By Jeff W. Zimba

Six Days of Seminars, Shows and Shoots cap off the 10th Year AnniverSARy of publishing Small Arms Review Magazine. When you think of publications specializing in military small arms you think of Small Arms Review magazine. When you think of attending a World Class Convention you think of Las Vegas, Nevada. Since the 120th issue of Small Arms Review had long been on the newsstands and several more were being prepped as usual, a celebration was in order. This celebration indeed took place and it was headquartered at the south end of the world famous “Las Vegas Strip.”

The South Point Casino & Convention Center, one of Las Vegas’ newest and most modern facilities was the official headquarters. The event lasted for 6 days, beginning with Conventioneer Registration and a social hour on Wednesday August 22. Upon registering, each Conventioneer was treated to a package including an exclusive Convention T-Shirt, hat, printed canvas bag, an official convention challenge coin, a logo coffee mug, pre-registered seminar event tickets, banquet tickets, gun show passes, and exclusive firepower demo and manufacturers demo range passes (including world class BBQ at the range), including bus transportation to and from the events.

Thursday began the start of the seminars. There were eight 3-hour seminars broken down into four morning segments and four afternoon segments. They were repeated again on Friday giving conventioneers the ability to attend two morning and two afternoon classes of their choosing. Each seminar was prepared and presented by an industry RKI with an intimate knowledge and background in their particular field. The names of the presenters should all be familiar to the readers of Small Arms Review. The seminars were as follows:

• Early Machine Guns; The History and Roots of the Early Designs from 1863 through 1918 – Robert G. Segel
• Stoner Chronicles: From the First Designs to the Stoner 63 – Dan Shea
• Kalashnikovs! The AK Seminar – Frank Iannamico
• The MG34 & Keeping Them Running – Greg Souchik
• Sound Suppressor Technology & Testing – Dr Philip Dater
• Heckler & Koch: A Taste of the Black Forest – Captain Tom Dresner

After the classes each evening there was a conventioneer’s reception where writers, conventioneers and other attendees could mingle and talk. Following the last classes of the afternoon on Thursday was an open invitation to the SAR Writers Seminar. The writer’s seminar was presented by SAR Senior Editor Robert Segel, SAR Production Manager Jeff Zimba, SAR General Manager Dan Shea and SAR Business Manager Debbie Shea. It was an opportunity for an open discussion detailing what SAR is looking for in future submissions. Such topics as suitable content, photographic requirements, and copyright information were explained in detail. This forum was heavily attended, much to everyone’s delight, and it ended up being a standing room only event. We are looking forward to plenty of new submissions coming in from a larger and extremely enthusiastic base of potential new writers. The writer’s seminar was followed by the Thursday evening Conventioneers reception.

On Friday, after all the classes were concluded in the afternoon, ticketed attendees boarded one of several luxury motor coaches at the South Point Casino and were promptly delivered to the Desert Lake Country Club for the beginning of the Class III Manufacturers Live Fire Demonstration. Several manufacturers including Gemtech, Long Mountain Outfitters, The Glock Doctor, Elite Iron, Surplus International, Safetydisc Products, Doublestar Arms, and many others demonstrated their latest products and invited the range guests in attendance for some hands-on live fire testing. (Ed note: An unfortunate PA malfunction has been addressed for next year, as well as the addition of bleachers for the crowd). Several new products were unveiled making their first public appearance. Elite Iron unveiled a few new items from their suppressor line that brought an impressive reaction from those in attendance. Their .338 Lapua Silencer and their .50BMG Silencer were both demonstrated and the sound suppression was so great that no hearing protection was necessary for either. Both were extremely quiet and you should expect to read much more about Elite Iron’s new lineup in a future issue of Small Arms Review. You can also visit them on line for more information at: www.Eliteiron.net. Safetydisc Products demonstrated their unique 12 gauge ammunition by shooting blocks of clay. While the “wound channel” was enormous, due to the design of the ammunition there was no over penetration of the clay blocks. You can find more information on their ammunition at: www.safetydisc.com.

After the conclusion of the manufacturers’ demonstration, participants and conventioneers were treated to some fantastic Southern BBQ from Lucille’s. After dinner, they returned back to the range for the “Mad Minute Firepower Demonstration” to finish up the day. This event was sponsored by Surplus International and Long Mountain Outfitters. On the correct range command, a controlled and predetermined group of shooters simultaneously opened fire with a barrage of weaponry ranging from several Krinkov-Style AKs and 10- inch M16 variants to a Minigun, the SILLC Twin M240s and even an HMMVW mounted .50BMG “Ma-Deuce.” After the available, linked and loaded ammo was expended, an audible response similar to that paralleled only by the most patriotic grand-finale of the Independence Day Fireworks went over the crowd to signal the end of the event. Among endless cheers the busses were loaded back up and everyone was delivered safely back to the Convention Headquarters.

Saturday morning started off with a breakfast forum sponsored by NFATCA and included such speakers as outgoing Chief of the NFA Branch – Ken Houchens, Program Manager of NFA Branch – Gary Schaible, Deputy Chief of Firearms Technology Branch – Rick Vasquez and the active board of the NFATCA. Chief Houchens gave an extremely impressive presentation illustrating the massive shifting in a positive direction that the NFA Branch has moved since their move to West Virginia, highlighting the productivity of the new employees and the actual amount of time cut from the processing of the various Forms in the face of increased submissions. Chief Houchens also reported that the total number of NFA firearms in the NFRTR registry has increased from 439,339 in 1990 to 1,943,705 in 2006. The number of weapons (less DDs) processed per year has risen from 92,171 in 2000 to 142,603 in 2006. The number of SOT stamps issued has risen from 2,261 in 1998 to 3,057 in 2007 with 3,311 renewals mailed out for 2008.

Immediately following the NFATCA Breakfast it was time to open the SAR Gun Show. This event was also at the South Point Casino & Convention Center. During the entire gun show there were several door prizes attendees could sign up for to be drawn on Sunday. Some of the prizes included an FN PS90 donated by FNH USA, an FN SPR Sniper Rifle donated by Long Mountain Outfitters, an SBX Upper Receiver from Tactical Solutions, multiple M16 SOPMOD Buttstock Assemblies from Lewis Machine & Tool, several machine gun books and SAR subscriptions from Moose Lake publishing and many, many more fantastic prizes. Several happy people heard their name called out Sunday afternoon. The show itself held approximately 600 tables and it was all Class III related. Just like you have come to expect from a Moose Lake Publishing event, there were no Beanie Baby or Beef Jerky venders taking up valuable Class III space. Some of the local people who attended the show were heard commenting about how impressed they were at the caliber of the people who had displays at this event and it was far from a typical “local Vegas Gun Show.” We took that as a complement as it was intended. There were several major manufacturers of the Class III world in attendance to speak to and view their wares in person. Some of the notable businesses who had displays at the show included (but were obviously not limited to) Arsenal, Inc., Sporting Supplies (Wolf Ammunition), Defense Munitions, FNH USA, POF-USA, Lewis Machine & Tool (LMT), Model 1 Sales, Robinson Armament Co., J&T Distributing & Doublestar Arms, Gemtech, Johns Guns, Armalite, Dennis Todd and many more.

Following the close of the gun show on Saturday there was an NFA Procedures Seminar hosted by Dan Shea. In this seminar, he went over general Class III procedures and included some open conversation pertaining to a general “How-to in the Class III World” before breaking off to attend the 10th Anniversary SAR Conventioneer Banquet and Awards Ceremony.

This ceremony was certainly something memorable to top off such an important Anniversary event. It was carefully orchestrated to have a semi-formal feeling without the necessity to wear the uncomfortable black tie. Following an hour of socializing, patrons were seated and the American Flag was unfurled. After a touching rendition of the Star Spangled Banner by Megan Sidon, we were treated to a formal toast by Dan Shea and a few welcoming remarks by SAR Senior Editor Robert Segel. The Keynote speaker was the former Undersecretary of the Navy Dionel M. Aviles, who was both entertaining and enlightening about his views regarding service to our Nation, as well as expressing our gratitude for those currently serving.

Immediately following these speakers, we were treated to an elegant menu and given the chance to relax for a few minutes before the beginning of the award ceremony. The ceremony included 11 awards and they were bestowed as follows, in no particular order;

• Lifetime Achievement Award – Small Arms Design – L. James Sullivan
• Lifetime Achievement Award – Suppressor Design – Dr. Philip H. Dater
• Lifetime Achievement Award – Small Arms Historian – Dolf Goldsmith
• Small Arms Innovative Manufacturer of the Year – Lewis Machine & Tool
• Technical Writer of the Year – Jeff W. Zimba
• Small Arms Historian of the Year – Frank Iannamico
• Best Senior Editor, Ever! – Robert G. Segel
• Civilian Machine Gun Accessory Designer of the Year – Craig Wheatley of Tactical Innovations
• Class II Gunsmith of the Year – T. Mark Graham of Arizona Response Systems
• Support The Troops Award – Americansniper.org

Congratulations to everyone recognized by SAR at this event.

On Sunday, it was back to the gun show and by mid day it was time to draw all the door prizes. By the end of the show so many participants had added so many of their products to the list; it had nearly doubled in size. Several people went home “heavier” than they started and at no additional expense in this case.

As the show started to wind down for most people, it was still firing on all cylinders for another two days. While the majority of attendees were heading home on Monday, there were a new series of classes rolling for the HK Pro group at the LMO facilities in Henderson, Nevada. It looks like the HKPROFEST event will be scheduled again for next year. You can visit their website at www.hkpro.com for more information.

As this issue of Small Arms Review is going to press, plans for the 11th Anniversary Convention are being hammered out. Yes, it’s official, there is going to be another convention next year. As details are worked out we will keep everyone informed. Keep an eye on the SAR website (www.smallarmsreview.com) for more information.

Finally, the convention was a success due to you, our loyal readers and supporters. Without you, we would not have celebrated ten years of providing you with the information you desire. Without you, there would be no celebration of the activities we enjoy. But thanks to you, Small Arms Review is growing, strong and solid and we will continue to provide the NFA community the information, and celebrations, that we all benefit from. Thank you!

By Julio A. Montes

Now celebrating the 190th anniversary of the national Marine Corps, the Chilean government has engaged in one of the most important and ambitious programs to modernize the maritime forces. It started with the purchase of a single Type-22 Batch II frigate from British surplus, followed by three Type-23s, plus two multi-purpose frigates and two air-defense frigates acquired in The Netherlands, with two off-shore patrol vessels being built in local yards. All this activity with the surface fleet could mean an increase in the Marine Corps ranks to allow for troops to serve more easily in two formations, and the Navy has already drawn plans to acquire and replace the amphibious ships. There are also plans for attack helicopters, much like the Super-Cobra AH-1Z. In addition to the elite Marines, the Navy is responsible for the Tactical Divers (Buzo Táctico), Naval Registry and Boarding Group (GARA – Grupo de Abordaje y Registro de la Armada), and the Immediate Response Group (GIR – Grupo de Respuesta Inmediata), which responds to Directemar (Chilean Coast Guard), a dependency of the Navy.

Marine Units

There are four Marine Garrison Security units, one for each Naval Zone (1st Valparaiso, 2nd Talcahuano, 3rd Punta Arenas and 4th Iquique). There is a small Marine detachment deployed to the Eastern Island. The Marines are distributed in detachments, which are equivalent to reinforced battalions, two of them tasked with amphibious assault, one more with coastal and field artillery, and another one tasked with training and operations. The Destacamento IM No. 1 Lynch is based at Punta Gruesa, Iquique. Destacamento IM No. 2 Miller, the largest of the Chilean Detachments, is based at Concón, and it is tasked with amphibious operations all over Chile. The Destacamento IM No. 3 Aldea is located at the Tumbes Peninsula, Talcahuano, while the Destacamento IM No. 4 Cochrane rests at Punta Arenas. The Agrupación de Comandos IM No. 51 is the unit tasked with Special Operations, and it has Concón as its base.

The No. 1 Coastal Defense Regiment Lynch was raised on July 31, 1946 under Supreme Decree 1397. Its name honors the National Hero Rear-Admiral Patricio Lynch Zaldivar. On July 15, 1964, the unit becomes the No. 1 Lynch Marine Detachment, and remains to this day basically as a Coastal Artillery Unit.

The No. 2 Miller Marine Detachment traces its origins to the No. 2 Coastal Defense Regiment. The unit became the No. 2 Carlos Condell Marine Detachment in 1962, and changing its name to the present No. 2 Miller Marine Detachment on January 5, 1967. The name comes from Lt. Col. Guillermo Miller, another hero during the times of Admirals Manuel Blanco Encalada and Cochrane.

The No. 3 Aldea Marine Detachment performs as a training regiment, providing for Basic Marine Training, Officer Marine Training, and even Coastal Artillery and Field Artillery Training. Its origins are traced to the Artillery Group existent until after WWI. By 1938 the Group became the Sergeant Aldea Coastal Defense Regiment. The name was in honor to 2nd Sergeant Juan de Dios Aldea Fonseca, who gave his life in the fighting of May 21, 1879. In 1964, the outfit became the No. 3 Aldea Marine Detachment, and on May 27, 1966, the Detachment was tasked with the Marine Recruiting Training Center (CIRCIM – Centro de Instrucción de Reclutas del Cuerpo de Infantería de Marina).

The No. 4 Cochrane Marine Detachment operates in the remote and harsh environment in the Chilean southern tip. Its origins are found in the 4th Marine Company established in Punta Arenas on December 31, 1949. Ten years later the unit became the No. 4 Punta Arenas Marine Battalion, and then it became the No. 4 Cochrane Marine Regiment on February 13, 1962. The name honors Lord Thomas Alexander Cochrane. Its present name was given in 1966.

The Marine Recon unit was established on January 1, 1986, receiving the designation of No. 51 Marine Commando Group. With the Chilean affinity to the British Royal Navy, they prefer a comparison to the Commanchio Group. However, they have been getting closer ties with the US Recon USMC counterparts by means of periodic combined training. They are tasked with beach reconnaissance, and behind the line operations. The commandos’ expert skills include scuba diving, airborne operations, amphibious and coastal raiding operations, demolitions, and mountaineering.

Marine HQ is retained at Valparaiso, where the main Naval Base is also located. The beautiful region of Concón, located several miles north from Vina del Mar, is home for many Marine outfits and is where we find the Marine Logistical Support Center.

The equivalent to the SBS role goes to the Tactical Divers (Buzo Táctico), which is under Naval Command, and more specifically under the Submarine Command. The Tactical Divers and the Marine Commandos have access to any type of weapons in the market. They appear to prefer the Micro-Uzi given its extreme compact size, and awesome firepower at close quarters. However, for most of the operations, the HK MP5 is ever present in all its variants. Another favorite is the locally designed and built MT-9 SAF chambered for 9mm, and the Mark 5 (L34A1) with integral sound suppressor is also used. Both, the MP-5K and mini-SAF are appreciated for their compactness and reliability in close quarter combat. The commandos prefer the P220 pistols, but some 1,500 M1911A1s were acquired in 1994. The SIG MP310 is another favorite.

Another small arm, more for its political statement than for anything else, is the AKM, used for particular tasks. The standard issued rifles are the HK33A3 and HK33A2 models, with the first 4,000 arriving in 1975. However, the HK33s are now being replaced with the M16A2 (AR- 15A2 Model R702), and this is in great part to the mentioned close ties that have developed lately with the USMC. Chile acquired the initial 5,500 M16A1 (AR-15A1 Model R613) in 1974, along with numbers of M16A2 Commandos (CAR-15A2 Model R735) with the short 290mm (11.42 in.) barrel length and retractable stock, and similar M4 Carbine (CAR-15A3 Model R977) with the 368mm (14.49 in.) barrel and MILSTD- 1913 rails.

For precision work, the AW from Accuracy International, Ltd. is a favourite, together with the HK MSG90. The Chileans acquired some 12 M21 rifles in 1994, and have purchased the Barrett Model 82A1M. Some Marines and commandos use the Mossberg 500 Cruiser.

Fire support comes from the Ultimax 100 Mk-III, MAG-60-20, HK-21, and M60, but the most widely distributed is the MG42/ 59 while the M2HB is mounted on tripods and pedestals. The Marines make good use of CIS 40GL, normally mounted under the HK-33A2, M79 GL and M203. The CIS 40AGL is placed on pedestals and tripods, as are the Mk-19 Mod 3 models. The 20mm KAA guns are used in flexible gun mounts on ships. One of the most recent acquisitions has been the Vektor AGL and Milkor MGL types. Mortars include the usual FAMAE MO-60AV and 81mm variants. AT teams use the M72A3, AT-4, and now the IWI Matador.

Fighting Lineage

General Bernardo O‘Higgins Riquelme established the 1st Naval Squad (Marines) on June 16, 1818, and the first embarked riflemen came under the command of Mayor Guillermo Miller. The following year the Chilean Naval forces followed the lead of Admiral Lord Thomas Alexander Cochrane, with the Marines breaching the enemies’ defenses in the 1839 War between Chile and the Peruvian-Bolivian Confederation. The Marines performed amphibious operations during the Antofagasta Campaign in the 1870s, leading the way in Pisagua Port to the Army’s 1st Division. They fought bravely in Dolores, Tacna, Arica, Chorrillos and Miraflores. The Marine Corps came officially into being in 1964, and today they are ready and able to fight anywhere, anytime, in the defense of Chile.

As the old Gothic script German Army manuals began to deteriorate with age and become increasingly rare, one man stepped in to translate them accurately into English so their knowledge would be readily available. John Baum does accurate and literal translations that preserve the sentence structure and flavor of the original German writings as much as possible. He has translated manuals on the Maxim machine gun, MG-15, MG-34, MG-42, MG-26(t) (ZB-26), MP-28/II, MP-38/40, MKb42, MP-44, StG58 (FAL), 98k Mauser, PP/ PPK, P-08, P-38, and is working on others such as the FG-42.

John has access to all the weapons he translates manuals for and carefully studies them before and during translation to insure the impeccable accuracy for which he has become famous. Illustrations are as clear as the originals and if the original doesn’t meet his standards for clarity he has been known to reshoot the picture himself. He does his own printing and most books are 5.5 inches wide by 8.5 inches high with heavy paper covers like the originals. All prices include first class postage.

The Machine Gun 08/15 and 08/18 With Shooting Stands from March 1, 1928 reprinted Berlin 1935 (the definitive manual on the gun), $27; Compilation of all Stoppages on the Machine Gun 08 (and 08/15) Berlin 1917 (every jam and how to clear it), $6; The Machine Gun Device (MG 08) With all Improvements Berlin 1934, $28 (this one has a beautiful color foldout); Figurative Representations of the MG08 and lMG 08, $9 – or a package deal for all four for $63.

Four manuals on the MG-42: The March 15, 1943 Merkblatt 41/18 manual (all text), $16; the Sept.1943 D166/1 manual (Basics, Parts List and Spring Sizes), $18; The 1960’s H.D.v.216/6 (which is the one to get if you only buy one), $27; The 1960- 70 era PDV 918 on the MG 1/MG 2 (a splendid manual on the post war 7.62 NATO guns), $27.

Three manuals on German assault rifles: The Maschinenkarabiner 42 (H), $7 (this was the open bolt predecessor of the MP43 and was made with Schmeisser’s constant recoil system that gave a constant 13 pound push for recoil instead of the jackhammer effect of a regular machine gun. This system was ruined when the MP43 went to closed bolt firing); The 3 inch by 4 inch STG44 manual for carrying in the buttstock, $2; The 1950 East German manual on the STG44, $16.

The MP38/40: Denkler Manual – The Machinenpistole 40, $16; D167/1 and D167/2 The Machine Pistol 40 combining 2 manuals into one. The Carbine 98k and its handling, $11; and The Pistole 08, a fine manual on the Luger, $10.

Getting the original manual for a gun is a basic step; but it should be noted that while some are short and sweet, many of the German manuals go into far greater detail than the manuals put out by other countries in keeping with the Teutonic love of complete technical data. We all owe John Baum our thanks for preserving this vital information by accurately translating it and putting it in the hands of the American enthusiast.

Available from the author:
John Baum
5678 State Rt.45
Lisbon, Ohio 44432
John@GermanManuals.com

Living with the Big .50
The Shooter’s Guide to the World’s Most Powerful Rifle
By Robert H. Boatman
ISBN 1-58160-440-8
Paladin Press
Paladin Enterprises, Inc.
Gunbarrel Tech Center
7077 Winchester Circle
Boulder, CO 80301
(303) 443-7250
www.paladin-press.com
$29.00
Review by Chuck Madurski

Not too long ago, a discussion regarding the most powerful rifles would probably have ended with the .600 or .700 Nitro Express guns designed by the British for use on large dangerous game in Africa. The .50 BMG cartridge, if considered at all, would have been little more than an aberration or, at best, an extreme custom affair. Those days are long gone and today the discussion might center on where to draw the line between “rifle” and single shot cannon. While many insist that the upper limit is the Soviet 14.5mm anti-tank round, all non-automatic arms in this chambering and bore size are legally Destructive Devices under US law. So, practically speaking, the .50 BMG due to incredible versatility, surprising popularity and its unique place right at the upper limit of bore size without being NFA is, as the subtitle suggests, the World’s Most Powerful Rifle.

In Living with the Big .50, author Boatman shows much enthusiasm for the round and the rifles that shoot it. At first glance the book seems to be written as a primer for the beginner who may not ever even shoot or own a fifty. But it is also written for the seasoned rifleman looking for a bigger “boom” or a true long range challenge. While some might regard the writing style as somewhat sensationalistic, what the reader is really seeing is Boatman’s excitement for the subject strongly coming through rather than any bombast.

Big .50 has twenty seven short chapters arranged in a logical manner as the author builds the reader’s interest. He does this by starting with the basics of .50 BMG gun design and accessories. Chapters on all important muzzle brakes, single shot rifles and various repeating designs are only the beginning. Also covered are machine guns in the .50 BMG round and the ammunition itself, to include history and some discussion of the designer of this legendary round, John M. Browning.

The middle chapters are short, to the point and specifically focused on a single aspect of using the .50 along with a noteworthy expert on that aspect. For example, Chapter 15 features Russ and Chick Menard on the subject of building your own .50, while the next chapter has Mark White on silencers (sound suppressors). A couple of subsequent chapters cover hunting with the .50 in Africa and North America, along with some information on long range coyote shooting.

A large format book like this allows for large detailed photographs, and Big .50 delivers here as well. At the end of each chapter is also a short list of resources for the subject matter covered in that chapter, a nice touch that is thoughtful and useful. While no index is provided, a comprehensive appendix of sixteen pages completes the book. This appendix might have been better termed as the final source listing as that is exactly what it is while being fairly exhaustive as well.

In the end, Living with the Big .50 is a worthwhile book for a wide range of truly high powered riflemen. A bit preachy, occasionally repetitive, almost always entertaining, Boatman does not try to hide his love of shooting or the .50 BMG round and his excitement is often contagious.

Machine guns today are generally defined as firearms that shoot automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger. This modern definition has come about due to the development of such a weapon as pioneered by Hiram Maxim and John Browning and is subsequently used for all weapons that employ this mechanical means in firearms today.

Before Maxim invented the truly automatic system of feeding, loading, firing and ejecting continuously with just a single function of the trigger, “machine gun” was a term applied to a weapon that provided these functions albeit in a manual mode of operation. In reality, the evolution of automatic weapons really began before the introduction of gun powder. From earliest times, there has been a continual attempt to augment firepower by mechanical means.

These early machines included trebuchets, catapults, ballistas and siege engines. These machines threw projectiles ranging from rocks and stones, dead animals and putrid corpses to convey pestilence, flaming projectiles, to a fusillade of javelins and arrows.

While these were large crew served weapons, there was mechanical development in the individual combatant’s weapons to increase firepower, range and lethality with the crossbow being a good example that evolved into a weapon firing a number of arrows. One could say that a general definition of an automatic weapon in these early days would be a weapon capable of discharging a number of projectiles in a short space of time, either simultaneously or in rapid sequence.

In order to study the evolution of the modern automatic weapon from its crude beginnings, it will be necessary to separate automatic weapons into four general classes with the advent of gunpowder.

• Organ Guns – machines designed for the simultaneous discharge of more than one projectile.
• Repeating and Bolt Action Guns – the design of magazines and repeating weapons to fire in sequence.
• Hand Powered “Machine Guns” – a gun operated by hand power applied to a suitable mechanism by which cartridges are loaded, fired, extracted and ejected: the cycle continuing as long as the mechanism is manually worked and there are cartridges to feed the gun.
• The Modern Machine Gun – a design which automatically performs the entire cycle of operation by virtue of the forces produced by the discharge, either by blowback, recoil or expansion of powder gases.

This article will deal with elements of the first three classes of weapons.

Organ Guns

Organ Guns (or War Carts) were primitive, yet effective, multi-chambered and multi-barreled monstrosities. As early as 1339, a firearm called the Ribauld, or Ribauldequin, was mentioned as a having several iron tubes that were arranged to fire stone projectiles simultaneously. This weapon was purportedly used to good advantage by Edward III in one of England’s wars with France by blasting an opening in the unyielding ranks of heavily armored pikemen who were to keep the cavalry from the bowmen.

These muzzle-loading battery guns had their barrels arranged is a side-by-side arrangement in a massive wooden frame that led to them being called “Organ Guns.” When the iron ball projectile came into use in 1381 replacing pebbles and stones, many new variations of the Organ Gun were developed, all in an effort to deliver a great quantity of projectiles in a concentrated area all at one time.

In 1382, the army at Ghent had 200 battery guns. A design constructed in 1387 had 144 barrels grouped in batteries of twelve allowing twelve salvos of twelve balls each to be fired. In 1411, the Burgundian army had 2,000 battery guns at their disposal. Louis XII (1498-1515) is reported to have used a gun having 50 barrels arranged to be fired in a single volley.

Obviously, these weapons were clumsy and difficult to transport and could be termed only a moderate success. Though all the barrels could be fired in a single volley or in rapid succession, long periods of inaction due to the manual muzzle reloading of each barrel negated the advantage of momentary volume of fire and were thus employed in an auxiliary or supporting role due to its inability to deliver sustained fire. Nevertheless, their volume of fire was in great demand and used in many theaters of operation throughout Europe.

Though there were many variations as to arrangements of barrels and mounting, the only improvement on these weapons was the train of ignition from one barrel to another. It was shortened in order to that all the barrels could be fired simultaneously or as nearly as simultaneously as possible.

Puckle’s “Defense” Gun

Further development of rapid-firing weapons stagnated due to a lack of technological advancement, particularly in ignition. In the beginning, the practical system of ignition was a manually applied slowmatch or fuse. From the thirteenth to the sixteenth century, the slow-match continued to be the primary means of ignition though improvements were made to the application of this method; though fire was still required for ignition. From the sixteenth century to 1807, an era of mechanical means of producing fire evolved using friction of flint upon steel to produce a spark. Wheel-lock and flintlock mechanical methods were prevalent at this time but they did not lend themselves to producing any new revolutionary advancement in rapid fire development. There were many ideas presented by a variety of inventors, and, perhaps a single working model was built, but no guns were ever actually put into production – with one exception.

In 1717, James Puckle demonstrated his gun, called the Defense, to the English Board of Ordnance and a patent, number 418, was granted in London on May 15, 1718, on a single barreled gun with a revolver-like mechanism that allowed a semblance of rapid fire operation. In a demonstration in 1722, Puckle’s gun fired 63 shots in seven minutes; a truly remarkable performance at this time period. The English Board of Ordnance remained unimpressed and no further action was taken on their part. Nevertheless, Puckle’s Defense gun actually went into production, an example is extant, and is historically important for a number of reasons.

The machine gun that we recognize today had to have a genesis in concept. While Puckle’s gun is nowhere near what we now have today operationally, it did contain certain aspects that are worth noting particularly with its mount. The gun operated using a flintlock ignition system on top of the cylinder. A crank arrangement at the rear of the cylinder tightened the cylinder up against the barrel. When tight, the flintlock was activated, igniting the charge in the chamber and expelling the bullet. The crank was unscrewed loosening the cylinder, which was turned to present the next chamber to the barrel. The screw handle was tightened and the gun was ready to fire again. When all the chambers were empty, totally unscrewing the crank allowed it to be removed, the revolving chambers removed, and a fresh, loaded set replaced. A particularly odd feature of the Puckle gun is that the inventor provided two sets of chambers for his gun. One provided for shooting square bullets for use against Turks and the other shot round bullets for use against Christians.

The primary weakness of the Puckle gun was the employment of a flintlock system of ignition. On a more positive note, what is particularly interesting is the mounting system employed that is very much reminiscent of tripods used almost two hundred years later. The legs are prevented from spreading beyond their intended width by use of a chain, solid rods connected to the legs and center post are used for holding the legs in position and the elevation mechanism of a guided metal arc has been subsequently used on a number of more modern weapons.

Once again, reliable mechanical development was hindered until the advent of percussion caps in the early 1800s, and in the next 75 years following the percussion cap patent, more was accomplished in terms of design, development and performance of firearms in general than at any time in all of history.

An interesting historical side note is that in 1829, Samuel L. Farries of Middletown, Ohio received a patent for a repeating cannon that had been in use since the War of 1812, and has the honor of receiving the first “machine gun” patent by the US Patent Office. The term “machine gun” was used and assigned to imply any mechanically operated weapon of rifle caliber or larger, regardless of whether the energy necessary for sustained fire is derived manually or from some other power source.

During this period, there was an abundance of ideasof how to make a machine gun “work,” including the use of steam and gas. Some did actually work but were too impractical and complicated. But it was the continued work on ignition that dictated the mechanical future of automatic weapons, and it was the advent of incorporating the detonating cap as an integral part of the fixed cartridge in 1856, and the first true metallic cartridge with a center fire primer and an inside anvil invented by George W. Morse in 1858 that set the stage for advanced machine gun development.

Concurrently within this time period, it was the gun makers who took the concept and perfected the use of machine tools, particularly in New England, to speed up and economize on weapon production. This was a radical development that set in motion the Machine Age that enabled the use of machine tools to produce advancements in light, power, heat, all modern transportation, electric communication, agricultural machinery, textiles, paper mills, printing, all the instruments used in every science, etc.: everything that ultimately affected everyone’s daily lives. At each advancement of ignition, from percussion cap to paper cartridge to metallic cartridge, gun makers were in lockstep with new mechanical developments, designing machine tools to make their mechanical ideas a reality.

Billinghurst-Requa Battery Gun

The US military, always seemingly slow on the uptake, reverted back to the concept of volley fire after the Army’s disastrous first official attempt to introduce a repeating shoulder weapon using the Colt Revolving Rifle that caused many serious injuries to soldiers using it when, due to a faulty cap, or a gas leak, caused the other chambers to ignite resulting in lost hands and limbs. By the time of the American Civil War the Army was in no mood for new-fangled gun developments. But they did show interest in the Billinghurst-Requa Battery Gun. Invented by Dr. Joseph Requa and built in late 1861 by the Billinghurst Company of Rochester, New York, it revived the old Ribauld or Ribauldequin principle of the Organ Gun but was breech-loading rather than muzzle loading. Chambered in .58 caliber, this gun had twenty-five barrels that were mounted flat on a light metal wheeled mount and the sliding breech mechanism was operated by a lever. Charging was achieved by using preloaded special clips. Cartridges were of light steel and spaced in the 25-round clip to line up with the open rear of the barrels. Once the breech was locked closed, each cartridge came to rest with its opening aligned to a channel filled with priming powder. All 25 barrels fired simultaneously by a single nipple and percussion cap that ignited the powder train. The Requa battery gun did not use paper cartridges inserted in the steel cases: the twenty-five cases were loaded by hand with loose powder and a patched ball.

Though crude, the Requa battery gun did employ the clip loading feature and the relatively quick means of locking and unlocking of the breech allowed a somewhat fair rate of fire. With a crew of three men, the weapon could be fired at the rate of 7 volleys, or 175 shots per minute with an effective range of 1,300 yards.

This gun was also known as the “Bridge Gun” as since most bridges were covered bridges, with its restricted field of fire, once set up to defend a bridge, it was quite effective. Its biggest weakness was the possibility of the powder train getting damp or wet rendering it useless and was relegated to defensive missions rather than offensive use. Nevertheless, this gun was used by both Union and Confederate forces.

Ager “Coffee Mill” Machine Gun

The first gun used in the Civil War that came close to the mechanical definition of a machine gun was the Ager machine gun. Invented by Wilson Ager (or Agar, it is spelled both ways in reference literature), the gun is a hand-cranked revolver-type weapon that can use either loose powder and .58 caliber ball projectiles, or an impregnated paper cartridge. The gun got its nickname by the loading hopper attached to the top of the weapon and the operating hand crank thus resembling a coffee mill. Steel tubes were loaded with a .58 caliber Minie bullet, a 750-grain powder charge and a percussion cap and were dropped into a gravity feed hopper. Turning the crank pushed a loaded tube into the barrel chamber locking it in place and then a hammer dropped on the percussion cap firing the weapon. Continuing to turn the crank handle then unlocked the breech, extracted the tube and ejected it. With continued rotation of the crank handle, the process would repeat. If enough ammunition was prepared and the loader kept the hopper supplied with the loaded steel tubes, the Ager could fire 100 rounds per minute. As this was a single barrel weapon, overheating was a problem that was addressed by a new unique feature: a (relatively) quick change barrel and two spare barrels were supplied with each gun. The barrels were rifled and the maximum effective range was 1,000 yards. Other features included a ball and socket joint mounting allowing for quick traverse and elevation adjustments and could be locked in place. It was mounted on a light weight, two wheeled carriage with ammunition boxes mounted to each side of the gun on the axel.

The Ager was a very advanced weapon for the Civil War era and quite a few were purchased. Nonetheless, the military minds of the day did not know what to do with it or how to employ it to advantage, thus condemning it as impractical requiring too much ammunition and with just a single barrel, unable to reach sustained fire to the extent of being considered as an effective arm. The guns that were bought, estimated at about 50, were relegated to covered bridge duty along with the Requa battery gun. There were a few isolated instances where they were actually used in battle.

There were other (successful) attempts at machine guns during the Civil War that are mostly footnotes to history. Among them are the Claxton machine gun in .69 caliber (two barrels), the Williams smooth bore machine gun in 1.56 caliber (single barrel), the 85-barrel Vandenberg Volley Gun in .50 caliber and the Gorgas machine gun in 1.25 caliber (single barrel).

Ripley Machine Gun

Invented by Ezra Ripley of Troy, New York, the Ripley machine gun was granted a patent on October 22, 1861, No. 33544. The gun was never actually produced but it established a number of basic concepts that were used in the Gatling gun design that was patented the following year. The Ripley had a nonrotating barrel group consisting of 9 barrels. The breech block was detachable that had 9 chambers that mated with the barrels. The chambers were loaded with paper cartridges and a nipple behind each chamber was capped. As the breech block was locked in place with the loaded chambers lining up behind the barrels, a crank was turned that was located behind the cascabel that fired the barrels in sequence. The rate of fire was determined by the speed the crank handle was turned. When all the rounds were expended, the breech block could be removed for reloading and a fresh one inserted into the breech.

Gatling Revolving Machine Gun

Dr. Richard Jordan Gatling was born in Hertford County, North Carolina in 1818 and came from a family of inventors. His father invented a machine for planting cotton and another for thinning the plants to a stand while young Richard assisted in the construction of these machines. Richard Gatling then patented in his own name a rice planting machine. Though born in the South, he felt there were better marketing opportunities in the North and he adapted his rice planting machine to other grains and moved to a number of cities in Missouri, Ohio and Indiana. In 1847-1848, he studied medicine at Laporte, Indiana and the following year he entered Ohio Medical College from which he received his degree. However, there is no record of him actually practicing medicine.

Gatling conceived the idea of his gun and began work in 1861 with a prototype being made in late 1861. The gun was demonstrated in early 1862 and a patent, No. 36836, for “Improvement in Revolving Battery-Guns,” was granted on November 4, 1862. This gun was a crude predecessor of what was to become one of the most significant firing mechanisms of all ordnance history.

The 1862 Gatling gun was a development that combined some of the principles of the Ager and Ripley guns. Gatling’s gun was crank-operated with six revolving barrels around a central axis point that had a bolt for each barrel. Cocking and firing was achieved by cam action and the weapon was gear driven. A percussion weapon, the 1862 Gatling used steel tubes where a paper cartridge containing powder and a .58 caliber bullet were inserted and then a percussion cap was fitted to the nipple at the closed end of each tube. These loaded tubes were then placed in a gravity feed hopper ready for firing.

After a successful demonstration in Indianapolis in 1862, Gatling contracted with Miles Greenwood and Company in Cincinnati, Ohio to produce six weapons based upon the 1862 patent. Unfortunately, as the weapons were nearing completion, the factory burned down destroying the guns, blueprints, patterns and pilot models. Although nearly ruined financially, Gatling returned and partnered with McWhinny Rindge and Company, also of Cincinnati, to produce 12 guns of the 1862 model. Shortly after the guns were completed, Gatling made some changes to these guns by using copper instead of paper in the loading tubes. These were of the same .58 caliber and were rim fire that necessitated the placing of two projections on the bolt head to strike the rim fire primer.

Nevertheless, the 1862 model had its shortcomings with gas seal problems, getting the separate chambers to align with the bores, and feeding problems in general. Gatling continued to perfect his gun by designing a breech system that would allow the cartridge to be inserted and withdrawn from a chamber that was an integral part of the barrel requiring the breech mechanism to have a reciprocal motion. This led to the design of the Model 1865, the precursor of all later Gatling guns. Gatling continued to refine the operation and mechanism of his gun. As they got better and better with each successive model, the world took notice and the Gatling gun saw service in armies and navies around the world continuing into the twentieth century. The Gatling gun was the beginning of the state-of-the-art manually operated guns that flourished until Hiram Maxim took the next step with fully automatic guns, but his operating principle lives on today in Vulcans and Miniguns.

Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon

Benjamin Hotchkiss was born in Watertown, Connecticut in 1826. Serving as an apprentice at Colt’s Patent Firearms Company in Hartford, Connecticut, he became a master mechanic and is credited with designing and perfecting various models of the Colt revolver. In 1860, he developed an improved system of rifling and a new kind of percussion fuze for projectiles. As with so many American firearms inventers of the time, Hotchkiss went to Europe in 1867 where his inventiveness was given better consideration. In France, he demonstrated an improved metallic cartridge case that was immediately ordered for manufacture in St. Etienne and the French placed an advance order for a machine gun Hotchkiss had in mind by using the destructive forces of an explosive shell in a rapidly firing gun. With this backing from the French government, Hotchkiss remained in France and four years later in 1871 started his own company, Hotchkiss and Company.

With a background in designing artillery projectiles and systems of firing, Hotchkiss formulated what he considered to be the best caliber to produce the most destructive force capable from a rapid firing weapon. The result of his calculations was a bursting charge cavity of correct dimensions and a balanced fuzed nose with a 37mm projectile. The gun he built around the 37mm round was intended for flank defense and he introduced a new and unique feature: each of the five barrels was rifled with a different pitch ensuring a sweep of the target area with shrapnel.

While the Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon, on first impression, resembles a Gatling gun, it is operationally markedly different. The five barrels are mounted parallel to each other around a central shaft and are rotated and controlled by means of a hand crank that also controls the loading, firing and extracting operation. Unique to the Hotchkiss internally is that the barrels are rotated intermittently without turning the breech mechanism. Thus, the barrels are stationary at the moment of firing negating any centrifugal force normally imparted to projectiles at the start of their flight when fired from a continuously rotating barrel. Additionally, there was just one firing pin and spring instead of five and a single loading piston. This enabled the parts to be made stronger and heavier to withstand the shock from such a large caliber round. Another unique feature was that the gun was so designed that it could be disassembled and assembled without the use of any tools. The gravity feed system also employed another exclusive feature to prevent the problems encountered in other machine gun systems that employed a system of stacking rounds one on top another in the feed chute. As the loading piston moves forward loading a round, a gate rises and isolates the round being loaded from the other rounds on top of it in the feed chute providing even spacing of the rounds preventing feed jams.

The impressive 37mm round contained 3-1/2 ounces of powder. The cartridge case measured 3.66 inches without projectile, 6.68 inches long with projectile, and a complete round weighed 2.42 pounds.

There were six models of the manually operated Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon depending on their specialized purpose: the light 37mm for field use; a high velocity 37mm for flank defense and fortifications; the 37mm designed for shipboard use only; a 40mm for fortifications; a 47mm gun for naval use; and a 57mm gun, also for naval use.

At one time or another, the Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon was used by just about every navy in the world including Germany, England, Holland, Italy Austria, Turkey, Denmark, Russia and the United States. The French Navy alone used over 10,000 revolving cannon and four million rounds of ammunition.

Gardner Battery Gun

The inventor of the Gardner Battery Gun was William P. Gardner, born in Marietta, Ohio in 1843. After the Civil War, serving with the 9th Ohio Volunteer Calvary, Gardner had a varied career as a customs inspector, an architect, and an inventor. Working from previously conceived design sketches, he constructed the first wooden prototype in 1874 and, with the aid of a Mr. Beckman, worked out later in the year the first operational metal prototype. In the following year, arrangements were made with the Pratt & Whitney Company to develop and manufacture the Gardner gun to meet military requirements.

After tests of the first single barrel gun to the Navy Ordnance Board in 1875, it was suggested that Pratt & Whitney (P&W) be allowed to take the weapon back to their factory to be perfected with the new feed system invented by E.G. Parkhurst. P&W had obtained the manufacturing rights for the Gardner Gun by paying the inventor a royalty on each gun delivered. They also controlled the Parkhurst patents for the improved model.

Gardner, who saw no orders from the US Government and his gun being drastically modified by P&W, sought to form a company to manufacture his patent gun. With a number of partners, the Gardner Gun Company was formed in August, 1879 whose purpose was to manufacture Gardner Patent Guns.

The company sent its Director and agent to Europe to submit the Gardner Patent Gun to different governments. Advised that the British War Office would be interested if the weapon was made in England, arrangements were made to have several Gardner Guns made in Leeds.

The British Admiralty first tested the Gardner gun, chambered for the .45 caliber Martini-Henry cartridge in February, 1880. The British War Office conducted another set of trials along with the Gatling, Nordenfelt and P&W’s Improved Gardner Gun in March, 1881. The trials resulted in the Gardner Patent system being judged best and the two-barrel Gardner as the most perfect form of the system. In anticipation of receiving orders from both the British Army and the Admiralty, a factory and office were established in London.

The Gardner gun consisted of two breech-loading barrels placed parallel to each other and fastened at the breech end and housed in a single casing. They were loaded, fired and ejected alternately by one complete revolution of the crank handle. Feeding was accomplished with two vertical T-slot feed guides that dropped the loaded cartridges in correct position for the feed entrance. The body of the crank shaft is circular in construction and has crank pins for operating the bolts. These pins are diametrically opposite each other for alternate firing sequence. As one bolt closes on the chamber of one barrel for firing, the other bolt is being withdrawn with the spent cartridge case for ejection. Thus, as the crank handle is turned, the barrels fire left, right, left, right alternately.

An official report on the working of the Gardner gun mechanism stated that it possessed every quality desirable in a machine gun, namely: lightness, strength, simplicity and durability; all working parts readily accessible; prospects of a feed that positively aligned the incoming rounds independently for each barrel; and an adaptation for firing each barrel at will.

Improvements by both Pratt & Whitney and the Gardner Gun Company were patented in subsequent years refining, feeding, firing, extracting and ejecting for single barrel models, 2-barrel models and 5-barrel models, as well as improvements on tripods, mounting and traverse and elevation mechanisms. Succeeding 2-barrel models had an enclosed water chamber that surrounded the barrels for cooling purposes, open at the top to allow filling and steam to escape and a valve underneath to allow draining.

The Gardner Gun Company and Pratt & Whitney were competitors with essentially two different guns under the Gardner name, vying for international patents and international sales, with ultimately Pratt & Whitney being the survivor of the two with the Gardner Gun Company going out of business in 1895. Nevertheless, the Gardner Battery Gun, second only to the Gatling, was produced in greater quantities than the Nordenfelt or others of the period. It was adopted by five countries, tested by an additional four countries, and was manufactured in three countries.

Nordenfelt Machine Gun

The last of the major players in the rapid fire, manually operated, machine gun race of the era was the Nordenfelt machine gun. Heldge Palmcrantz, a Swedish engineer, perfected probably the best attempt at a battery gun. His mechanism of locking and firing was realized by the fore and aft movement of a single operating lever that allowed the gunner to sustain fire or discharge the barrels one at a time. A separate framed gravity feed system was positioned over each barrel and allowed the cartridges to drop through openings in the frame after the empty brass has been extracted.

So why isn’t this gun called the Palmcrantz gun? As is often the case with inventors, they have no funds to see the fruition of their ideas and need monetary backing for their ideas to become a reality. So it was that Palmcrantz approached a Swedish broker by the name of Thorsten Nordenfelt to finance his project. Nordenfelt, at the time conducting banking business in London, agreed but under the condition that thereafter the name was to be the Nordenfelt machine gun.

Nordenfelt was not only a shrewd business man; he was one of the world’s greatest salesmen of his day. Taking a design that was obsolete from the beginning, he successfully promoted a multibarrel battery gun that was inferior to half a dozen other guns available at the time. Being well-connected, and wishing to satisfy the whims of people who would buy his product, he offered his gun in 1- to 12-barrel versions in any caliber from rifle cartridge to artillery.

The English Government’s Small Bore Machine Gun Committee in 1880 laid down three basic conditions that had to be met before a machine gun could qualify as being worthy of consideration.

• It must be capable of firing 400 rounds per minute.
• The breech of the barrel being fired to remain securely closed one third of a second, or ample time in the opinion of the experimental committee to insure safety from a delayed explosion of a cartridge case (hang fire).
• To fire rapidly 1,000 continuous rounds at a speed satisfactory to the committee. That must not cause undue heating of the barrels.

These conditions were easily met by the Palmcrantz system and exploited by Nordenfelt. He typically used a 12-barrel gun for the trials that could easily fire 400 shots per minute, or less than 50 shots per barrel. A 1,000 round burst is only about 83 shots per barrel eliminating the overheating problem. In one trial in Portsmouth, England in 1882, Nordenfelt used a 10 barrel rifle caliber gun that fired an astonishing 3,000 rounds in 3 minutes and 3 seconds without a parts failure or stoppage. Though an outdated design the workmanship, reliability, and endurance of his gun was extraordinary. The only real drawback operationally in the Nordenfelt gun was that it was not possible to ascertain visually whether the gun was loaded or not.

In all, there were 18 models of his multibarrel battery gun. The British Admiralty were impressed with its performance and reliability and bought a number of the .45 caliber 5-barrel models and 1-inch 3- barrel models. A number of other European navies purchased the Nordenfelt gun as well and it was quite poplar throughout Europe.

It should be noted that it was not the British Army but the British Navy who was exceptionally keen on machine guns and purchased and used large quantities of Gatlings, Gardners and Nordenfelts to great effect.

Bira Gun

The final battery gun to be briefly discussed here is the .450 caliber Bira gun. It was not a player in the international scene, but was locally produced in Nepal for the Nepalese army and was the last of its type to be developed and used.

Designed by Gehendra Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana, the massive Bira gun was operationally based on the Gardner gun except for the pan magazine and feed mechanism. The gun was named in honor of King Prithvi Bir Bikram Shah. It is estimated that no more than fifty were made and, historically important to museums and collectors, a small number have been discovered and will soon be available. A detailed article on the history and operation of the Bira gun can be found in the Vol. 11, No. 2, November, 2007 issue of Small Arms Review.

Conclusion

With the perfection of the battery gun came the tactical question of how to best employ it in battle. In a group of their own, they were neither an individual soldier’s firearm nor a piece of artillery. Most early depictions show battery guns mounted on wheeled carriages resembling a piece of artillery. As they were worked by cranks and levers, this required the guns to be mounted on heavy carriages, so that the motions of the operator would not be transmitted to the gun, and for the same reason necessitated the use of elevating screws and toggles for pointing. The range of fire for the rifle caliber battery gun was between that of the individual soldier and that of an artillery piece, being between 800 to 1,200 yards.

Many early tacticians believed this range to be ideal, but did not know where or how to employ the battery gun for its best utilization. Few envisioned that it was a close support weapon being wheeled forward with the attacking troops, while others felt it should be with the artillery as a support weapon to defend the artillery battery from attack, freeing up the valuable infantry to fight elsewhere. In the employment with the artillery, the battery gun’s description as “Rifle Caliber Artillery” becomes appropriate.

The most widely know battery gun in the US service, and in many other countries around the world, is the Gatling gun. It is to be considered the premier battery gun as it was produced and used in greater quantities and manufactured in more countries than any of its competitors. The Gatling was without rival until the latter part of the 1870s, when the Nordenfelt and Gardner battery guns began competing against it, but the Gatling never lost its lead until the advent of the truly automatic machine gun invented by Hiram Maxim.

By Jim Schatz & Dan Shea

At a facility in West Virginia, there exists what might be considered the home of the American Government’s firearms technical excellence, which includes a unique working firearms collection not before shown to the public. Imagine a facility staffed by highly experienced, dedicated working professionals charged with providing legally undisputable firearms and ammunition technical support to US Federal and local government agencies and friendly foreign governments. Imagine the assembly of a collection of rare, one-of-a-kind prototypes, first run samples, failed industry ideas and highly collectable once-transferable ordnance pieces ranging from the Colt AR-15 Model 607 (Model 7) to Russian Model 1905 Brass Maxim water-cooled machine guns. Conceive, as well, of the compilation of a firearms and ammunition reference library second to none comprised of extensive technical data on a world of offerings in small arms and ordnance materials. Task this organization with defining and enforcing the complex sea of applicable regulations and interpretations as they relate to the technical aspects of firearms and their classification under Federal laws. Combine all of this into one outfit and you would have the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

In the ATF chain of command, FTB is part of the Firearms Programs Division, which, in turn, is directed by the Office of Enforcement Programs and Services (EPS). Few SAR readers need much of an introduction to ATF. Where this article will tread new ground is in revealing the fascinating collection of firearms, ordnance items, accessories, and dangerous and unusual pieces that make up the “National Firearms Collection” (NFC). The highly experienced staff of the ATF Firearms Technology Branch has overall responsibility for the management of this one-of-a-kind collection that is comprised of more than 10,000 serial numbered items. It is certainly safe to say that no other collection of this type exists anywhere in the United States. Small Arms Review was offered an exclusive chance to be the first and only small arms periodical to cover the contents of this fascinating collection. This assemblage of reference firearms was first compiled by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, later to become the IRS that we know today, as criminal evidence acquired as early as 1931. The items were later transferred to ATF in July 1972 when this entity first separated from the IRS and became a distinct Bureau within the Treasury Department. These older IRS-era pieces are some of the most fascinating items in the collection as they are still complete with the original hand written evidence tags.

Mission First

The mission of the FTB is multifaceted. The workforce of Firearm Enforcement Officers and support personnel, which includes armorers and administration staff, has the primary tasking to support law enforcement investigations and programs related to the use of firearms and related ordnance materials. In fact, well over half of the Branch workload is dedicated to supporting law enforcement programs and investigations. Support is rendered to US Federal agencies, the Department of Defense, to State and local law enforcement organizations, to the ATF Office of Chief Counsel, to Congressional affairs personnel, to the firearms industry, and to the general public. This includes the examination, testing, and classification of firearms-related evidence submitted to the unit as a result of ongoing criminal investigations. This can also include technical support for search warrants and technical training for US and foreign forensic personnel in areas such as tooling marks, firearms operation, and manufacturers’ markings. FTB personnel provide expert testimony in criminal prosecutions; train agency personnel related to firearms use; provide and/or assist in the maintenance, employment, and support of existing issue agency weapons; and help with the selection of new weaponry. FTB staff members are available to answer the technical questions of almost any nature and on any subject posed to them by investigators, members of the industry, and civilians. It is highly likely that if you have contacted the ATF Headquarters in Washington, DC, with a question on a firearms-related technical or regulatory issue, it would have been answered by a member of the Firearms Technology Branch. This author found the members of the Branch to be dedicated, very experienced in the field of firearms, well known within the firearms community, especially at the supervisory level, and committed to their profession; and he discovered, further, that many were hard core gun aficionados with personal interests in the history of these firearms. Many are former military or law enforcement personnel and are active in after hours’ firearms-related activities like competitive shooting, gun collecting, and the ways of the firearms community in general. They are also regular readers of Small Arms Review, when the branch copy can be located. It is reported that SAR is one of the most popular gun magazines at the FTB.

The role of the FTB armorers is to provide maintenance and support for all ATFissue firearms and those props used for investigations and trials. The level of technical expertise has to be especially complete when one considers that an armorer assigned to this unit may have to be able to set the headspace on an M2HB, determine the safety of a “home grown” firearm like a pen gun or silencer prior to confirmatory testing required in support of every criminal investigation, determine the origin and year of manufacture of illegally imported AKs from the former Yugoslavia, or decide which transferable Vietnam era AR-15s confiscated in a criminal investigation should be destroyed. There are few Government or industry conducted armorers training courses for many of the firearms in the collection simply because of the point of origin and technical nature of the more unique items.

The Firearms Technology Branch is charged with ascertaining the technical nature of illegally manufactured or modified weapons. For instance, in a case where a legal semiautomatic firearm, seized from a criminal during an investigation, has been converted to fire in a fully automatic mode, FTB Firearms Enforcement Officers will inspect that weapon and record the nature of the modifications made to its mechanism. Once the weapon is deemed safe to fire, FTB personnel have ammunition of almost any type available and an indoor firing range to conduct a live-fire test of the firearm to confirm that it does in fact function as an illegally modified weapon. This same procedure is used for silencers where FTB has available the latest sound metering technology to test the sound reduction of everything from stolen US Government equipment to improvised silencers made from a variety of items available from a local hardware store or supermarket. The Branch will also test weapons which have discharged accidentally during an investigation and those that are converted to full auto illegally. Dealing with weapons that are highly modified and possibly unsound requires careful pre-firing studies and safety assessments before they can be safely fired. To ensure staff safety when handling potentially dangerous ordnance items, FTB draws on the extensive in-house experience and judgment of its staff, and occasionally outside subject matter experts when necessary.

The FTB evaluates imported firearms to ensure compliance with the provisions of Title 18 U.S.C., Chapter 44, § 935(d). In cases where candidate firearms are disapproved for importation or sale due to non-compliance with import requirements, these articles must be re-exported or destroyed, and often are abandoned due to excess costs or tedious procedures. When abandoned, they may become part of the National Firearms Collection. If you were looking to see how not to seek import approval on semiautomatic SKSs or AKs, the FTB has many examples of failed attempts by importers to properly modify semi-auto rifles to meet importation guidelines. We saw samples of SKSs with some full auto parts, full auto sear mounting holes and even one that actually had a selector lever for full auto fire. Along with these, there are firearms built in proscribed countries and transshipped to a “friendly” country and falsely claimed as satisfactory in origin.

In accordance with Title 18 U.S.C., Chapter 44, § 922(p)(1), “Undetectable Firearms Act,” FTB personnel survey and test domestic and foreign origin handguns to ensure they meet the minimum size, functional, and material content requirements for commercial sale. The Branch also tests for compliance any ammunition that may fall into the controlled category of “Armor Piercing.” And finally, and in addition to an already packed business day, the FTB must also evaluate NFA-related documents and provide comments to ATF Chief Counsel, analyze proposed new legislation when requested by the Office of Public and Governmental Affairs, prepare all correspondence concerning the classification of firearms as “curios” or “relics,” and prepare correspondence for importers and manufacturers concerning marking requirements for firearms and related materials.

Now the Fun Stuff 

Within the National Firearms Collection, there are all manner of weapon reference types, many that would never be seen anywhere else. This includes racks and racks of rifles, both military-style assault rifles and conventional commercial hunting and competition rifles; submachine guns in various sizes and shapes; machine guns light, medium, and heavy; sniper rifles; shotguns; and destructive devices to include single-shot, multipleshot, and automatic grenade launchers. Each weapon’s category is organized by country of origin and/or alphabetically. Below the long gun racks are cabinets with drawer after drawer of handguns arranged alphabetically by maker or country of origin, both revolvers and semiautomatics, as well as full auto machine pistols, again some made by licensed manufacturers and those illegally made in unlicensed “work shops” both in the US and abroad. Within the handgun drawers are countless examples of silencers, pen guns, flash light guns, “zip” guns, toy and miniature guns, homemade AOWs (Any Other Weapons), and even an entire line of wearable “clothing guns” that includes an assortment of belt buckle, pager, cell phone, brass knuckle, knife, arm and even ring guns.

The collection includes reference samples of various automatic sears and lower receivers, such as the wide assortment of MAC-type lower receivers in various stages of completion. Within the NFC resides an excellent collection of crewserved weapons and anti-tank rocket launchers, like the infamous RPG and the WWII-era British PIAT launcher. ATF does not purchase or accept donated weapons from industry into the collection so the vast majority of the reference pieces have been added to the collection as a result of FTBs daily performance of its extensive mission portrayed above.

The reference collection includes mostly criminal case seizures, expired bond weapons not sold during the 5-year allowable period, those surrendered by unwary civilians, and, as indicated, samples sent in for ATF review and approval by US importers and manufacturers seeking permission for import and/or sale, which in some cases are later abandoned to ATF. When asked, our FTB guide for the day and the Vault Curator answered quickly that the most common WWII “bring-back” weapons have been MP40 submachine guns, lots of MP44s, and Czech ZB26 and ZB30 light machine guns, of all things. Not surprisingly, weapons from the Pacific theater are also not uncommon. Library pieces are donated by other agencies and many have returned from service overseas as a result of combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, such as Iranian-made G3 rifles included in the FTB collection. One of the more interesting unofficial “displays” was a cart marked for destruction of, shall we say, obviously well-used 1960s-era US AR-15s, M60s and M79s that were captured by the North Vietnamese after the fall of Saigon and were later smuggled back into the United States and quickly confiscated by US Customs and ATF personnel. There is even a sawed-off and exquisitely engraved 12 gauge Purdy shotgun originally valued at more than $50,000 on display No one ever said all criminals were smart.

Important Notices

As we dive into this extensive photographic collection expertly recorded by SAR Editor in Chief and Technical Editor Dan Shea, it must be stated that the ATF National Firearms Collection is not open to the public. As a working reference collection, access is available to other Government personnel involved in official business generally via request to the Chief, FTB.

It must also be stated that manufacturing firearms and/or silencers, or making certain key changes in a weapon’s configuration (overall length, barrel length, external features, etc.) or changing the function of a firearm in many cases requires special approval and licensing in advance from ATF. Readers are advised to check with their local ATF office and/ or the ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide before proceeding on home projects of this nature and to always remember “All ATF rules apply.”

Acknowledgements

The co-authors for this article and the fine folks at Small Arms Review magazine would like to thank the men and women of the Firearms Technology Branch, and the leadership at the ATF, for the opportunity to see and record the fascinating and significant ordnance pieces that make up this one-of-a-kind collection for SAR readers.

The OICW Increment 1 program commenced in 2005 to replace the current fleet of M16/M4 carbines in the U.S. government inventory: something that has been attempted many times without materializing over the last 40 years. This program had a requirement for a family of weapons and was broken down into three increments. Increment 1 was comprised of the family of weapons. This required a special compact model, a carbine, a designated marksman rifle and a light machine gun. Increment 2 was to be the development of the 25mm grenade launcher. Increment 3 was to be the combining of the two for the creation of the OICW (Offensive Individual Combat Weapon).

Several requirements were made in the solicitation. Most importantly, there needed to be 75% parts interchangeability in the special compact, carbine and designated marksman rifle and 50% parts interchangeability with the LMG (light machine gun).

Colt design engineers had a well-established starting point for their family of weapons. Just being post-SCAR development (Special forces Combat Assault Rifle); Colt already had a proven gas piston operated firearm and, additionally, already had a proprietary 1-piece upper receiver that would work well in all four weapons. The only major undertaking would be adapting the 1-piece upper receiver to the LMG variation.

The upper receiver for all four weapons would be based on the current LE1020 upper receiver, which is the product-improved version of Colt SCAR entry. The major change to the upper receiver would be the way the piston assembly is removed. On the SCAR rifle, there was a pin that held the piston assembly into the receiver that required a drift punch and a hammer to remove. Based on the criticism of difficulty in disassembly from SOCOM, Colt redesigned this with a sliding detent pin similar to the rear takedown and front pivot pin of the lower receiver. There was also a major redesign of the gas piston sleeve. The SCAR gas piston sleeve had no provision for easy alignment for assembly or griping method for removing an extremely fouled or corroded gas piston sleeve. The improved gas piston sleeve provided a guide for assembly to align the gas piston sleeve with the detent pin as well as a gripping surface for removal of a fouled or corroded gas piston sleeve.

The lower receiver of the OICW would be entirely interchangeable for all four models and is identical to that of the M4 carbine. The thought on this was twofold. First, the Colt OICW could be implemented as a ret-rofit of existing weapons by only replacing the upper receiver and, second, was the compliance with the parts commonality.

The LMG Variation

The LMG variation had some additional requirements to set it apart from the other three weapons that included the ability to have a heavy quick detachable barrel that did not need to have an ability to mount a grenade launcher. However, the LMG did need to have an ability to mount a bayonet. Also, the LMG was required to have a folding bipod.

The lower receiver of the LMG was the standard M4A1 lower receiver. Due to it being a light machine gun, Colt engineers took several trigger designs into consideration. They looked at an open bolt trigger mechanism; a closed bolt semi-auto/open bolt auto trigger mechanism, as well as the standard closed bolt trigger mechanism. The final decision was made to go with the standard closed bolt trigger mechanism; made primarily to keep with parts commonality. The only other departure from the norm was the replacement of the H buffer with the H2 buffer. The H buffer contains two steel and one tungsten weight and the H2 buffer contains one steel and two tungsten weights. The tungsten weight has the mass of two steel weights. This was changed to prevent bolt carrier bounce/light strikes when firing fully automatic.

As stated above, the upper receiver would be based on the 1-piece upper receiver. This receiver allowed the barrel to free-float, which in turn allowed more rapid cooling. Additionally, the upper receiver does not have a forward assist assembly. This has always been a controversial issue. Many believe, including Gene Stoner, that the forward assist was not necessary on the firearm and in fact detrimental. If your bolt is not fully closed, the rifle is trying to tell the user there is a problem! That means to get that round out of the chamber and load another. Forcing the bolt closed massively increases the potential of causing further problems. Others believe this is necessary to have the ability to force the bolt closed if need be. The forward assist has been retained due to it being required by the U.S. military Technical Data Package (TDP). However, Colt decided to remove it on this LMG.

The upper receiver is very similar to the standard 1-piece upper but with two major changes. Due to the requirement for the removable barrel, a locking mechanism had to be designed. The main changes would be made to the bottom of the handguard. The upper receiver and barrel extension are cut with the M4 extended feed ramps.

The 18.5 inch long heavy barrel has a diameter in-between that of the M4A1 heavy SOCOM barrel and the standard Colt open bolt LMG. The chamber area of the barrel has significantly more material making it much thicker and therefore increasing the LMG’s cook-off thermal threshold. The prototype LMG is set up for the 700 to 950 round per minute cyclic rate that is the same as the standard M4 carbine. The rear of the barrel would have two sets of index grooves. The first is at the rear of the barrel, which aligns into the upper receiver and acts as the barrel extension. The second is forward where the barrel is locked in place by the lever on the bottom of the receiver. To release the barrel, a lever on the bottom of the handguard is pulled out of engagement and the barrel is pulled out. This led to another problem: how the hot barrel would be removed, as asbestos gloves are no longer used or allowed. Colt was in the process of making a carrying handle to push the barrel out of the receiver right when the program was cancelled.

The gas system would also have to be modified from its original configuration. The piston/operating rod would be split into two separate pieces. The operating rod, spring and stop would be held captive in the upper receiver along with a new heat shield. This would be removed by an additional lever on the bottom of the lower handguard. The piston would be pinned into the gas piston sleeve and remain part of the barrel assembly. The gas piston sleeve is held into the front sight base in the same manner as the rest of the Colt OICW family of weapons by the detent pin on the front sight base. The piston pin is held in pace by an extended front sight base guide. To disassemble the piston assembly, the detent pin is pulled from the right, and the piston sleeve is removed from the front of the front sight base. The piston retaining pin is pushed out one of the two sides and the piston is removed from the sleeve.

The assembly of the LMG is as follows. Insert the heat shield, operating rod, spring and stop assembly into the upper receiver from the front of the receiver. Push it inward until it snaps into place and is held by the lever. Insert the piston into the piston sleeve and align the hole in the side of the piston with the channel groove in the gas piston sleeve and insert the retaining pin. Now slide the gas piston sleeve assembly into the front sight base and align the locating pin with the groove on the right side of the front sight base and push the detent pin in until it locks in place. Slide the barrel into the upper receiver (with the bolt carrier group locked to the rear) until it stops. Flip the locking lever back so it is flush with the receiver. Give the barrel a tug to be sure it is locked in place. The LMG is now assembled and ready to fire.

The bolt carrier group is identical to that of the LE1020 and the other three OICW weapons. It is a modified fully automatic bolt carrier with two major changes. The first is the addition of the “skis” on the bottom rear of the bolt carrier sear trip area. This is to keep the bolt carrier in alignment with the buffer extension when it moves rearward. This is necessary due to when the piston rod strikes the bolt carrier key as the rear of the bolt carrier has a tendency to tip down at a slight angle. The other change is the modified carrier key. The carrier key is solid steel and pinned in place to take the force of being struck by the operating rod. No gas rings are necessary. The bolt is the standard M4 bolt with the heavy extractor spring and stronger (black) extractor spring buffer.

The LMG was equipped with the standard Colt folding front sight base used on the SCAR Type C and the LE1020, and the Matech back-up iron sight; though any backup sight could be used. With the Mil-Std- 1913 rail any of the wide array of combat optics could be mounted. Due to having quad Mil-Std-1913 rails, the LMG could be equipped with a variety of accessories to include a flashlight, laser, vertical pistol grip or anything else that was wanted or needed. The LMG standard feeding device was to be the standard M16/M4 magazine, but it could also accept the Beta C-mag or any other high capacity magazine.

The program was cancelled in November of 2005. The prototype shown in this article is the only one in existence and was never finished. The bayonet lug and the barrel removal handle were never implemented.

By David Gaboury

The UZI is known as a tough, tireless workhorse that never fails. While there’s a lot of truth to that, it needs good care like any other firearm. Out of spec parts or poor maintenance can quickly put your afternoon of fun on hold. Here are some suggestions to consider the next time your workhorse stumbles. Most of these suggestions apply to fully automatic or semiautomatic UZIs but you’ll find that replacement parts for the semiautomatic are harder to find and more expensive so there’s an incentive to repair rather than replace in that case. The three most common problems you’ll run into are failure to fire, failure to eject and failure to feed.

Failure to Fire

A failure to fire occurs when the round is fed into the chamber but the primer doesn’t detonate. Usually, the round will have a light primer strike on it. There are three possible causes for this. First, the open bolt firing pin, which is a small projection milled into the bolt face, may be worn or broken. This is an uncommon cause but if it happens, the firing pin will need to be welded up or the bolt replaced. Surplus bolts are cheap and plentiful so replacement is usually the easiest option. The firing pin on the semiautomatic UZI is pinned to the carrier and can also be replaced if worn.

Another cause is excess headspace. If the round doesn’t seat firmly in the chamber, the bolt will push the round forward rather than detonate the primer. Excess headspace can be caused by an out of spec chamber; but that’s uncommon. A more likely cause is a loose barrel nut. This simple to diagnose, simple to fix problem can easily go unnoticed. With the barrel nut tightened you should not feel any play in the barrel. If the problem is chronic, it might be due to the barrel nut catch being worn or the teeth on the barrel nut being broken off. Either part can be easily replaced. Remember to depress the barrel nut catch when tightening the barrel nut to reduce wear on both parts. If the problem persists, an easy cure is to put a rubber or copper gasket between the barrel flange and the barrel nut. Another rare cause of excess headspace is broken trunnion welds. If the welds that hold the trunnion inside the receiver fail, the trunnion will slide forward when firing the gun. Rewelding the trunnion should be done by a qualified gunsmith.

The final cause of failure to fire occurs when the bolt moves forward so slowly that it doesn’t hit the primer hard enough to detonate it. This is actually a type of failure to feed and will be discussed later in the article.

Failure to Eject

Failure to eject is also known as stovepiping. The first possible cause of failure to eject is weak ammo. The heavy bolt and recoil spring of an UZI require a heavier impulse to operate than a typical 9mm pistol. UMC and Remington green box ammo are notoriously weak and can cause failures to eject. If the empty cases are not ejected several feet from the gun, try different ammo.

If ammo isn’t the problem, take a look at the ejector. It should be level, tight and pointing straight forward. It’s riveted to the bottom of the receiver and if it gets loose it won’t firmly strike the back of the fired case as the bolt recoils reward. To tighten a loose ejector, remove the grip frame from the gun, exposing the bottom of the rivet. With the top cover and bolt removed, turn the gun over and rest the head of the rivet on a support,then hammer the bottom of the rivet until the ejector is tight. Once it’s tight, install the bolt without the recoil spring and push the bolt forward and backward by hand. It should pass over the ejector without hitting it. Performing this check with the barrel and stock removed will give you a better view of the ejector clearance.

If ejection problems persist, it’s time to check the extractor, which is the leading cause of failures to eject. The extractor must firmly grip the empty cartridge case as it strikes the ejector in order to generate the energy needed to flip the case out of the gun. Remove and clean the extractor, particularly under the claw, as residue buildup under the extractor claw will prevent it from firmly gripping the case rim. Also, clean the bolt hole that the extractor sits in. A .22 caliber cleaning swap works nicely for this. Residue in the hole will prevent the extractor from flexing properly. Before reassembling, be sure that you have the correct extractor in the gun. 9mm extractors are unmarked while the .45ACP extractors are stamped “45” near the back. They are not interchangeable and it’s best not to mix up semiautomatic and fully automatic extractors as the lower point of the extractor claw is removed on the semiautomatic extractor to facilitate feeding. When everything is clean, reassemble by inserting the extractor through the back of the bolt. Line up the long slot on the back of the ejector with the arrow on the back of the bolt. Reinsert the extractor retaining pin from the left side of the bolt. Using a small screwdriver, try to push the extractor claw sideways. It should require firm pressure but move freely. If there’s no tension on it, the extractor will have to be removed again and bent slightly. If nothing else seems to help,replace the extractor.

Failure to Feed

Failure to feed is the most difficult problem to diagnose because there are many potential causes. A failure to feed occurs when the bolt cannot forcefully strip the round from the magazine and push it into the barrel chamber. The problems fall into three categories: bad recoil spring, excess friction on the bolt, or misalignment of the gun’s components.

A weak recoil spring won’t impart enough energy on the bolt for it to feed a round properly. Recoil springs can get weak with use and it’s good to have a spare on hand; but it’s not a common problem. A more common cause of a spring related failure is aftermarket springs that don’t meet factory specs. Surplus IMI springs are cheap and plentiful so you should replace it at any sign of problems. The entire spring and recoil rod assembly should be replaced as a single piece.

A much more common cause of failure to feed is excess friction on the bolt that can come from several sources. The first thing to check is the gap between the bolt and the top cover. Use a feeler gauge (available at automotive shops) to measure the gap. It should be between .005 inches and .015 inches; preferable about .010 inches. If the gap is too small, the top cover will need to be bent to give more clearance. You don’t need any fancy equipment to bend a top cover; just a little patience and ordinary hand tools. The easiest approach is to flip the top cover upside down and support both ends with blocks of wood. Use a rubber mallet to hammer the middle of the top cover to put a little bow in it. Do it slowly and re-measure the gap frequently. If the gap is tight towards the front or back of the bolt, bend the frontor back of the top cover down. You can get by with a vise and a crescent wrench to bend the ends of the top cover. Be sure the gap between the bolt and top cover does not get excessively wide because it will allow the bolt to slide past the sear without depressing the trigger. That would cause a “runaway” condition and can be extremely dangerous.

If the top cover gap is okay, verify there are no other sources of friction by using the bolt slide test. This test only works on open bolt UZIs. Assemble the unloaded gun without the recoil spring, remove the magazine, put the selector on full auto and hold down the grip safety. While pulling the trigger, tip the gun forward then backward. You should hear the bolt slide freely from the front to the back of the receiver. If it’s binding anywhere you’ll need to find where it’s rubbing and correct the problem. One common cause of binding is trying to use surplus machine gun bolts in a converted semiautomatic UZI that still has a barrel restrictor ring. An IMI machine gun bolt will not have enough clearance and will rub on the top of the restrictor ring. If that’s the problem, the best solution is to have a qualified gunsmith cut off the top of the restrictor ring, leaving just the machined feed ramp.

If friction isn’t an issue, then the problem may be due to misalignment of the gun’s components. First check the magazine. Bent or cracked feed lips will cause misfeeds; so the easiesttest is to try different magazines. The original 25 round IMI magazines are the most reliablefor function tests. Another magazine related problem occurs if it’s held too high in the magazine-well. To test for this you’ll need to repeat the bolt slide test mentioned above, but do it with a magazine body inserted in the gun. You must remove the magazine spring and follower for the test to work. If the bolt rubs on the feed lips during this test, you’ll need to remove the magazine catch and bend it so the magazine is held in a lower position. Check several magazines before bending.

If the magazine alignment looks okay, the other potential alignment problem is much more serious. When the barrel is not properly aligned with the bolt, the round being fed into the chamber will not feed straight in, resulting in a light primer strike or the round jamming between the bolt and barrel. This type of alignment problem is most commonly found on guns built from Group Industries receivers (original Group Industries or some very early Vector guns that were on Group receivers) due to those original Group Industries receivers being somewhat out of spec. Additionally, the heat treating done by both Group Industries and early Vectors warp the receivers and they need to be straightened before assembly, occasionally resulting in misalignment. Straightening a misaligned receiver is not something you should attempt yourself so if everything else checks out on your gun and you’re still experiencing failures to feed, thebest alternative is to contact Vector Arms for their recommendation on factory repairs. Vector will do repair work on any brand of UZI and their customer service is first rate.

The simplicity of the UZI design will allow you to diagnose and correct most problems easily should any arise. With a minimal amount of care, this legendary submachine gun will give you a lifetime of reliable operation.

Resources:

UZI Talk Discussion forums
www.Uzitalk.com

Vector Arms
www.vectorarms.com
(801) 295-1917

Bob Faris was born in 1930 in Chicago, Illinois, but spent most of his youth in the Germantown, Pennsylvania area. He is an Ordnance veteran of the Korean War, and participated in testing many of the modern small arms used by today’s military at Aberdeen Proving Grounds and Yuma Proving Grounds. Bob is a lifelong collector of military small arms, their ammunition, belts, magazines, and accessories, the paraphernalia that accompanies them, and the uniforms and militaria. He shoots, makes parts, and generally has mentored several generations of firearms designers, testers, users and civilian shooting enthusiasts.

SAR: When did you get your first firearm? Did you go hunting?

Bob Faris: I guess the first thing I got was an old muzzle-loading musket, or a shotgun based on a Civil War rifle. They had smooth-bore guns from the scouts or troops in the field. I didn’t even know what it was until I met Val Forgett years later. I guess I was about nine years old. Just about all military weapons in general caught my interest when I was young. I was following the Spanish Civil War. Then, I was tracking the Japanese War in China in newspapers and even in bubble gum cards. There were these color bubble gum cards that had gory scenes of the Spanish Civil War and the war in China. Those wars weren’t over yet, and that’s where my interest started.

SAR: Did you get your first machine gun when you were a civilian, before military service?

Bob Faris: Oh yeah. The first one was a water-cooled Maxim MG08/15. I bought it for about $25 from someone I knew, and it was a battlefield pick-up that he had gotten from a junkyard. That was early in World War Two, and it was complete. I was pretty young, maybe 12 years old. It had all its parts and the right bipod. I think it was missing something in the lock. I never had a chance to shoot it because I traded it off for something else. It was too heavy for me. There were no books to look at in those days, so I just kept taking it apart. I found a piece of belt but never shot that MG08/15.

SAR: Was your interest in the mechanics of it or the history?

Bob Faris: It’s hard to tell because I was fascinated with both aspects of it. I had a lot of cap guns and similar things, and I used to repair the neighborhood’s cap guns. I found out that machine guns were pretty illegal, so I decided I was going off them for a while and traded that off. The next thing I was into was competition shooting. My father had bought an old deserted farm about 30 miles outside of Philadelphia, near a town called Perkasie, not very far from Norristown, PA. I made a 100-yard range on a 60-acre piece of farmland. I wanted to get out of the city, and my mother’s brother was living with us at the time, well he had some health problems, and he decided he would farm that piece of land if my father would back him up financially and help him with his medical problems. I’d gotten a few handguns, Iver Johnson’s and other fine weapons like that. I had a single shot percussion pistol, and just about anything that was a gun was of interest, but I soon got into military weapons.

SAR: When did you start keeping track of information about these types of firearms?

Bob Faris: I started scrapbooks a few years later, to classify the information I was gathering. The W.H.B. Smith book Small Arms of the World came out in 1943. That was my first useful gun book. Before that, it would be American Rifleman and even some of the sporting and hunting magazines would have an article on a military weapon every once in a while, but there was no other publication that would print articles about the stuff that I liked so I was gathering any info I could get.

SAR: Did you have any other exposure to machine guns or National Firearms Act-type weapons in the ’40s?

Bob Faris: I’d run across some veteran or GI, maybe a veteran from World War One that had something military that we could shoot, (machine guns, pistols, rifles.)

SAR: Then you went into the service?

Bob Faris: I was in the National Guard in 1948, but I went in the service in 1952, after I got out of gunsmithing school. I went to Trinidad State Junior College, Colorado in 1949, and they had a two-year, 50% accredited course. They had a lot of gunsmithing students, but there were also a lot of other students, mostly auto mechanics. I was in school 1949 through 1952, and I had almost joined a reserve outfit at school, but I didn’t fill some of the papers out properly. When I came back in the fall, they said, “Hey, you’re going to fill this out, right? Do you still want to go in?” I said, “No, I’ll wait a while, ’til I finish my schooling,” so that was the end of that for a while. When I went out to school, that automatically separated me from the state National Guard. I was still in it technically, as they had not done the proper paperwork to discharge me and that gave me enough time to finish school. Then, I was moving on and I decided that I wanted to work at Aberdeen. I knew somebody that had gotten a job there the year before, and that appealed to me. I wanted to get my foot in the door, and I did for nine months, and then I joined up in the Regular Army. I had it all set up to go through armorer schools at Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), but when I went down to enlist at Fort Meade, they had just gotten an emergency requisition for 200 bodies for tank driver school, Fort Knox, Kentucky.

SAR: Shanghaied from your dream job to something you had no interest in…first time the Army ever did that.

Bob Faris:Laughs Right. I would’ve done ’em a lot better good going through Aberdeen, because eventually when I finished Basic Combat Training as a Tank Driver at Knox, they assigned me as a small arms repairman in the Third Armored Division. I knew enough about small arms, and when I got to the machine gun classes, I was ahead of the instructors in taking the guns apart. I was showing off. They said, “What are you doing?” I said, “Well, I’ve taken everything apart.” “Can you put it back together again?” and I said, “Sure.” They said, “Show me,” so I put it together again. Laughs I explained to them that I had not only gunsmithing school, but I had been at Aberdeen for nine months as a civilian gunner. I was asked if I wanted an assignment at Fort Knox, but I really wanted to go back to Aberdeen. They wouldn’t assign me to anywhere but Fort Knox, so I took my orders for Korea instead. I wanted experience in the field, and that did help me years later. That was November of 1952. We went there by ship leaving Fort Lewis: no other way to get there than by a long trip on a ship. We stopped in Japan, got outfitted in Yokohama, and I was assigned to the Seventh Infantry Division in Korea and traveled to Inchon. Ultimately after a month’s stay in a tank outfit, I would be going to 707 Ordnance. I got to my outfit on December 25, 1952, Christmas Day! Merry Christmas. Laughs. When I got there I thought I would be assigned right into Ordnance. But, oh no, the commanding general, by name of “Snuffy” Smith, had decreed that all replacements for any outfit in the Seventh Division would spend a month in their combat MOS before they were assigned to their ultimate destination. My combat MOS was “tank driver.” They assigned me to a maintenance company for a tank battalion. There were about four other replacements in there with me. We went to a tent and sat down and discussed our experiences, and of course I didn’t have a hell of a lot. I had a month experience as a small arms repairer at Fort Knox for the 3rd Armored Division. So, here I was, in the 86th Tank Battalion of the 7th Infantry Division in Korea. Anyway, they told us to call out our MOSs, and the other guys called out theirs, then I called out my small arms MOS. I heard a voice shouting through the tent walls, “I want that man.” It was the battalion ordnance officer. The reason he wanted me was he had a whole tent full of broken down small arms, and no way to get them fixed. He wanted ’em back operational as quick as I could get ’em there and, “Get these guns back in the fight.” We weren’t far from the fight, so it was in our minds. Well, I was all for that, so I asked; “What do I have for parts?” “We don’t have any parts” was the reply. “Tools?” “Probably can dig you up a screwdriver.” It went down hill from there.

SAR: What kind of guns were in the pile?

Bob Faris: Everything. The full TO&E. Brownings, .50s, .30s, M1 Garands, I had one of the M2 carbines, M3 Grease Guns, .45 automatics. I got approximately half of them operational by cannibalizing the others, and he was tickled pink. “Well,” he said, “You’re going to be the unofficial small arms repairman, and when you’re done with your month I’m going to get you assigned here permanently.” He wouldn’t officially authorize the work, but he said, “Okay, here’s what I’m going to have you do. You’re going to go around to all the tank outfits on the front line in the Seventh Division and inspect their weapons.” It was only tank weapons that he was interested in. Somewhat the same stuff that I just rattled off. So I said, “Okay, what’s my transportation?” “Oh, we don’t have any. You gotta hitchhike your way up to the front line and hitchhike your way back every day.” Laughs So, every day I’d go up there to the front line where the fight was, and then come back at night to battalion headquarters. If I got back early, I would help the tank mechanic with his work. Not really a hell of a lot of fighting going on up there right then, but there was some shooting going on. Shelling hit near us, but I always just pulled the hatches shut and kept on working. It was a lot safer than the bunkers. It was in the winter, and it was miserably cold out on the line.

SAR: How long were you in Korea?

Bob Faris: 14 months, two winters. Halfway through my time the Armistice came. We went back in “reserve,” and had wooden floors in our tents and all this kind of special just-like-home comfortable stuff. For the first winter, just about everything we had was in trouble, including the M2HB. There was improper lubrication and the cold to contend with. There wasn’t any correct lubricant. You had to completely clean a weapon of all old lubricating oil, get it all out of there before anything would work. They were short of the right stuff. That winter of ’52-’53 there was no proper gun oil in the Seventh Division. The weapons didn’t get proper maintenance. The M2HB worked the best, better than say the A4. We were starting to use disintegrating metallic links on the A4. They were just about out of cloth belts. There was still some few left and we used them for functioning, not combat.

SAR: Did you see any unusual weapons while you were there?

Bob Faris: Not anything really unusual. The enemy weapons, foreign weapons, were pretty standard stuff. I would pick up a Schpagin here and a Mosin there just to play with. It was hard to get ammo for things. There wasn’t much of a choice on things to bring back home. You couldn’t bring back anything US or anything Allied, and you couldn’t bring back anything Russian, so that only left Chinese, and the weapons supplied to the Chinese. I have a Chinese Mauser hanging on the wall as my official souvenir. A buddy of mine in Seoul picked out the best one he could find for me. I left Korea in March of ’54.

SAR: Did you have any contact with people over there that you met back in the US?

Bob Faris: I not only met a guy that I went to school with, but he was going through intelligence school in Aberdeen when I was there as a civilian, and he was assigned to headquarters FTIO in Seoul. I had some business in Seoul. My project was an optical sight for the .50 caliber M2HB. So I spent all my free time there. I got a 20 power spotting scope, and I made a mount to fit on the dovetail base of an M2HB. I did 20 of them. This was the first time that I know of that anyone put a good optical piece on an M2 heavy barrel machine gun. Except for the M1 Optical Sight, of course, which was a vile thing. No power. But this one wasn’t all that great because there was no reticle in the spotting scope. I had to put a crosswire in there and then rotate it to where you got a good average focus, and you had to rotate a little bit to get a sharp focus, but you’re still aiming with the center of the X. This was just before the Armistice, and they had a big dustup on the east side, as I was on my way back from Seoul. They got ’em out to the guys, but they got no feedback because the Armistice came shortly, and all interest was lost in the project. They were turned in and disappeared.

SAR: Was your intention to have them firing fully automatic with the scope or just single shot?

Bob Faris: Single shot, because there was too much vibration. The scopes were quite sensitive to vibration. Remember, I volunteered to do that project and it’s all we had to work with.

SAR: You came back stateside, and you went to Aberdeen?

Bob Faris: I went back to Aberdeen and picked up where I left off as a civilian. They’d had a couple of raises while I was gone, which I got, ’cause in theory I was only on reassignment when I went in the Army. I stayed there for a total of 20 years, and I left there in July of ’71. I had started out as a civilian gunner, and worked my way up to top level you can get as a gunner, and in ’56 I got a job as a test director. I was never in the military at Aberdeen. I worked with Bill Brophy, and Larry Moore, who headed up the shoulder weapon section for many years. I worked on testing weapons, ammunition, accessories, and fire controls. We had scientific procedures set up for testing all types of weapons. There were different procedures for handguns, submachine guns, rifles, machine guns, infantry weapons and aircraft armament and tank armament.

SAR: What programs did you test personally?

Bob Faris: I started out with aircraft weapons, primarily the T160 20mm Revolver Cannon, which became the M39. I started on that before I went in the Army, and then when I got out they put me right back on it. I didn’t do hardly any of the initial T130 .60 caliber work, because they expanded the neck and made 20 millimeter out of it, and they stuck with that. It was the same ammo used in the Vulcan M61, but using a different link. Primarily we ran endurance, cook-off, and reliability tests, various adverse conditions, arctic temperatures down to -65F because the gun bays would get that cold at high altitude. There was a stratosphere chamber that would evacuate the proper amount of air to simulate the altitude temperature-wise, and that was variable. It could start out at low altitude at higher temperature and just program these test conditions up and down. We would fire a test from a heavy-duty mechanical rest, a little bit of adjustment for elevation and azimuth and fire into a “container.” There was a firing chamber, then ahead of that another chamber with sand in it to catch all these projectiles. There was “altitude” in there, so you can’t vent it until you were through. You had to make sure that the accumulation of projectiles did not exceed the amount of sand. When you heard a clankety clank, it was hitting the metal container – that’s bad. You had to stop. That phase would have to be done over, until we screened all the projectiles out. Now, if you weren’t taking the altitude into consideration, you used standard firing chambers, temperature-conditioned and armored in case of an explosion.

SAR: Did you work on any of the small arms testing for shoulder-fired weapons?

Bob Faris: Very few. I filled in for people occasionally on the standard and experimental arms of the time. I do remember some politician wanted to see what the Johnson 1941 Rifle would do in the cold test spectrum in the ’60s at a low temperature. It had never been tested at low temperature. I did that one; it was a very limited test. I did some M60 testing, and of course M73 and M219 and the T175, which became the M85. I got into that M73 the first time and it was already in production; that would be in the early to mid ’60s. There were inherent problems with the system and there were a lot of them. Too many to name actually, but here’s a few… Ammunition compatibility, mount rigidity problems, gas contamination from the booster, which is not limited to the M73. They would change the booster relationship with the recoiling component because of fouling, and it would knock the back plate out. It had a stamped receiver and a stamped back plate. Excessive recoil would also knock out the alignment of the solenoid and manual trigger, because it also could be manually fired, which was the requirement for any machine gun on a tank. However, it would not function off of a modified M2 tripod, as it was not rigid enough.

SAR: The M73 used the same standard M-13 link as the M60, and it had ammunition problems, sensitivity to different lots of ammunition?

Bob Faris: Yeah, it’s related to case hardness. We had problems with yielding of the locking system. It wasn’t very rigid, and it had a lot of spring. When you had soft cases, they would stick too hard, and they would separate. This was accentuated especially with high pressure and heat. It was also accentuated in cold, because ball propellant tended to completely fragment and raise pressures, so we had to watch that. The propellant fragmented before it was ignited, when it was in the cartridge case. While it was being ignited at the rear, there’s pressure up forward, and in the cold it’s crunching the propellant up front. We were able to measure the pressure changes under these conditions. That was all thoroughly done by the ammunition test people, once it was determined to be a problem.

SAR: Was this a problem in other weapon systems also?

Bob Faris: No, it was mainly a problem in M73 because of the semi-rigid locking system. They were planning to replace all of the Browning Tank Machine Guns with the M73 because of the shorter receiver. I don’t know how many millions of dollars the government spent trying to make super cartridge cases for 7.62x51mm ammunition just so they’d work in the M73. They went crazy on this. Instead of looking at the system and saying, “There’s a fault in this system,” they tried to change the cases. The ammunition failed, so they said something had to be wrong with the ammunition.

SAR: But the ammunition wasn’t failing in other systems.

Bob Faris: They oversimplified. They had all these problems and they didn’t analyze them properly. It was all in my reports in the ’60s. The higher ups gave Springfield Armory hell and told ’em to fix it. Well, they were in the hole already, and that was their own choosing. They had gotten this design accepted that wasn’t functional and they didn’t know what to do about it. They tried all kinds of things. They changed the configuration of the chamber, tapered the neck, trying to ease extraction, but it wasn’t extraction that was the problem. The cases were yielding at high pressure. For several years we were spending the money and making the finest 7.62mm brass anywhere in the world, all unnecessarily, because while there were lots of other problems in the M73, the ammunition was working fine in the M60, the M14, the Minigun and so forth. I also did lots of work on the M85. I got in on the first engineering test on that: that was about 1960. It was still the T175 at that point, but it was up to E2 model, I think. At least the E1 model at that first test at APG.

SAR: So what was wrong with the M85?

Bob Faris: Laughs Ha… well, this problem was not ammunition compatibility. Parts life of critical components for a start, but… how can I condense this? The problems were all, once again, from a bad design: a locking system that wore out and broke frequently. They had a recoil and feed system that took too much energy to operate. Consequently, when you got into adverse conditions, or just un-lubricated, it figuratively would screech to a stop because the energy required to operate it under normal lubrication conditions was such that it was not adequate for adverse conditions, like dust and sand and non-lubrication. AAI did the original design on the M85 program (T175.) Problems with the M85 were political in a way, but the real problem was that they were committed on these weapons, and they’d convinced themselves they could fix them. The designers and the re-designers had convinced the proponents of this thing to accept it in the first place, then that they could fix it, and they did their damndest. They had state of the art metallurgy, they had all the facilities and machinery, but they couldn’t change the fundamental design problems. They went through two tanks, the M-60 and the M-60A1. Both of those tank turrets and cupolas were configured for the M73 and the M85. That made it so that the mount and the ammo boxes and the coaxial hole through the coaxial gun mount were configured for the M73. With the M73 getting such problems with fouling, they had to extend the flash hider out the front, so the barrel and the flash hider were about that long. (Bob gestures with outspread arms). It wasn’t necessarily the fault of the M73, but it was more sensitive to the changes that this extension was causing functionally. The M85, well, they designed a cupola (M19) to go on top of the turret. The previous cupola had an offset gun mount, and they complained all the time about this weapon swinging side to side when you fired it. There was a tremendous lateral dispersion, because the gun is off-center.

That was the M-1 cupola with the Browning M2HB on the M-60 tanks. All the other offset machine gun cupolas had the same problem. That gave you a lot of lateral dispersion of the rounds. That is not acceptable. They wanted a short receiver on these guns, because with the Browning receivers mounted centrally there would be no room for the commander in the cupola. Those are the major design problems that they had to overcome to make it work, because of the short distance they had to fit it in. What they had to do was shorten up the action, shorten up the receiver. In the M85 that meant that they had a much higher need of energy to translate into feeding. That was primarily because of shortening up the stroke on it, they couldn’t translate the energy properly. If you ever get a chance to study one, you’ll see what a weird feed system it has, and excessive frictional loads are inherent to the design.

SAR: The M85 uses its own link, different from the M2 .50 BMG.

Bob Faris: There was a lot of trouble with that. There were three of them: M-15, M-15A1 and M-15A2. All of them had inconsistent gripping force on the round. Because this bolt system happened to not travel very far, it’s got to hit and drive the round straight forward out of the link. The links were inconsistent in how they were gripping the round, and you had a problem with energy being taken off for feeding forward, as well as the recoil stroke feeding over. The links were either gripping the cartridge too tight or too loose. If it was too loose, while dragging the belt around trying to load it, and the rounds would fall out, the belts would come apart while you were trying to fill the ammunition box. They thought that was all right, but I raised so much hell about it. There’s no way they’re belted for combat conditions. I was watching, and I’d try it myself, and it was very hard to keep from knocking rounds out of the links. They went through two major designs, and I had some prototypes of different links they tried. The final design proved acceptable.

SAR: The end result on the M85 was that it was taken out of service; that it never really got into full service? I don’t remember seeing many in the early ’70s.

Bob Faris: Oh, hell no, it got into service all right, you’ve got to recognize that from the early ’60s until the ’70s, they were “play guns” because the M60 series tanks weren’t used in combat in Vietnam. Anything that’d go wrong in training, they’d blame it on the crews. “Oh, you didn’t do this or that. You didn’t lubricate it enough,” and there were a lot of hassles over that. I tried to convince them they shouldn’t go into production until they fixed the M85. It was too late on the M73. But not too late on the M219, where they eliminated 20 parts, eliminated the “dump cart,” (the ejection system,) and went to a direct ejection system. That’s another story. But neither one of them saw combat in Vietnam. That’s all they cared about. They had their new M-60 tank, “ready” for combat in Europe. They had new machine guns that wouldn’t be reliable, especially in the desert, and I tried to convince them of that. I had to go to the Pentagon and explain the problems based on my last test. I went with the commanding officer of Test and Evaluation at Aberdeen because my immediate boss and his boss were in Germany, fighting a battle on the 20 millimeter. The test director, me and my Colonel drove down there in his staff car, went to the meeting. It was chaired by the project manager for the M-60, M-60A-1, M-60 A-2 tanks and I explained that every time we had a test, no matter what, the M85 got a little better, except for un-lubricated, in sand and dust, it never got any better. I ran 13 engineering type tests, a complete battery of tests with all the conditions. Nine of the tests had sand and dust, and an un-lubricated machine gun, and it never passed even one of those tests. Severe failures? “Oh, we’re not worried about that.” “The battlefield is going to be in Europe”, all this kind of crap they fed us.

SAR: You must have been popular in that group.

Bob Faris: Colonel Burney was the project manager. I’d see him every once in a while, he’d come and look at a test, see how it was going. They were referring all these good results from the tests and none of the bad during the meeting, and I’m starting to sweat because I haven’t got an opening to tell the whole truth yet. He says, “Well, we’re all agreed, everything is okay and ready to go to production?” I said, “No, sir.” He looked at me, “What do you mean?” I said, “Well, sir, if you want to standardize a gun that will not work satisfactorily under un-lubricated, sand and dust,” and Louis Artioli from Springfield Armory raises his eyebrows. (He’s the guy who’s doing the project, and he thought he got through this briefing.) The Colonel said, “Tell me about it, what are you talking about, this passed the tests, didn’t it?” Well, Colonel Burney got all the high points in his reports, and they emphasize things he wants to hear, and I gave about 10-15 minutes of what’s wrong with the gun, and he’s overdue in the Chief of Ordnance’s office for the decision. He looked at Artioli and he says, “Is this true?” “Yes, sir.” He’s starting to sweat. He could see his whole plan for his vacation in Hawaii or whatever falling apart, and he says, “Are you saying that we shouldn’t go into production?” I said, “I’m not going to say that, sir, that’s your job. All I’m telling you is if you want a tank gun that works in desert conditions, you’ve got to do something about this.” He asked what they had been doing and I said, “They’ve been working like hell to get this fixed, and I cannot fault them for what they did.” I was a GS9 at that time. He turns to Artioli, “Is this true?” “Yes, sir.” Colonel Burney turns to my colonel and says, “Did you know Faris was going to do this?” “Yes, sir. Bob filled me in on the whole M85 program, on the way down to Washington.” Laughs I thought I was done for, pulling the plug at this point, but it was the first opportunity I had. Another 15 or 20 minutes of education on his part and he asks me, “Have you tried everything you know of on this gun?” I said, “Yes, sir, I have, it’s just the basic design.” Someone asked, “Is there a possibility of blocking the air intake that’s coming through the case ejection port, through the gun, into the tank?” Laughs “No, it’s the way the cupola is built.” He says, “Well, could we put a spring-loaded shutter on it to close that off, and when you take the safety off on the gun, it’ll pop the thing up, or a separate lever?” I said, “That’s theoretically possible.” But he knew I meant “Not likely.” You’ve got to recognize the time frame; this was during the last Berlin Crisis. They had these brand new M-60A-1 tanks over there, and the Crisis wasn’t over. We had M2HBs mounted on a lug welded on the top of the M-19 cupola, and they were raising hell about that. “We look like a bunch of idiots!” That’s the pressure the project manager was under to get those guns into that tank. I knew all this. The Project Manager decided to authorize initial production of the M85, but to direct every effort to overcome the problems brought out in this meeting.

SAR: Bob, if they weren’t going to work, they weren’t going to work.

Bob Faris: Not in sand and dust they wouldn’t, but they wouldn’t accept it. The goddamn test results are in every one of my test reports, and they ignored it. Back to the XM219, the M73 was continuously going through changes and modifications. They came out with the XM-219 with direct action ejection. It was not working all that well. When I split the results out, it had more failures to eject with that than it did with the old one. They put other new changes and improvements in the gun, so it looked like the new gun with a fixed ejector was better. The old gun with these other new additions would’ve been better than that. Laughs I wrote that in the report, and they were furious, they tried to get it retracted. It was not retracted.

In October 1968, I conducted my last test of the XM219 “Improvements” prior to adoption for production. (It was also referred to as the M73E1 at that time.) Overall performance was equal to or slightly better than obtained in earlier tests, though still not satisfactory. I had established by tests in May 1966, that not only dynamic headspace, but basically the guns were being manufactured with excess static headspace. In addition, a condition I called “Over-ramming” was prevalent, dynamic, probably due to an early modification to the barrel chamber neck which reduced the area of the stop shoulder, further aggravating the static headspace problem. Springfield Armory had not accepted the over-ramming analysis.

SAR: So Aberdeen stuck to their guns and they backed you up.

Bob Faris: Oh yeah, just like they should.

SAR: What happened on the M85 project?

Bob Faris: Well, nothing significant for a long time. They kept dodging the bullet, while trying to fix it. Then I got transferred to Yuma Proving Grounds. (I transferred from Aberdeen in ’71.) At Yuma I was an aircraft armament tester. Test Engineer was the title, whether you were a technician or not. I had been in the aircraft arms section right after I got out of the army. I was in it until about the time the T175 and M73 came along. Then I had transferred into another section, which included infantry and tank machine guns. I worked 14 years at Yuma, retired in 1985. I was still stuck, concerned with those two damn guns that hung around my neck like an albatross.

SAR: The M73 and M85?

Bob Faris: No kidding. For ten years the army tankers had “play guns,” and thought they were doing fine. They weren’t really happy with them, but they weren’t having any great troubles – just smaller problems that kept appearing. One day in 1973, I was sitting at my desk in Yuma, minding my business. I got a phone call from Tank Automotive Command. One of the people for the project manager (a new one) for the M-60A1 tank, a Major, was on the line. He says, “Mr. Faris, we have sent M-60A1 tanks to Israel, and the Israelis are taking the M73s and 85s out of the tank. (Yom Kippur War) Now, there seems to be some serious problems here. I understand that you tested these guns, signed off, and they were accepted.” I said, “Major, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I did most of the testing on both the M85 and the M73 and the M219. It was all done at Aberdeen between 4 and 14 years ago. Tell you what I’m going to do. I’m going to go to my files here and dig out all my reports. I’m going to give you report numbers, and you show me anyplace where I “passed” these guns in adverse conditions. Call me in two days.” He said, “I’ll be doing that.” I sat back in stunned disbelief; clearly this man was looking for a scapegoat, because I knew that they were planning to put the two guns on the XM-1 they were working on, as well as embarrassment over the performance of the M85 and M219 machine guns in their first war.

My temperature was starting to rise on that alone. It looked like something was developing there. I went back and dug out my reports. I had conducted 13 engineering tests on the M85. Nine of them had un-lubricated and sand and dust tests done at Aberdeen. The gun never passed one of those tests, and they were done over a period of years. I got back with that Major, and I gave him this information. He said, “Well, thank you very much. I’ll be in touch.” I was looking at pictures of our new XM-1 super tank at the time, and what did it have on top? An M85. The next pictures I saw, Ma Deuce was on the XM-1. By the way, they were already planning to replace the M219.

SAR: John Browning’s design is a good one.

Bob Faris: And if you can’t make something better, don’t replace it. People’s lives depend on them. The Israelis took the M73 and M85 out of the tanks because they had the exact problems that I foresaw, and they pulled them right off and replaced them. As it was described to me, they took ’em out and threw ’em on the ground. They took the cupola off and put a simple ring mount up in place of it. They had 1919A4 Brownings in 7.62x51mm, and actually some of those kits came into the United States for examination out of Israel. We, however, decided to adopt the M240 as a coaxial machine gun instead, after thorough testing.

The Interview with Bob Faris continues in the next issue of Small Arms Review, as Bob discusses the old days of machine gun, and regular firearms collecting, and more US small arms tests.