEAD has no ongoing efforts in nanotechnology. In addition, any acoustic work performed by AEAD is on evaluating non-lethal Commercial Off-the-Shelf devices that are considered to be “hailing and warning devices” and are not considered as “weapons.” Examples include the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), etc.

SAR: What is Mr. Lagasca’s prediction on the first fielding of a scalable non-lethal to lethal DE weapon that can be carried and used by one man?

Lagasca: “Hand held Non-Lethal Laser Dazzlers have already been fielded and are currently available. These systems are mainly used as a non-lethal means to ‘warn’ and/or get the attention of people. These lasers are not considered weapons. Weaponization of lasers for lethal applications into a ‘hand-held’ form factor are a long way away. Currently there are no laser technologies or programs that I am aware of that could be weaponized into hand held size within say 10 years. Breakthroughs in laser and power source technologies would be required to realize laser weapons in this class. It should also be noted that all lethal laser development programs are focused on counter materiel applications and not counter personnel (at least the ones that I am aware of). Any laser weapon designed for lethal and/or non-lethal counter personnel use would have to undergo considerable legal policy review to assure conformance with applicable international treaties such as prohibition on blinding weapons.”

Electric Ships

The United States Navy’s future surface warships are under development right now and they represent the nearly ideal mobile platforms for utilizing all types of directed energy weaponry. These massive, oceangoing, all-electric vessels will have plenty of room on board for complicated apparatus and vast reserves of energy from the latest generation high-yield nuclear power plants.

Office of Naval Research (ONR) has long been interested in the potential of directed energy weapons for shipboard defense at the speed of light and, among other initiatives, is well underway with perfecting the “high average power infrared free electron laser.” FEL for short, it provides particularly intense beams that can be tuned to atmosphere-penetrating wavelengths. This tuning is an essential capability in conditions of thick fog, heavy rain and snow, making FEL weapons lethal in all weather against threat aircraft, watercraft, sea skimming missiles, and more.

And the practicality of including specialized kinetic energy weaponry on these future warships hasn’t been overlooked. Because there are times when slinging steel is the best solution to specific situations, the ONR is also hard at work on EMRGs (electromagnetic railguns). These exotic projectile pushers dispense with traditional chemical propellants or rocket motors in favor an electrically generated magnetic field that “levitates” a specialized metallic slug, launching it down track-like rails at previously unattainable speed.

Successful test firings have been conducted, with one demonstrating a mind-boggling muzzle velocity of 1.56 miles per second. With anticipated fielding some 15 years away, the Navy expects its EMRGs to fire 6 to 10 internally guided projectiles per minute with astonishing precision at ranges in excess of 200 nautical miles, about the distance from New York City to Boston.

KE/DE Combo

In retrospect, it was a bit unfair to ask the experts to predict fielding of an individual weapon using only directed energy to provide fully tunable effects from dazzle to death. Most respondents were quick to point out that a combination of a standard kinetic energy (KE) assault rifle, coupled with a “scalable effects” less-lethal directed energy (DE) device, is the most practical and logical interim step.

Indeed, when one takes into account such possible couplings as XADS’ Stun Strike Close Quarters Shock Rifle clamped to an M4 carbine, we’re getting there now.

More exotic hardware is in the works that promises to extend the reach of the DE module’s less lethal but incapacitating effects to eventually approximate the effective range of the decidedly lethal KE host weapon. The AEWS/Stellar Photonics’ “Synchronized Photo-pulse Detonation” may be one of these, said to employ two synchronized lasers that project an atmospheric shock wave of superheated plasma.

Lest one be tempted to dismiss this and similar efforts as quantum quackery, their development is being fueled by millions of defense dollars, awarded only after rigorous scientific review has validated their potential. Many firms have ongoing contracts and are working on classified counter-IED and other projects under supervision of various Department of Defense entities.

Because these will certainly get smaller, lighter and more powerful in the near future, your individual-issue ray gun seems inevitable. Thus, if Doctor Andrews’ startlingly bold prediction proves right, the first of USSOCOM’s elite warriors will be combat testing their one-man-portable “non-lethal weapons with a tunable destructive potential” in about three years.

The E-Bomb

“After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge light-wave energy, the same spectrum of energy found in your microwave, or in your TV remote control. They’re called ‘directed-energy weapons’ – lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams – and they signal a revolution in weaponry, perhaps more profound than the atomic bomb.” (E-Bomb book jacket notes)

Published in 2005, this fascinating book carries the bold subtitle, “How America’s new directed energy weapons will change the way future wars are fought.” It has served quite well as our primary reference source for this feature, detailing the scientific concepts and evolving hardware of DE. While including plenty of formulas and diagrams for the more scientific-minded readers, these are accompanied by simple explanations and straightforward presentations, making it easily understood by the rest of us.

Its author, a retired USAF Colonel with a Doctorate in Physics, has particular credibility as a result of more than thirty years of experience, from conducting basic research to directing applied-science programs and formulating national policy. J. Douglas Beason’s last active duty assignment was Deputy Director for Directed Energy at the Air Force Research Laboratory.

He is currently the Associate Laboratory Director for Threat Reduction at Los Alamos National Laboratory, responsible for programs that reduce the global threat of weapons of mass destruction.

Doctor Beason graciously responded to our request for a prediction on the first fielding of a scalable non-lethal to lethal DE weapon that can be carried and used by one man. It is presented here in its entirety:

“Small arms Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) will provide the warfighter with the best of all worlds – speed of light engagement, little (if any) collateral damage, near-infinite precision, the ability to induce “graduated” effects (dial-an-effect), and best of all, not be constrained by ballistics or windage. In the near future, as technology matures and DEWs become smaller and capable of being fielded by individuals, a revolution will occur as DEWs move from strategic to tactical applications.

“The first use of small arms DEWs has been in the form of non-lethal weapons, for example dazzlers. As power supplies shrink and sub-THz (teraHertz) sources become more efficient, hand-held active denial units the size of back packs will become available.

“Because of technology limitations, it will take much longer to field a small arms lethal laser capability; but until then, the tactics and doctrine of using DEWs on the battlefield – and most importantly, the evolution of a national DEW policy – will mature.”

Find Out More

The following internet links are listed in their order of presentation in this feature:

Report: Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2007-12-Directed_Energy_Report.pdf

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: www.darpa.mil

US Army Space and Missile Defense Command: www.smdc.army.mil

US Air Force Research Laboratory: www.afrl.af.mil

US Navy Office of Naval Research: www.onr.navy.mil

Department of Defense Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate: https://www.jnlwp.com

US Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center: www.pica.army.mil

FBI Academy Advanced Weapons Subject Bibliography: http://fbilibrary.fbiacademy.edu/bibliographies/advancedweapons.htm

Book: The E-Bomb www.dougbeason.com

The “Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier” is the over arching US Army organization responsible for the development, procurement, fielding and sustainment of nearly everything the soldier wears or carries. PEO Soldier at each AUSA event shows off its accomplishments in small arms, accessories and related individual and crew served weaponry within its expansive and well-staffed booth. The 2007 AUSA Annual Meeting exhibit was no exception. The PM for Soldier Weapons, Colonel Carl Lipsit, was there again and ready to discuss programs and US Army initiatives and objectives, and to provide this snapshot of ongoing efforts.

XM320 Grenade
Launcher Module (GLM)

The planned one-to-one replacement for the aging M203, the XM320 GLM, is in final testing to address numerous Army requested changes deemed advantageous before fielding. The contract for this more or less Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) item was awarded to Heckler & Koch in 2005. First fielding is planned for late fiscal year 2008 and will begin with the Army’s Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs). The US Army plans to procure upwards of 60,000 M320s over the next 5 years. Final operational testing includes evaluation of the day/night sight (DNS) mounting bracket and remote activation switch. A commercial hand-held miniature laser range finder will also be procured and issued with the GLM to allow for range determination to the target, the most common reason for grenadiers missing targets with low velocity 40x46mm ordnance at ranges beyond 150 meters. The M320 will provide the war fighter with new capabilities to include modular on or off the weapon use, night fire capability and first round on target accuracy within 5 meters.

M110 SASS

The 7.62x51mm NATO Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS), developed for the US Army from the COTS Knight’s Armament SR-25/MK11 sniper rifle systems, has completed all testing, is in production, and by the time this article is published will have been fielded with various US Army units to include US Army National Guard units from New York. The M110 SASS brings back to the regular Army the availability of aimed and accurate .30 caliber semi-automatic rifle fire that was lost when the bolt-action US M24 Sniper Rifle fully replaced the semi-automatic Vietnam era M21. Old lessons relearned again. When you find an auto-loading sniper rifle like the M110 SASS that can deliver accuracy on par or better than a bolt-action rifle, and with that it brings the ability for rapid multiple shot/target engagement capability, a capability always appreciated in the fast moving urban combat environment, keep a place for such a “tool’ in your infantry tool box.

XM26 MASS

As has been reported in detail in a recent SAR issue, the XM26 Modular Accessory Shotgun System (MASS) has been in development for nearly 10 years. The US Army is now close to fully fielding the final weapon and has been working on various improvements to the design. This includes a new liquid (oil) hydraulic M4-style butt stock to reduce felt recoil from the relatively light weight shotgun in the stand-alone mode. 3-round and 5-round box magazines will be available for the M26 to suit the needs of both weapon mounted and stand-alone use.

M2HB QCB

PM Soldier Weapons will have released a solicitation for a Quick Change Barrel (QCB) version of the venerable M2HB heavy machine gun before this article is in print. The requirement will be for upgrades to existing guns to be installed at Anniston Army depot and then to purchase these upgrades on new guns at a later time. This requested package, available for some years from various vendors as COTS items, includes the quick-change barrel, fixed headspace and timing, new safety and an improved blank firing adapter and flash hider.

Breaking News in US Weapons Procurement: Information that Shook Up the Small Arms Community

The last several years have been “interesting” in the small arms community, as various companies jockeyed to present replacements for our legacy system; the venerable M16/M4 rifle. At this AUSA meeting, information was available that rocked the community.

Colonel Lipsit provided some insight into the then ongoing Extreme Dust Environment testing that was being conducted at Aberdeen Proving Ground in 2007. The test included the standard issue M4 Carbine (from US Army stock), the new SCAR-L Standard Carbine (prototype – LRIP design status), the HK416 Carbine (new production) and the XM8 Baseline Carbine (Spiral 3 prototypes from US Army stores). The M4 was tested with standard USGI aluminum magazines, the HK416 and SCAR-L with the vendor provided magazines and the XM8 with the polymer XM8/G36 magazine that is unique to that system. This test was intended to ascertain the performance of the US M4 Carbine in a severe dust/sand environment with various lubrication and cleaning methods/intervals applied. This is the third such test conducted on the M4 since 2006.

During the test, the weapons and test ammunition loaded in magazines and placed in magazine pouches, were “conditioned” in the dynamic dust chamber for 30 minutes. If ejection port covers were present on the weapons (M4 and HK416 only), they were closed and the bores sealed with shoot-through dust caps, SOP for soldiers in such environments. 120 rounds were then fired through each sample. The weapons were then re-exposed in the chamber again and another 120 rounds fired. At 600 round intervals the weapons were field stripped and wiped down. Lubrication was applied as per the manufacturers established guidelines for this test. At 1,200 rounds, the weapons were thoroughly cleaned. Testing continued to 6,000 rounds on each sample, the 6,000 round figure based upon the expected barrel and bolt service life as listed in the US military M4 specification document.

This testing, started in September 2007, was conducted after pressure was applied by Congress, primarily from the office of US Senator Tom Coburn, a hard charging Republican from Oklahoma and a long-time supporter of the US ground-pounder. Senator Coburn, and his equally engaged staff, orchestrated a delay in the confirmation of the then pending and now current Secretary of the Army, the Honorable Peter Geren, during the summer months of 2007. The purpose of this delay was to force the Army to evaluate the reliability of the US M4 Carbine against select op-rod 5.56mm carbines in a harsh dust/sand environment replicating as close as possible conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even special fine silicon based sand of the light powdery nature found in the Arabian Gulf was obtained for this assessment. An earlier and similar test at Aberdeen in January 2007 of new M4s, M16A2s and M249s in this dust/sand environment, conducted without lubrication in hopes that reliability would increase, ended with poor results for the M4; far below what had been expected, with a stoppage occurring on average once in every six rounds fired. A second similar test conducted by the Army in May 2007 ended with an average stoppage rate of one in 88 rounds fired. This latest 2007 dust/sand test was conducted using heavy lubrication, and as a result of Congressional involvement and pressure, included three modern carbine systems each of which employs an operating rod-style gas system.

Colonel Lipsit was quick to remind this writer that there was no requirement from the User Proponent, that being the US Army Infantry Center at Fort Benning, for a replacement to the M4 at this time. Therefore this test was for data collection only for review by the US Army in its current planning for what might one day replace the current M4 Carbine when the sole source contract to Colt Defense ends in June 2009.

First Formal US Army Test of Op Rod Carbines

With the help of experts in the community, Congress mandated that in addition to testing the baseline US M4 Carbine that this assessment would also include three other systems that stand out from the ever increasing field of more than 15 commercially available op rod ARs. These three carbines were picked because they are or were recently being considered for US fielding, or are actually blooding bad guys in combat by an elite assortment of US Government organizations as is the case with the highly regarded HK416. Already fielded with select US Special Operations Forces, the HK416 Enhanced Carbine has exceeded expectations of the elite user community that have adopted it to replace M4s and MK18 CQBRs. As has been reported in the “Army Times” over the last 16 months every tier one (classified) unit within the US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has tested, fielded and continues to employ the HK416 today.

Even the US Army’s own relatively new and mostly unknown Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG) selected and fielded the HK416 in 2005 but ironically has been recently told by US Army leadership that its use of the HK416, a “non-standard” carbine, creates too many questions and requests from conventional units as to why the rest of the US Army cannot benefit from the availability of superior commercial off-the-shelf op rod carbines. They were then directed to turn them in. The removal of the 416s from the AWG began in November 2007 and will likely have been completed by the time this article goes to print. AWG sources reported that even after more than 2 years of hard training and combat use, not a single part was replaced in any HK416. Because M4s are hard to come by at the moment, the AWG received FN M16 lowers (with the M16 engraving milled off and M4 over stamped) with M4 upper receivers fitted to them. The 416s were sent to the depot; their fate unclear. Superior carbines as proven by other units, paid for by the US taxpayer, cherished by highly experienced and decorated AWG unit members, removed from a highly regarded operational unit and replaced by the very weapon they elected not to field to begin with.

SCAR Lights Up the Field

The second entry within this dust test is the new SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle) being developed under contract for the USSOCOM by FNH USA, a regular and proud exhibitor at the AUSA Annual Meeting. Like the HK416, the SCAR family of rifles and carbines was developed as a result of user dissatisfaction with the documented poor performance and limitations of the 40+ year old M16/M4 platform when used hard in torturous SOF environments and on SOCOM missions. Like HK416, SCAR was developed from day one with first-hand user input and has been jointly and exhaustively tested by the expected end users, to include US Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force Special Operators in environments that closely replicate those in which the system will actually be deployed. The SCAR also uses an operating rod-style gas system and thus does away with the hollow gas tube and associated carbon fouling and heat transfer issues that have plagued the M16 and M4 with their direct gas system arrangements. It also boasts barrel life expectations of 35,000 rounds or greater and 100,000 round weapon service life, according to company and USSOCOM sources.

Dust off your XM8s

The third candidate (the word candidate may be misleading as the US Army is careful to point out this extreme dust/sand test was for data collection only. The final results will be reported to the US Army Infantry Center and be included in their ongoing Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA) intended to clarify and chart the US Army’s future path or plan for future small arms, due sometime before 2010) was the now defunct, and once US Army sweetheart, polymer based XM8. Once again operating with a piston rod, or operating rod gas system, the XM8 in its final official Spiral 3 configuration set a high water mark during reliability and environmental testing by the US Army in 2005 by achieving an impressive 18,000 round MRBEFF (Mean Rounds Between Essential Function Failure) performance rating (in layman’s terms, zero stoppages or parts failures in 18,000 rounds fired). No other official developmental carbine/rifle in the reported recent history of US Army testing has fared that well, according to sources within the test agencies.

Historical Significance

Four very different weapons in the first direct comparison test by the US Army in decades. The US M4; a combat proven and highly regarded variant of the original 1960s-era ArmaLite AR-15, first officially fielded with US forces in 1964, with its aluminum two part upper and lower receiver, add-on rail system and direct gas tube-style operating system. The HK416; a highly product improved hybrid of the famous ArmaLite platform, also sporting the two-piece forged aircraft-grade aluminum receiver design and using the proven pusher rod gas system first employed by its maker in the polymer G36 rifle in 1995, and with many of the same advantages and disadvantages of the Stoner design from which the weapon was reverse engineered. Then, the shinning star of the Tampa-based US Special Operations Command; the all business SCAR-L (L for “Light” for those versions chambered for the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge). With its one-piece extruded aluminum upper receiver with polymer lower receiver and user exchangeable barrels, the SCAR represents a unique departure for a US military rifle in that is shares up to 82% parts commonality with its big brother SCAR-H (H for “Heavy” or caliber 7.62x51mm NATO), and the many modular variants in the SCAR family, to include the short-barreled “CQC” (Close Quarters Combat), “S” (Standard Carbine) and “SV” (Sniper Variant) models. All basically the same caliber-specific platform, but with different interchangeable parts available for the user to configure the weapon he or she needs for today’s mission. Finally, the son of G36: the XM8. Arguably the most controversial rifle since the original AR-15 was introduced into the US military in the 1960s due to the unconventional way in which it was developed by the US Army and the fierce resistance from within the US Army itself, and the small arms industry, to its possible procurement from a foreign vendor without a US production plant and one that is not part of the existing US Small Arms Industrial Base. The mere thought of the US fielding a replacement to the US M4 and M16 without full and open competition, and direct comparative testing with other available systems, doomed the XM8 from the very start. An all polymer rifle save the barrel, bolt and select internal parts with a separate upper and lower receiver arrangement, using a polymer magazine and offering the user a multitude of possible variants mostly configurable in the field, the XM8 offers some notable advancements in ergonomics, user exchangeable stock options galore and a very innovative multi-function sighting device combining all of the needed “aimers” (red dot reflex sight and IR laser aimer and illuminator), and all zeroed in one single and simple operation.

Early Results

While the US Army’s Carbine Severe Dust Tests had just been completed and the final report still being written at the time of writing, early intel indicates that all three op rod carbines finished far ahead of the M4 for reliability in this environment. Sources report that the XM8 performed best amongst this pack with one stoppage every 472 rounds. The XM8 was followed by the SCAR-L with one stoppage every 265 rounds and then HK416 with one stoppage every 257 rounds. The M4’s performance was one stoppage every 68 rounds, just barely 2 magazines fired without incident, and a reliability rate almost 7 times worse than that of the XM8 under identical test conditions and protocol, almost 4 times worse than the SCAR-L and HK416. Reliable sources within the community reported that an adjustment to the lubrication schedule for the SCAR-L was required early on in the test, that one of the ten HK416 test samples performed poorly having most of the recorded stoppages and thus lowering the overall score of the weapon system (had this one sample performed like the others it would have finished at the top of the pack) and numerous barrels were replaced on the M4s to complete the 6,000 round test. When presented with these reliability numbers the Army was quick to down play the significance of the results, stating that these tests were conducted in extreme conditions that did not address “reliability in typical operational conditions” and that “everybody in the Army has high confidence in their weapon.” However, this is not what knowledgeable users are saying to this author and SAR.

Easy Answer? Not So.

From all of this modern carbine/rifle technology to choose from, developed at a cost to the US taxpayer of reportedly $70M or more ($20M SCAR, $50M XM8, zero dollars for HK416), surely the US Army could select the best available carbine for our troops and get that to the field before the shooting is over. They could but one problem remains: there is no requirement for a new carbine, or even meaningful incremental carbine enhancements. The term incremental can be defined as the 75% or “90% solution” versus the fanciful so-called “leap ahead” or “100% solution” we in this country too often pursue while all but ignoring available and affordable incremental upgrades and enhancements offered off-the-shelf by industry. This writer is not talking about accessorizing existing platforms, such as the addition of different butt stocks, rail systems, sights and the like. We have done that with some success over the years with flat top receivers and modular rail systems. While this enhances the use of the weapon for the operator, it does nothing to address the basic function or performance of the operating system, weapon integrity, function, safety and/or operator upkeep.

While the users on the ground surely would welcome a new carbine with the enhanced capabilities now and very soon to be in use in US Special Operations units, the official procurement process starts with a properly formulated and approved Requirements Document. In the US Army this begins within the lead proponent for small arms, the US Army Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Georgia. The USAIC, as mentioned earlier, is in the throngs of their CBA to determine where they want to be in 5-10 years with US Army small arms. Shall they field a new conventional carbine in 5.56mm? Should they leverage the polymer or caseless technology being explored in the current JSSAP LSAT program? Should the new suite of US Army small arms include air-bursting, or counter defilade technology, a technology that the US Army has invested deeply in over the past years to the tune of more than $377 million for the OICW/XM25 and XM307 Advanced Crew Served Weapon programs?

Strategic Pause?

Thus, without a formal requirement for anything new, the US Army continues to procure M4 Carbines and plans to do so up until at least June 2009 when the current M4 contract expires, at the tune of up to $375 million on a sole source basis without evaluating other current COTS weapons. The US Army states clearly that the M4 meets current US Army carbine specifications; and it does. There is no argument to that point. Colt is building for the US Army the carbine they have asked for and has on multiple occasions proffered to the Army various enhancements to the weapon, most of which were not accepted as they were not required in the weapon specs. However those specifications were written more than two decades ago based on the then current performance of the M16A1/A2, long before the advent of the modern op rod AR, the unibody extruded aluminum receiver of the SCAR, or the highly modular and user configurable design of a modern weapon like the XM8.

The Smoking Gun: Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat

One has to question the wisdom of not leveraging the incremental improvements that the current modern crop of assault rifles offers the end user. This point is especially driven home when one reads the US Army sponsored, Center for Naval Analysis conducted survey of 2,600 soldiers that had returned within the previous 12 months from Afghanistan and Iraq and had engaged in a firefight using the M9, M4, M16 (A2 or A4), or M249 during their last deployment. While the majority (75%) expressed overall satisfaction with their current rifle or carbine, few had ever seen and literally none have used a SCAR-L, XM8 or the HK416 or anything of a more recent design. Their frame of reference is thus limited to only what they know and have seen first hand. Given a shorter and lighter carbine with adjustable length butt stock versus the longer, heavier M16 with fixed stock; who would not welcome that, especially when fighting from vehicles and in the urban environment? Surely then the M4 would get high marks when that question is asked; which do you like better? The real test would be to offer the soldier a look at and chance to handle the more modern COTS carbines developed in the past 10 years like those described above. Surely the results of such a survey would be far different. Why not field one or more of these proven, modern carbines in a combat unit, say to a company or battalion as we have done with the Land Warrior ensemble, and then let them tell Army leadership where to spend our precious small arms procurement dollars?

What has not been widely reported from this US Army sponsored study is that, quoting from page 17 of this report, the “Percentage of soldiers who report experiencing a stoppage while engaging the enemy” was 19% for both the M16 and M4 (26% and 30% for the M9 and M249 respectively). The report goes on to state that, “A large impact means the soldier was unable to engage the target with that weapon during a significant portion of or the entire firefight after performing immediate or remedial action to clear the stoppage” (author’s emphasis added). 18% of these same soldiers stated that they were unable to clear that stoppage and get the weapon running again during the course of that engagement with the M4, 20% with the M16, 38% with the M9 and an astonishing 41% with the M249. Nearly one fifth to almost one half of the unit was “out of the fight” due to serious malfunctions in their basic weapon. These are the statistics taken right from the US Army’s own report. When questioned, US Army officials were quick to blame poor soldier maintenance for the stoppages. Sadly, we have seen this tactic used before with early AR-15s in Vietnam and more recently with the British Marines and their SA80A2’s in Operation Iraqi Freedom; blaming the war fighter for the inherent shortcomings of the weapon system.

One can then see a direct correlation between operational reports from these 494 combat soldiers surveyed who reported poor reliability to the extent of complete failure to operate during the heat of battle and the recent poor results of the same weapons in the Extreme Sand/Dust Tests described above, results that some in the Army are saying are acceptable. It is certain that those 494 brave men and women were not so satisfied with the weapon when it was useless in their hands with the enemy all around.

One then must ask why our most elite units are not using the same standard issue rifles or carbines as used by our conventional forces and instead have sought out, tested, and have fielded with great success weapons like HK416, and soon SCAR, the USSOCOM MK46 and MK48 machine guns, the MK43, and every type of handgun imaginable except the US M9?

Not the Last Word

As reported last year by this writer, this subject is far from over. Congress is involved and is drafting new legislation to persuade the US Army to consider incremental and commercially available small arms, and ammunition enhancements, both of which can and would make a big difference on the battlefield for the solider, every solider, not just our most elite warriors. In fact, on page 29 of the CNA survey referenced above, and I quote, “Twenty-six percent of M9 users requested higher caliber ammunition and increased stopping power. M4 and M16 users echoed this recommendation. When speaking to experts and soldiers on site, many commented on the limited ability to effectively stop targets, saying that those personnel targets who were shot multiple times were still able to continue pursuit” (author’s emphasis added). Soldiers are asking for more reliable weapons and more capable, more lethal bullets and ammunition yet we continue to buy thousands more of the same small arms and millions more of the same cartridges to feed them. Is it a matter of money? Is it simply too expensive to field enhanced small arms and ammunition?

The Flawed Cost Argument

The current unit costs on the current contract for carbines, and the wealth of defense spending on programs like the Joint Strike Fighter ($4.2 billion) for R&D alone, or the Army Future Combat System (FCS) which in the current defense budget received $3.2 billion for R&D, places the modern and advantageous weapons like HK416 and SCAR, and enhanced ammunition types like improved “blind to barrier” bullets and medium caliber rifle cartridges, well within reach for all US military personnel. For the $430 million dollars spent since 1980 on so-called “leap ahead” small arms programs, from which no single weapon or new round of ammunition has been fielded, we could have fielded more than a quarter million new 5.56mm or 7.62mm SCAR rifles at $1,800 each, or 358,000 new XM8s or HK416s in the more lethal 6.8x43mm SPC caliber at around $1,200 a pop. (For comparison, the 2005 contract price for an M4 was $980, $836 in 2007). However the internal bureaucracy and strong institutional resistance to field something new in the way of a modern carbine and/or rifle, anything new that is available today not in 2010 or beyond, and has been proven by other users (and in the Army’s own tests) to be incrementally better and easily integrated into the forward deployed units, is both hugely perplexing and mind numbing to this writer and many others in the community.

The Bottom Line

There should not be a single day that any US serviceman or servicewoman steps off a truck, aircraft or ship without the very best small arms technology America can provide. That technology exists today. The funds for its purchase, fielding and sustainment are obviously available and are being spent, but on decades old technology. This issue is critically important as we lose personnel in combat every single day and any advantage, even one that is ever so minor, may improve the odds of both user survival and ultimately mission success. Our weapons should be the most reliable, hard hitting and user friendly weapons on the face of this round globe yet they are not, and we should be ashamed as a result. Our fleet of small arms is old and showing their age.

Aging Fleet of Old Warriors

The average age of our eight top “work horse” weapons from the M9 to the MK19 is 33 years, 25 years if you remove the oldest- the M2HB- 23 years without the M2HB and M203 and still 21 years old with the oldest three removed from the average. If our computers, vehicles, night fighting capability, body armor, rations or medical equipment were from the same era as that of our most recently adopted small arms (mid-1980s), our forces would be hard pressed to perform on today’s modern battlefield as they have so stunningly performed during OEF/OIF. With a few exceptions, such as the new M110 SASS or M107 sniper systems, we have not fielded any new small arms designs since the mid 1980s. Again, not just for our most elite warriors in units that we do not discuss in print, but for every Soldier, Airman, Marine, Seaman, Coastguardsman and Special Operator. Anything less is a sad compromise – a compromise that we are making today and a compromise that costs lives.

The German Success Story

Even the German military, who’s annual defense budget spending figure of EUR 29.31 billion (GDP 1.3%) is far below that of the US ($42.8 billion) and below many neighboring countries in Europe (GDP 2.0%) have since 1995 replaced nearly every one of their small arms, have added numerous new calibers and capabilities they had not possessed previously. Because of this successful incremental fielding approach, the German military has the most capable set of military small arms in the free world today. In new improved small arms they have fielded no less that six since 1995 to include handguns, rifles/carbines and sniper rifles, and are working on at least three more that this writer is aware of, a new 4.6mm handgun, lightweight 7.62mm machine gun and improved .50 caliber heavy machine gun. Nine new capabilities have been added to the German small arms arsenal also since 1995 and include the first general-issue Personal Defense Weapon within NATO, a 5.56mm LMG, .300 Win Mag and .50 BMG sniper rifles and two 40mm grenade launchers, both under barrel and 40x53mm belt-fed versions. No less than six new calibers have also been fielded within the German military in the last 10 years to include brand new high performance cartridges like the 4.6x30mm PDW round. While the Germans continue to investigate advanced technology with R&D funding, they have not forgotten their soldiers fighting on today’s battlefields and have applied the “90% solution” by fielding incrementally superior small arms and capabilities. The same can be said to a lesser degree for other NATO countries like Britain, Spain, Norway, Canada and others. Let us also not forget the substantial efforts of potential threat countries as well in their development and fielding of incrementally superior small arms.

Officially, the conventional side of the US Army has not tested a single one of these COTS German weapons for possible US adoption, not one, yet many (no less than four) are in use by select US Special Operations units over those standard US issue weapons available from US military stores and which are in fact comparable in cost or less expensive than the US equivalent.

The Consequences of Failing to Act

A highly decorated US Army Special Forces senior NCO recently stated as part of this debate, “Most of the boots on the ground in OEF/OIF will be the first to tell you that the enemy has no respect for our war fighters in a head-to-head confrontation while maneuvering with his individual weapon (M16/M4). An enemy who does not respect a Soldier’s ability to deliver pain or death will always bring the fight directly to the Soldier, at belt buckle distance.”

We would like to urge everyone to get involved in this, and help our service members to get the best weapons possible. They deserve our united support. Write your elected officials on Capitol Hill. Write the US Army and Defense Department leadership. Demand that we first test then field the best commercially available weapons and ammunition that industry offers today to all of our war fighters and that we do it now, not 5-10 years down the road.

The SOPMOD (Special Operations Peculiar MODification) program was initiated by USSOCOM (United States Special Operation Command) and implemented by Naval Special Warfare Center, Crane Division, Crane Indiana, in the mid-1990s. SOPMOD set forth the requirements for a new family of weapons for SOCOM use that would be standard for all branches. This would include enhancements of the M4A1 carbines, rail adaptation systems, enhanced versions of the M16 series rifle, optics that include thermal, night vision, video module, range finder and integrated pointer-illuminator. In addition to optics would be silencer/ suppressors, muzzle brakes, bayonet and shot counter.

Part of the SOPMOD requirement was for a CQBR or Close Quarters Combat Receiver. It was to be between 10 to 12 inches and fit on the standard M4A1 lower receiver.

The CQBR
(Close Quarter Battle Receiver)
NSN 1005-01-498-1913

The CQBR receiver was first produced at Crane. The barrel started out life as a standard Colt M4 14.5 inch barrel. The gunsmiths at Crane would cut the barrel down to 10.5 inches, re-thread the muzzle and modify the gas port. Development of the CQBR barrel was assisted greatly by Karl Lewis, President of Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT). Then, a Knight Armament Company (KAC) RIS (Rail Interface System) and a flash suppressor/ quick detachment for the KAC silencer were added. The back-up rear sight chosen was one manufactured by Lewis Machine and Tool.

Due to the short 10.5 inch barrel, the CQBR receiver remains relatively cool even when firing at a faster rate of fire. The complete Colt manufactured Mk18 Mod O carbine. A standard government issue “Property of U.S. Govt M4A1” lower receiver with the six position LMT stock assembly mounted with the CQBR (Close Quarter Battle Receiver) consisting of the Lewis Machine and Tool back-up sight and SOPMOD stock with. Knight’s Armament RAS with rail protectors, vertical pistol grip and compensator (for use with KAC quick detach suppressor). Owing to the short barrel, a significant amount of powder burns after it leaves the barrel and with this decrease in temperature, and additional modifications, the CQBR carbine will have an extended barrel life over the standard M4A1 carbine 14.5 inch barrel.

As previously stated, the original 10.5 inch barrel was modified by the gunsmiths at Crane. Lewis Machine and Tool had also produced some 10.5 inch barrels. Colt got together with Crane and told them that rather than Crane go through the efforts of modifying the barrels of M4 carbines, Colt could just make the barrels to Crane’s specifications: which they eventually did. This made it simpler for Crane to have Colt barrels due to the fact Colt is the sole manufacturer of the M4 carbine and government inspectors were already present in their facility. The barrels would be made to the same manufacturing specifications as their standard GI M4 barrel. At around this time, the specification was changed for the barrel length. The new specification called for a 10.3 inch barrel instead of 10.5 inches. It was found that 10.3 inches was the shortest the barrel could be for installing the KAC sound suppressor. This is the configuration Colt is producing today.

Currently, Colt Defense manufactures the complete CQBR upper receivers and barrels. They are 10.3 inch light contoured barrels with a chrome lined bore and chamber with the standard 1 turn in 7 inch twist. The M4/M16A4 “F” front sight base is used to properly align the front sight with the rear. They come from Colt as per specification with the Knight Armament Company RIS as well as RAS (Rail Adapter System) as well as the KAC flash suppressors which are for use with their QD sound suppressor. The bolts provided by Colt have the black extractor buffer, heavy gold extractor spring and the rubber O-ring to enhance extraction force. As per military specification, the bolts are proof tested with a 70,000 psi proof cartridge and then Magnafluxed to check for stress fractures in the metal. According to Colt, there are several Bills of Materials for the Mk18 Mod 0. The back-up rear sights are provided by SOCOM to Colt. Normally, the provided sights are the Lewis Machine and Tool back-up sights, however; others may be supplied as well.

The Mk18 Mod 0
NSN 1005-01-527-2288
With the acceptance of the CQBR receiver, the complete weapon was type classified as the Mk18 Mod 0. The U.S. Navy/SOCOM has large stocks of obsolete M16A1 rifles that were in the navy arsenals. The M16A1 rifles were used as the host weapons for the CQBR upper receiver. The standard M16A1 rifle upperreceiver was replaced with the CQBR upper receiver. The original bolt carrier group from the M16A1 was used. Some of the original bolts were upgraded with the SOPMOD Reliability Kit including a new ejector spring that is much stronger and speeds up the ejection of the fired cartridge case. The three gas rings were replaced with a single McFarland gas ring and there was a rubber O-ring placed around the extractor spring increasing the extraction force by a factor of 4.

The lower receivers from the M16A1 rifles were modified for use with the CQBR upper receiver. The complete fixed stock/buffer assembly was removed and replaced with a telescopic stock assembly. The receiver extension plate was replaced with a 1-point sling adapter. The stock chosen was the SOPMOD stock assembly manufactured by Lewis Machine and Tool. This stock has a dual battery compartment for storage of batteries for optics. The profile of the LMT stock is triangular and is very similar to the Colt Advanced Combat Rifle stock. The receiver extension has six positions rather than the standard four of the typical GI Colt M4. Many weapons had disconnector springs replaced with the stronger carbine spring as well. However, many different stock assemblies may be seen on MK18s, although many are not “officially” authorized.

Colt provides both CQBR upper receivers as well as complete firearms. The complete firearms have CQBR upper placed on new Colt “Property of U.S. Government” marked M4A1 lower receivers. The SOPMOD stock is provided.

There is no standard MK18 configuration and the configurations mentioned in this article are the most common found. The Mk18 can be found with just about any accessory out there in use (mostly not authorized by Crane). The most common rail systems are the Knight’s Armament Company RIS and RAS. However, the NAVY EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) has procured CASV-EL rail systems from VLTOR that are tan color. These weapons were equipped with A.R.M.S. #40 back-up sights. Most EOD MK18s will be equipped with M68 reflex sights on LaRue mounts, but EOTech holographic sights are showing up as well. Another interesting accessory EOD purchased was the Arrandondo magazine well adapter, which is an extended magazine well that makes speed reloading faster and easier to accomplish at night. EOD procured 1,100 tan color GripPods and A.R.M.S. #40 back-up iron sights. The GripPod (NSN 1005-01-541-1772) is a fairly new accessory introduced in 2003 that has seen major use with the Special Operations Forces as well as the military at large. The GripPod won the CQB and Midrange Bipod contract by U.S Army at Picatinny Arsenal for nearly 100,000 units. GripPod is currently shipping 200,000 GripPods to the U.S. Marine Corps to field one for every infantry marine. This vertical pistol grip doubles as a grip and a bipod. By pressing a button, a bipod springs out from the base of the grip at the speed of 1/90th of a second. The length of the unit is long enough to allow the shooter to freely maneuver with a 30-round magazine in the weapon. The unit folds by grasping both legs together and pushing them back up into the pistol grip. This enabled the troop to drop to the ground with his Mk18 and go prone, but supported.

Back-up sights are also not standard. The most common is the Lewis Machine & Tool sight. This is a fixed position rear sight identical to the standard A2 fully adjustable rear sight. If this sight is used, the optics will have to be risen to the point of aim with the sights. Also common are the Knight back-up sights – both fixed and adjustable elevation models that is part of the SOPMOD kit. Also common are the A.R.M.S. #40 and #40L back-up sights. Also used is the Matech sight. As with the M4 and M16A4 weapons, a plethora of aftermarket sights can be seen on government weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan as Uncle Sam has not had enough to go around.

Optics is not standard for the Mk18 Mod 0. Depending on what unit they are going to will determine their optics as well as availability. The most common optics would be the SOPMOD Trijicon ACOG reflex and day optical scope, and the AimPoint M68 red dot sight. Also, the EOTech holographic sight has been seen in use. The MK18 is best used with reflex sights and not magnified scopes. The purpose of the MK18 is close quarter battle and reflex sights are perfect for this task.

The Mk18 Mod O has proven itself in many different arenas of combat. The Navy uses them for boat security, boarding teams in their fleets, EOD, SEALS and Search and Rescue units. SOCOM has issued them as well. They may be seen n the hands of Rangers, Airborne troops, Green Berets as well as Operational Detachment Delta. The modularity of the M16/M4 systems is what has kept it the U.S. military’s weapon of choice for more than 40 years. Short barreled versions have served well in the caves of Afghanistan. The M4 carbine and Mk18 carbines has been the weapon of choice in Iraq for many reasons. These include increased mounted units as well as urban combat where targets are at close range. Colt Defense had designed a CQBR version of their OICW candidate with this barrel length as well. However, the OICW was a piston operated system with Colt’ proprietary monolithic upper receiver.

Another secret to the Mk18 Mod 0 carbines success is the adoption of the Mk262 Mod 1 ammunition. As a rule, the shorter commando barrels decrease the velocity of the projectile so much that a tremendous amount of energy is lost so the main advantage of the 5.56mm cartridge, hydrostatic shock, is minimized. The projectile will just go through the target or splinter and come apart. The M855 ammunition exacerbates this problem even more. As with the M4 and M16A2/A4, the inconsistency of terminal performance of the issued duty cartridge has caused problems in the Global War on Terrorism. When these thin, malnourished “evil doers” are struck with the M855 projectile, they go right through. The yaw rate is very inconsistent and varies from lot to lot. Due to the penetrator core, the accuracy potential of the weapon is not realized. The M855 is ideal for asquad automatic weapon, but not a rifle where accuracy of the single shot is more critical then laying down a heavy volume of fire on buildings, vehicles or other barriers. SOCOM saw this problem and turned to the USAMU (United States Army Marksmanship Unit). SOCOM at the time was working on the SPR, destined to be the Mk11 Mod 0 and 1 rifles. They were looking for a long range match-grade combat 5.56mm cartridge. The USAMU had already developed an incredibly accurate long range cartridge that would deal with SOCOMS issues. The 77-grain Sierra Open Tip Match projectile showed excellent sub-minute of angle accuracy. However, SOCOM needed to militarize it and turned to Jeff Hoffman at Black Hills Ammunition. They told him what they wanted, and he provided the most accurate combat 5.56mm ammunition in the world. Some of the things Hoffman did was use a stronger military brass, crimped and sealed primer, flash inhibitor and worked with Sierra to produce a 77-grain OTM with a cannulure. Not only was this ammunition incredibly accurate, but extremely and consistently lethal. Due to the long profile of the projectile, when the bullet strikes a target it quickly begins to yaw and splinter in the same manner as the M855 projectile. It would perform consistently regardless if the round came from a 20, 18, 14.5 or 10.3 inch barrel. Now SOCOM’s ammunition of choice, the Mk262 Mod 1 ammunition has proven itself in the caves of Afghanistan and Iraq. The M855 ammunition has much responsibility in the terminal performance of the M16/M4 families of weapons. The early M193 ammunition inflicted more destructive wounds than the M855. The Mk262 picks up where the M193 let off, but with the benefit of long range precision accuracy.

Research for this topic was quite difficult due to there being no standard weapon. The variations are numerous depending on where they were procured, equipment available at the time of procurement, unit purchased and individual purchased equipment used on the Mk18 Mod O. Shown in this article are the most common variations found. I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Karl Lewis, President of Lewis Machine and Tool, David Lutz of Knight’s Armament Company, William Keys of Colt Defense, Joe Moody of GripPod and Eric Kincel of Vltor for all of their technical assistance and providing the equipment to show in this detailed study.