The Original vs The Tube Gun

“Original or a tube gun?” This is a dilemma that many machine gun purchasers face at one time or another. Original guns are usually preferred, but there are many factors that make the choice to buy an original gun unpractical, or difficult.

An original gun, can first of all be difficult to locate. It can also be much more expensive than a non original gun, sometimes costing two to three times more. As you are probably well aware, no machine gun is cheap. Original guns, sometimes over fifty years old, can also be hard to find in decent original condition.

On the other hand, “tube” or remanufactured guns have usually been refinished and can be more appealing to the eye. Some will argue that wear and tear on an original weapon adds character and authenticity.

This of course raises the question, “Why are you considering the purchase of a machine gun?” People purchase them for shooting or for their collections. The most popular category would be “both”.

This brings another question to the table. How badly do you want to shoot an original gun? It is a fact that a lot of people purchase an original gun as a collector/shooter. Soon they begin to feel they are devaluing their original gun too much by firing it. They then purchase a tube gun of the same type for shooting and they then keep the original as a collector’s item only. Ideally that’s the way to go, but unfortunately few people are able to do that.

The purpose of this article is to compare an original, all-matching, German MP40 vs an MP4O with a receiver of a new manufacture, commonly known as a tube gun. We will compare features and performance of each of the guns.

The German MP40, like many German weapons of WWII vintage, have the weapons serial number (or a portion of the serial number) stamped on virtually every part of the gun: the bolt, barrel, stock etc. When a gun has all the matching original parts still intact, the gun is usually referred to as an “all matching gun”. An all-matching gun is considered far more valuable than one that is not.

The Original MP40 used in the test is a WWII gun of German manufacture. It is all-matching, and has 85 to 90% of the original finish remaining. It has the early flat side magazine housing and black plastic furniture. It is marked fxo 41, indicating that it was manufactured in 1941 by Haenel in Germany during WWII. For shooting purposes a barrel, bolt assembly and firing pin/recoil spring from a MP40 spare parts kit are installed. If a part (such as a barrel) is damaged on an all matching gun it will devalue it considerably. I might mention at this time that I rarely fire this gun, and its not because I don’t want to.

The MP40 came from a police department in Texas, where it was registered in 1967. No one currently at the department could remember where it came from, although before it gained a display spot on the wall, officers had taken it out on patrol. No one could remember ever having fired it in the line of duty.

The second gun used in the test was the MP40 tube gun. It belongs to gun collector/shooter Herb Plummer. He bought it a while ago for about half the going rate of an original one. Herb was looking for an original MP40, but he could not find one in suitable condition. The originals he did locate were very expensive, and not in the condition he wanted. Most were not all-matching weapons. Also, he says that he was looking for an MP40 to shoot, not to look at.

Herb purchased his MP40 directly from class II manufacturer Charlie Erb who also manufactured and registered the receiver tube. The trigger/lower housing assembly was marked bnz 42, indicating that it was manufactured in 1942. Most of the other parts were also marked bnz, the manufacturing code for Steyr.

The tube MP40 is also an all-matching gun. Charlie Erb makes them that way. He very carefully marks all his MP40s so that all the numbered parts match the serial number he assigned the tubes he manufactured (all prior to 1986). His serial numbers end in a small case letter like the originals.

At first glance Charlie’s guns look like all-matching originals. Even the Nazi eagles are stamped on the receiver tube. The tube MP40 had a blue finish that is very close to the gloss and color of an original gun. None of the original markings on the parts had been buffed away, which often gives away a poor reblue job.

Both guns fired and handled in much the same way. Both had the normal MP40 “wobbly stock”. The cyclic rate was, as expected, very similar. Both guns were 99.9% reliable. Malfunctions could usually be traced to the ammunition used. Reloads with cast lead round nose bullets were used, with no feeding or functioning problems. The only problem with lubricated cast lead bullets is that (during a long burst) the burning lube makes a lot of smoke, obscuring the target.

Accuracy of both MP40s was about the same. The cyclic rate is too fast to easily get off a single shot. We decided to see how many rounds we could get into a torso sized steel target at 50 yards. The best either of us could do was 18 out of 30, with a continuous 30 round burst.

The biggest problem with accuracy was the movement of the wobbly stock. Every time I would start a continuous burst, the stock would move, throwing me off target. About the time I corrected my aim, the magazine would be empty. I have fired other subguns at the same target, in the same manner, and had a lot more hits. I’m not saying the MP40 is an inaccurate weapon. Its weight and balance make it one of the better subguns of WWII. But the stock makes it difficult to shoot accurately. Unfortunately the MP40 stock is not easily repaired.

There was a problem with some parts not fitting the tube gun. One spare bolt would not interchange into the tube, while two others fit properly. There was a problem installing a spare trigger housing. All the parts fit onto the original tube with no problem. This isn’t cause for excessive concern, as it is common for original MP40 parts not to be 100% interchangeable. This is especially so between different manufacturers.

The tube MP40 is all-original WWII manufacture, except of course for the stripped tube. In this case the receiver is so marked that only upon close examination can you tell that it is not an original gun. The easiest way to identify a tube gun from an original is by examining the inside of the tube. An original gun will be fluted inside as it is on the outside. New-manufacture receiver tubes will usually be smooth inside. This applies only to the MP40. The earlier original MP38’s were manufactured with a smooth surface inside the receivers.

Under combat conditions the flutes or channels inside the MP40 tube made it more reliable, by giving any dirt or debris inside the tube a place to go. This helped prevent stoppages and jamming, a potentially deadly situation for the operator in a fire fight.

Machining flutes or channels in new manufacture, pre-1986 MP40 receivers was neither cost effective nor necessary for a recreational machine gun.

SUMMARY: Both guns were equally fun to shoot. Original MP40s have gone up in price considerably in the last few years. So much so that they are now in the collector only category. That means only shooting them occasionally, if at all. One big advantage is that original guns are considered C&R or Curio and Relics.

This is advantageous to those who reside in states that only allow C&R machine guns, or those who have a C&R license. Tube guns are not considered either curio or relics by the BATF.

Both guns functioned, and fired identically. Both MP40s are sure to continue to go up in value. Conclusion? The choice is basically up to you and your bank account.

MP40 Field Strip – Unload Firearm!!

Gun owners have rightly rejoiced that the Sheriffs’ case was affirmed by the Supreme Court, and that part of the Brady Law being contested was overturned.

Twice in as many years the Court has ruled that Congress does not have the authority to enact gun control. In particular, the Congressional claim of authority has been based on the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8. The Court has said that there was no commerce involved in gun control, thus the Tenth Amendment requires declaring Congress’ efforts at gun control unconstitutional.

The Sheriffs took that part of the Brady Law to court where they had standing — where the Court would have to agree that they were directly involved. Thus, the Sheriffs complained that the Constitution forbids Congress from making them involuntary agents of the government of the United States.

Many people, including many gun owners, are rushing to conclude from all this that states should authorize background checks so that all gun buyers will have their names checked against a computerized criminal data base in Washington (and eventually in each of the 50 states). Nothing could be more unproductive, unconstitutional or ill-advised.

The Brady Law resulted nationally in seven prosecutions and three incarcerations in its first year of operation. These cases could have been prosecuted without the Brady Law. Others who were stopped could easily have obtained a gun the same day from some place other than a store. According to Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery, the state spent nearly $1,000,000 stopping 327 would-be purchasers who could have gotten their gun elsewhere. Since the murder rate in the U.S. began its present decline starting in 1991, it can hardly be said that the Brady Law has contributed to the decline, even less by taking three criminals off the streets.

The instant check is nothing but a request for government permission to exercise a constitutionally protected liberty that, according to the Second Amendment, “shall not be infringed.” Thankfully we have not come to the point of asking permission to give a speech, write an editorial or deliver a sermon, but that is the equivalent of the Brady Law’s permitting system regarding the Second Amendment.

Some argue that, regarding the First Amendment, we cannot shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. True, but we don’t issue muzzles on entering the theater. We only punish those who abuse the liberty. So it should be in the case of the Second Amendment as well.

Legislators in Ohio have learned that the national Brady check is actually an Instant Registration Check. When names are checked against the federal data base, all names (with their social security numbers) are coded to indicate that they are gun owners. Quite simply, in spite of the toothless prohibition in Brady, a national gun owner registration list is being compiled. Virtually none of these folks are criminals. Why then are their names being stored as gun owners?

One answer is suggested by the experience of New York City. Some thirty years ago, all rifles and shotguns had to be registered. About five years ago, many semi-automatics were banned. The gun owners were trapped. The Constitution guarantees their right to have those firearms, but the city is in a position to jail anyone exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Arrests have been made of grandfathered people who owned guns that were legal (and registered) before the law was changed.
Gun owners are the last ones who should be urging the imposition of the Brady Law in all the states. The Brady Instant Registration Check is the Trojan Horse that the gun banners will use later on to grab the people’s firearms. Brady needs to be repealed at the state and national levels, not imposed in those states still lacking such a terrible law.

Protecting the Second Amendment will be much easier when advocates of constitutionally protected liberties consistently defend the right to keep and bear arms. The most consistent position for defending firearms for personal defense is right-to-carry legislation modeled after the Vermont law. In Vermont, there are no licenses, permits or other government intrusions infringing on the right to carry a concealed firearm. The law essentially says that it is illegal to carry a firearm, concealed or openly, for the purpose of criminally injuring another person.

Vermont’s law highlights the radical anti-gun nature of the Instant Registration Check in the Brady Law. Just to buy a gun, one must seek government permission. In Vermont, one can both buy and carry a gun with no state government involvement whatsoever. Of course, since the federal government decided to embark on a series of unconstitutional, and therefore, illegitimate adventures in civilian disarmament, Vermonters have been hampered to the extent that they could not escape the reach of Washington.

Vermont’s murder rate is, almost every year, the lowest in the country. Those pushing for civilian disarmament say that Vermont has such a low rate because it is a rural population. But since last year, the anti-gunners have been countered by the overwhelming weight of the evidence amassed by Dr. John Lott at the University of Chicago. Lott took the crime data of every city and county in the U.S. for the previous sixteen years and analyzed the data in terms of poverty, density of population, arrest rates, sentencing rates and lengths among other variables. The one factor that consistently correlated in a positive fashion with crime rates was whether a state recognized or not the right of a citizen to carry a concealed firearm.

Lott’s study showed that states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1570 murders, 4177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.

Before the imposition of the Brady Law on the whole country, about half of the states had a waiting period, the rest did not violate their citizens’ constitutional rights in that way. The violent crime rates were higher in the states with waiting periods. In fact, California, with its 15 day waiting period, had a murder rate 25% over that of the rest of the country.

Two states can illustrate this clearly. In 1976, both Georgia and Wisconsin tried two different approaches to fighting crime. Georgia enacted legislation making it easier for citizens to carry guns for self-defense, while Wisconsin passed a law requiring a 48 hour waiting period before the purchase of a handgun. What resulted during the ensuing years? Georgia’s law served as a deterrent to criminals and helped drop its homicide rate by 21 percent. Wisconsin’s murder rate, however, rose 33 percent during the same period.

There is no doubt that waiting periods kill. For example, Bonnie Elmasri inquired about getting a gun to protect herself from a husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She was told there was a 48 hour waiting period to buy a handgun. But unfortunately, Bonnie was never able to pick up a gun. She and her two sons were killed the next day by an abusive husband of whom the police were well aware.

Conversely, Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross bought a gun (in a non-waiting period state before the imposition of Brady) and used it to kill an attacker in self-defense two days later. Had a 5-day waiting period been in effect, Ms. Ross would have been defenseless against the man who was stalking and seeking to kill her.

Waiting periods are unconstitutional. They are a prior restraint on the exercise of a constitutionally protected (not granted) right. The Supreme Court has ruled (Near v. Minnesota) that government officials should punish the abuse of a right and not place prior restraints on the exercise of the right. That is why it is illegal to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, but we do not issue muzzles to theatergoers as they enter. Obviously, the same principle applies to firearms. It is illegal to criminally injure another person, but prior restraint should be as prohibited under the Second Amendment as it is under the First.

Having said that, the danger of the waiting period is far less than that of the Instant Registration Check. The Brady Instant Registration Check is building (right now) a national, centralized, computerized registration list of gun owners. As Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership have shown from their definitive study of genocide in this century (Lethal Laws: “Gun Control” Is the Key to Genocide), genocide invariably is preceded by gun control. Once the identification of gun owners is in place, the thugs in power (a.k.a. the government) confiscate firearms. (In Ruwanda, they also confiscated machetes.) Then the slaughter of the target population can begin — Jews in Nazi Germany, Ukrainians and others in Soviet Russia, Christians in Uganda, Indians in Guatemala, the educated in Cambodia and so forth.

The figures are in. Before this century has ended, governments have slaughtered their tens of millions, the Al Capones their scores and hundreds. Yet Sarah Brady, Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and the other advocates of civilian disarmament breeze right on past the killing fields of our recent past. They also overlook the massive threat to personal security posed by center-city street gangs. Instead, their desire is to convince us all that it is the guns of the erstwhile victims that are at fault — decent people wishing to protect themselves from the criminals set loose on our streets by our government. We are watching a monumental shifting of the blame from those who have brought us a failed system of criminal justice. They want us to look not at murderers put out on the street. Rather than blame murderers, blame guns we are told.

Our answer to the civilian disarmament crowd has to be that crime is their fault, not gun owners. Gun control laws kill. When stating our position we must not fall into the trap of agreeing to policies, such as the Instant Registration Check, that make disarmament possible. We should press on for what we want — the free exercise of a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. After all, we will never get more than we ask for.
Gun controllers are the friends of criminals and the enemies of freedom. They arrogantly assume that only they (and their buddies in the government) are responsible enough to be trusted with guns. The watchword should be that guns save lives, gun control kills. And the Instant Registration Check is gun control — a threat to every gun owner.

To get information on how to fight the Instant Registration Check, call Gun Owners of America’s toll free phone: 1-888-886-GUNS (4867).

Analyst: Military Ammo Ban Efforts Based On Economic, Not Humanitarian Concerns

Forthcoming proposals to ban fragmenting types of small arms munitions, particularly the 5.56 x 45mm and the 7.62 x 51mm cartridges with an open-tipped bullet design, are detailed in a paper prepared for presentation at the American Defense Preparedness Association’s (ADPA) Small Arms Conference held last June in Reno, NV. The paper, prepared by Hayes Parks special assistant to The Judge Advocate General of the Army, but who did not actually attend the ADPA event, warned that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), working in tandem with a Swiss ballistician, Beat P. Kneubuehl, are the instigators behind a call for an international conference of “experts”-drawn from an ICRC list-which could be convened before the end of the year, to examine the issue of banning small caliber fragmenting projectiles for military use. If such a ban were to be enacted, it could be used as the basis for a public relations drive to influence public opinion to favor banning such ammunition not only for use by the armed forces, but also for use by civilians or police with the rationale that such ammo is too terrible in its effects, even for use in war.

“Their objective is to arrive at a new prohibition on small caliber projectiles that may fragment or yaw prematurely in the body, based on the argument that the resulting wounds are worse than those caused by the nonfragmenting 5.56 x 45mm projectiles developed by Kneubuehl at Switzerland’s Federal Department of Defense Ballistics Test Centre at Thun, during the Cold War, apparently in part to defeat Soviet body armor. With the end of the Cold War, the market (and funding) for Kneubuehl’s projectile dwindled. The military purpose for the ammunition was quickly put aside to emphasize the ‘humanitarian’ value of nonfragmenting ammunition,” Parks wrote. “The Swiss proposal that followed,” Parks continued, “was, and remains, two-fold: (a) to create an international prohibition of small arms ammunition that may yaw prematurely and/or fragment on impact with soft tissue, and (b) establish an international wound ballistics testing center at Thun, to be run by Kneubuehl.” Parks felt that in this time of post-Cold War worldwide downsizing of defense industries, the proposal amounted to little more than “buy my patent, and save my job.”

“Response to this proposal was,” Parks says, “at best, underwhelming. It is technically flawed and offers a solution to something not viewed as a problem. There is no 5.56mm projectile that can begin to wound as severely as an artillery fragment, a landmine, or a .50 cal. Projectile, for example. Virtually every small-caliber projectile used by military forces in this century has had the potential to fragment on impact with soft tissue at initial velocities. The U.S., U.K. and countrys states opposed it, and the Government of Switzerland subsequently withdrew its support for it.”

In an aside, Parks wrote, “Initiatives to regulate or ban antipersonnel landmines have been based on the indiscriminate effect or irresponsible use of antipersonnel landmines in recent or on-going civil wars, and the concomitant deleterious effect this illegal use has had on innocent civilians. They never have contained any suggestion that the wounding of enemy military personnel by antipersonnel landmines constitutes unnecessary suffering in violation of international law.” UN Initiative On another front, Parks, a former member of the US Delegation to the United Nations Review Conference for the UN Conventional Weapons Convention (which concluded its meetings in 1996), warned that at this UN group’s next scheduled meeting in 2001, the conference will focus on banning certain types of small-caliber munitions, as well as unexploded ordnance, incendiary weapons, flechettes, depleted-uranium and cluster munitions, and naval mines. During the two years of negotiations which occurred at the first UN Review Conference, the parties (which included the US) adopted an amended protocol regulating landmines, booby-traps and a prohibition on blinding laser weapons.

Ammo Ban History

Some insight into the history of attempts to ban various types of military ammunition was also offered by Parks. “In 1899, at the first Hague Peace Conference, Germany attacked the new British caliber .303 Mark IV bullet, which was being produced at the Dum-Dum arsenal near Calcutta, India. The rationale for the Mark IV was clear. The British experience in the Chitral Campaign of 1895 revealed that the then new full-metal jacketed bullet used in its .303 Lee-Metford rifle was inadequate in its ability to incapacitate, whereas following the battle of Omdarman in 1898 the larger caliber .577-450 Martini-Henry rifles of the Egyptian army sufficed to disable. The British government then directed experiments to be undertaken toward obtaining a jacketed bullet possessing equal stopping power with that of its larger caliber, lead bullet predecessors. The committee investigating the question recommended two bullets, one of which proved to cause more severe wounds than the other. The British government elected to adopt the less destructive bullet, known as the Mark IV,” Parks explained.

“The attack on the Mark IV was politically motivated, as Germany opposed British actions in the Anglo-Boer War. The criticism depended heavily on experiments allegedly conducted on the British Mark IV at Tubingen by a professor Dr.von Bruns, who used a bullet substantially different from the British Mark IV to skew his tests to support the German political argument,” Parks wrote.

“The German deception worked, and the conference adopted the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets that prohibits, ‘…bullets that expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.’ The U.S. never became a party to this treaty, but generally has applied it through this century (as have other nations) for the practical reason that, until recently, most military small arms would reliably function only with full-metal jacketed ammunition,” Parks noted.

Swedish Effort

A similar occurrence took place in the 1960s and 1970s when the US developed and adopted the M-16 rifle with its 5.56 x 45mm projectile. “Sweden immediately condemned the M-16 for two reasons,” Parks noted. “First, Sweden disagreed with US military operations in Viet Nam; and second, the 5.56 x 45mm cartridge represented a revolution in military small arms in which Sweden found itself totally unprepared to compete. As such, it (the new cartridge) represented a serious economic threat to Sweden’s arms industry.
“The U.S. experience in defending the M-16 at the first UN Conference on Certain Conventional Weapons, conducted in Geneva from 1978 to 1980, paralleled the 1899 British experience. Swedish claims about the horrendous wounding effect of the M-16, erroneously claiming that the M-193 bullet was designed to ‘tumble’ and fragment, were vastly exaggerated,” Parks noted. This was especially so often the U.S. changed the rifling twist, which further stabilized the 5.56 mm round.

A small-caliber working group was convened of which Parks was a member. While initially attended by representatives of more than thirty nations, participation rapidly diminished to representatives from Sweden and the US. “Once the rhetoric died down, it was agreed the wounds inflicted by the M-16 and its 5.56mm projectile were no worse than wounds caused by other, contemporary military small arms, much less other, conventional weapons. Therefore,the warranted neither further regulation, nor a new prohibition,” Parks reports.

“It was also determined that a number of factors ultimately determine the serious nature of wounds by delivered military small-arms ammunition. They include: range, velocity at time of impact, bullet yaw at time of impact, point of impact, intervening impact (deflection), whether or not the injury involves multiple wounds, the preceding condition of the person wounded, and the length of delay to treatment. This last item is regarded as the most essential element. The working group arrived at no new criteria for determining the legality of small caliber weapons,” Parks wrote.

A fallacy common to arms prohibitionists efforts, Parks pointed out, is that their argument attempts to isolate and exaggerate the wounding effects of the targeted weapon to stigmatize the arm’s effect in the public’s eye to force a policy change, rather than evaluate the arm based on accepted international law criteria.

“The international law standard is that, in determining whether a weapon causes unnecessary suffering (and therefore violates international law prohibitions), its effects must be measured against comparable, lawful wounding mechanisms in use on the modern battlefield. As indicated, on those rare occasions when a small arms projectile fragments, its wounding effects still pale when compared to other lawful wounding mechanisms in use on the modern battlefield.” “We are at a point in time where new programs are being undertaken that may enhance the soldier’s ability to accomplish his or her assigned missions. Two examples are the Army’s Objective Family of Small Arms, which may include bursting munitions, and Fabrique Nationale’s 5.7 x 28mm P90 Personal Weapon and FiveseveN TM pistol. With the additional threats of state-sponsored terrorism and use of weapons of mass destruction by rogue states, our military forces require the best small arms and ammunition that can be provided them. The U.S. has opposed the Kneubuehl proposal in the past and I see no reason for a change in that position,” Parks concluded.

“In no place of modern war are machine guns so valuable as during a retreat. If properly handled, they make the pursuit so difficult and costly as to render the retreat a far less dangerous undertaking than it used to be. One successful ambush by machine-guns is worth more than the most stubborn stand, for it imposes caution on the enemy as nothing else can.” Major C. H. B. Pridham in “Superiority of Fire” 1945

The wisdom culled from the War to End All Wars, as filtered through the experiences of the machine gunners of the Second World War is evident all through Pridham’s book. Raffica likes to point these lessons out, because the growth and direction of much of today’s machine gun design is to convert the role of the machine gun from an area weapon to solely use as a point weapon. While we applaud the new designs, the desire of Raffica is to throw in the cautionary note that the machine gun has it’s roots in a cross between infantry and artillery, and in order to keep the best of it’s abilities, the machine gunner should have training in the old ways, not just the scoped three round burst that is in vogue at the moment. No offense to the modern, but three men on a Vickers with a good ammo supply have saved many a soldier’s life as he scrambled back from a soured engagement.

Does this translate into validating “keeping the hammer down” at civilian machine gun shoots? Not really. Military training and recreational shooting are two entirely different things. However, there is an overlap- the passing of knowledge. There is an anecdote that I would like to relate regarding a meeting of some young Marines and an old Mainer at the North Country Shoot. There was a contest for beltfed shooters, and the Marine Captain entered his troops with the M249 SAW. The contest was a “Bake-off”, two teams at a time trying to perform certain tasks with the machine gun, one trying to beat the other’s time, and the winner moving up to the next round. The young Marine who was firing the machine gun got into position, bipod supported prone, and lined up his weapon. His opponent was an old Maine machine gunner, who had a 1919A4 Browning .30 on a 1917 mount, with a chair behind it for him to sit in. When the firing started, the Mainer stood on his trigger, manipulated his T & E, and quickly completed his tasks, long before the Marine (Recently back from Desert Storm) could complete part one- he was firing three round bursts.
The Marines were embarrassed, which was exhibited in traditional military manner, a severe and colorful ass-chewing by the Captain. “How could you let that old but respectable fuddy duddy civilian beat a UNITED STATES MARINE?” I wandered over and had a talk with the Captain (Not revealing the fact that I was an Army veteran, of course). The course of fire had demanded that the machine gunner first pulverize a cinder block at 50 yards, then cut off a standing log that was 8” thick and had a black cutoff line on it, then hit a piece of ditch dynamite that was taped to a stick at 100 yards. The course was designed to show some operator skill in various machine gun tasks- engaging hard targets to remove them, and some point firing as well. (We didn’t have the adequate range to work out a beaten zone, enfilade, or defilade test).

My suggestion to the Captain was that he put the M249’s away. The 5.56mm round was not very good for the destruction work. Something in .30 caliber would be better suited for this work. He took out an M60E3, and I told him to use his oldest, most worn barrel. The trick the old Mainer knew, was that with a worn out barrel, the bullet tumble is almost immediate, and tearing up buildings or forests is much easier with that type of action. It’s old soldier’s lore, and it works. The next competition came up, and the Corps fared much better this time.

Are civilian shoots totally useless tactically? Not in my opinion, as long as the lore gets passed along to the ones who may need to know it. Besides, the camaraderie is great!

Q1- What is the story with the Benelli shotguns? I had heard that they were made with a collapsing stock, yet I have never been able to order one. Is this available? JR again

A1- At the Modern Day Marine Expo in Quantico, I was walking by HK’s tables, and noticed this odd looking stock- and remembered your letter. It’s a top folder on an M3 Super 90. The stock was sturdy, and I was quite impressed with it- although it was a little odd in the way that it extended the height of the shotgun when it was folded. HK said they were not bringing them in for civilian sales, because it became a dreaded Assault Shotgun with the folding stock, but they are offering it to the military.

Q2- RAFFICA ADDRESSES THE RUMOR MILL:

Here we go again…. The FFL Newsletter dated August 1997 Volume 1, has gotten everyone upset. The rumor of the week is that a dealer can no longer keep any machine guns when he gives up his Special Occupational Taxpayer Status, unless he had possession of them before May 19, 1986. Obviously, a whole lot of Class 3 dealers have got their panties in a bunch. (Myself included when I first read it!) It’s not true, friends, it’s simply a mistake. Here is the offending passage from the FFL Newsletter, page 4:

RETENTION OF REGISTERED MACHINEGUNS BY LICENSEES WHO DISCONTINUE BUSINESS

Licensees who are qualified to deal in NFA weapons and decide not to renew their payment of special (occupational) tax must transfer all registered machineguns to another properly qualified licensee who has a legitimate need for the weapons. The weapons may also be exported in accordance with the regulations in 27 C.F.R. 179.114-179.119. These transfers must occur before the expiration of the license and special tax status. Otherwise, the machineguns must be abandoned to ATF or are subject to seizure.

However, qualified dealers who are sole proprietors may retain machineguns they lawfully possessed prior to May 19, 1986, the effective date of 18 U.S.C. 922(o). Dealers who wish to retain such weapons should make an entry in the acquisition and disposition book indicating that the weapons are now in their possession as an individual. These machineguns are still subject to the restrictions of the NFA and may only be transferred to approved law enforcement agencies.

Licensees who are corporations or partnerships and intend to discontinue business in NFA weapons may not retain registered machineguns, irrespective of their date of manufacture or importation. These licensees must dispose of all NFA weapons, including machineguns, prior to discontinuing business.

Obviously, the problem is in the second paragraph. There is no change in the law. Apparently the person who wrote this article misunderstood the 1986 law. I called NFA Branch of the ATF in Washington DC, and they informed me that this has been the source of a LOT of phone calls, and there definitely has been no change. Unless you are discussing a Post 86 Dealer Sample machine gun, the sole proprietor can just sign out the firearms to his personal ownership. Partners and Corporations have to pay the transfer tax, but each case may be judged individually, so check with NFA Branch. The ATF newsletter is referring to the Post 86 Dealer Samples only regarding having to surrender them or transfer them out.

Questions to: Dan Shea c/o SAR

The Art of the Rifle, by Jeff Cooper, ISBN 0-87364-931-1, 97 pages, 82 photos, Published by Paladin Press, Box 1307, Boulder, Co 80306, Phone 303-443-7520.

For those who came in late, the venerable Jeff Cooper has been teaching personal self-defense and the arts of rifle, pistol and shotgun shooting for a great many years. He has run thousands of students through his courses at Gunsite Ranch, near Paulden, Arizona.

This philosopher warrior has developed a unique approach in his teaching. In his characteristically Spartan style, Jeff has systematically stripped all of the useless and superfluous away – leaving only the necessary and essential elements. These he lays down in a logical and sequential way. In his personal teaching he is hard, fast, rigorous, regimental and ruthless, but his students achieve very high levels of proficiency in a remarkably short interval of time. Taking a class from Jeff Cooper is very hard work. All who make it through the purgatory, however, are pleased with the level of skill and confidence they’ve achieved. Many of the faithful have been waiting for this book on rifle shooting from Jeff for many years.

If I could only possess one weapon (a distinct possibility, considering the way things are going in this country) that one weapon would be a .308 bolt-action rifle. This book is not about rifles; it is about shooting rifles. It starts by saying that the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. It allows man to be the monarch of all he surveys. In capable hands a good rifle can easily and instantly reach out to defend against a threat out to 300 yards away. In highly skilled hands, that distance may be extended to 600 yards.

In 20 short chapters, The Art of the Rifle logically and sequentially explores and illustrates that which one needs to know in order to shoot a high-powered rifle well. In a nutshell, shooting well means placing first-round hits on appropriate targets rapidly and efficiently. As the veteran hunter or soldier knows, speed is almost as essential as accuracy. To quote Cooper from another source: “The second principal of personal defense is decisiveness. The hunting shot is one seldom fired in a purely defensive mode, but nonetheless it remains difficult for the novice to make the life-and-death decision when necessary. Once you have acquired your target in your sights, do not dally, dither nor delay. Do it right, and do it now. This does not mean that you should rush your shot or mash your trigger, but that once you are on, you go for score. I have seen this practice neglected in the field often enough to feel strongly about it. I do not know exactly how to teach the matter of decisiveness to a student on the range, but the demand remains-If you are going to do it, do it now. Do it right, but do it NOW.”

The Art of the Rifle is now into its second printing after only a couple of months. It is interesting, informative and well written. It is a good read. It’s only 97 pages, but you won’t get through it in 4 hours, and you won’t get it all on the first, second or third reading.

French Mle MAS 1949/56

Interest in French military weapons in the U.S. has been limited to just a few collectors at best. The French guns just aren’t as popular as the military weapons of other foreign nations, such as Germany or Great Britain. This lack of interest is due, at least in part, to the lack of French surplus arms, ammunition and information about them. The French are somewhat like the Russians when it relates to military weapons and their development, very discreet. The French also retain many of their military weapons long after they are deemed obsolete. In addition these weapons are typically ill – conceived, poorly designed, and shabbily built.
Another reason for the limited popularity French weapons have, is the odd cartridges they fire. The French cartridges, like the guns, have never been available in ample amounts to interest American collector and shooters.

Recently there have been some very interesting French military arms imported into the U.S. One is the MAS 36 bolt action rifle. The other one is the semi-automatic MAS model 1949/56. Both of these weapons are chambered for the French 7.5 round. What make these rifles attractive is the extremely low price and their availability in like-new condition.

Granted, both rifles are chambered for the odd 7.5 French round. Ammunition is available but it is expensive. There is however, an alternative solution to the ammunition problem. The brass case used for the 6.5 Swiss round can be easily converted to the 7.5 French specs. Boxer primed 6.5 Swiss brass is readily available from several manufacturers. For projectiles, the 150 grain .308 FMJ bullets will work fine. A future article will cover the cartridge conversion in detail.

The French 7.5 cartridge is a rimless design. A 139 grain, full metal jacket .307” projectile is used. Velocity is 2,690 feet per second. The cartridge was originally designed in 1924 as the 7.5x58mm/model 1924, to replace the outdated 8×50 Lebel rimmed cartridge. There were problems with the original round. The most prominent was the fact that it was very similar in appearance and dimension to the German 7.92×57 (8mm) Mauser cartridge. Problems arose when French troops would accidentally try to fire a captured .323 caliber German cartridge in the .307 caliber French gun. One dimension that wasn’t immediately obvious to the shooter that was the projectile on the German round was .016” larger. The result was usually a severely damaged gun, and an injured shooter.

A new 7.5 French round was then designed with a 4mm shorter case so that the German and French rounds were easy to distinguish from one another. This new cartridge was the 7.5x54mm/model 1929, and this has been the standard French issue for many years.

When World War I broke out the French were equipped with an array of various small arms, all obsolete.

It was the French who first issued semiautomatic rifles for military use, during WWI. The French developed several semiautomatic rifles and cartridges in the early 1900’s. Some of these designs were very advanced for the time. Some were adopted for limited use, but the only semiautomatic rifle issued in any large number was the French model 1917.

It would be the last semiauto France adopted for many years to come. Although the French developed and tested a large amount of prototype semi-autos they never had one fully developed, and ready for large scale manufacture until the end of WWII.

By 1939 the French army was still mainly equipped with the MAS 36 bolt action rifle of WWI. The French Arsenal of St-Etienne (MAS), had developed a suitable semiauto rifle, the MAS 38-39. That rifle soon evolved into the MAS 40, which was close to production in 1940. It was too late. The German Army had already begun the invasion of France. France was soon conquered and occupied by the Germans, and would be under Nazi control for the next four years. France’s quest for a semiautomatic service rifle was on hold.
After France was liberated by the allies on August 25, 1944, limited work resumed immediately on the MAS 1940. One addition to the MAS 1940 design was a new, detachable, 10-round magazine. This new updated version was the MAS 1944. About the time the rifle was ready for mass production, the war in Europe had ended.

The French MAS 1944 finally under went its baptism of fire in the French’s fateful war with Indochina (Vietnam). Combat experience in that war exposed some shortcomings of the MAS 1944. Development continued resulting in the MAS 1944A model. In addition to the MAS 1944 and MAS 36, The French used many U.S. small arms in Indochina. Many of these weapons were captured and used against U.S. troops early in the United States’ involvement in Vietnam.

A small quantity of MAS 1944s were imported into the U.S. in the mid 1980’s. Only a small number of these rifles were manufactured. These are seldom offered on the collector market today.

The basic MAS 1944-1944A was further developed into yet another model, the MAS 49. The MAS 49 differed from previous models slightly with a modified ejector, firing pin, grenade launcher and rear sight. Virtually every new model of the basic MAS had a different rear sight. Approximately 20,000 model 49s were manufactured. Some of these rifles were still in service as late as 1993.

The last model to evolve from the basic design was the MAS 1949/56. This model featured a modified rear sight, a blade type detachable bayonet, muzzle brake and a gas cut off for the grenade launcher. Approximately 275,000 1949/56’s were produced from 1957 to 1978, making it the most prolific model of the series. The rifle was an evolved model of a basic design that dated from 1938. The 1949/56 saw some service with the French Army in their Algerian campaign. The beginning in 1979 the 1949/56 was slowly replaced by the bullpup design 5.56 NATO caliber FAMAS rifle.

All the rifles in the MAS 1938 to the MAS 1949/56 series were chambered for the French 7.5 cartridge. This seems odd, as the 7.62×51 round (.308 Winchester) was adopted as NATO standard in 1954. Only a very few 1949/56’s were ever produced in 7.62 NATO caliber, the bolt head and firing pin were slightly different, and of course the barrel was chambered in 7.62 NATO.

The rifle featured in this article, the model MAS 1949/56, is an extremely well made firearm. The particular rifle reviewed is in virtually new condition inside and out. Both the Fit and the Parkerized finish are very good for a military weapon. Construction is almost entirely of milled steel. While this adds quality and ruggedness, it also adds considerable weight. Oddly the cocking knob on the rifle is made from nylon, that is white in color.

The 1949/56 is gas operated and utilizes the gas impingement system. This eliminates the need for many parts such as the operating rod, and related components. The system is much like the system used on the current U.S. M16 service rifle.

The bolt, and related parts, again, are quality-manufactured from milled steel. The tilting bolt system operates like that in the Russian SKS, and the FN FAL rifles. The bolt has a safety feature that keeps the firing pin retracted until the bolt is locked in the receiver.

The removable magazine has a ten-round capacity, and is formed from sheet metal. The magazine latch is located on the magazine itself, rather than on the receiver.
The rear tangent peep sight on the 1949/56 is adequate, and is adjustable for windage. The front sight is a protected post adjustable for elevation.

The rifle has a grenade launcher/flash hider and sight attached to the barrel. When the grenade sight is lifted the gas cutoff is activated. There is a movable ring that fits into graduated grooves (90m to 190m) in the barrel, and this can be moved to adjust the range of the grenade being launched.

The overall length of the rifle is 40”. The barrel has 4, left-hand grooves, with a 1 in 10.6” twist. Weight with a loaded 10 round magazine, is 9.9 pounds. Muzzle energy is 2,336 foot pounds.

The rifle has very gentle recoil for a weapon firing a full power round. Accuracy is adequate for a military weapon using issue ammunition, and could most likely be enhanced by experimenting with hand loaded cartridges.

Most of the surplus MAS 1949/56 rifles currently available come equipped with quite an array of accessories. They include several spare magazines, a bayonet and scabbard, a cleaning kit, sling, recoil pad, luminescent night sight device and a broken shell extractor. The accessories (like the rifles) are in like-new condition. Original M-1953 sniper scopes for the rifle are also being offered by dealers. Surplus 7.5 ammunition, though expensive, is available.

The French 1949/56 rifle is available from several different surplus dealers. The rifles are offered in two grades, like new, and very good condition. The rifles are a fraction of the price they once commanded, prior to being imported in quantity. The guns are listed in the BATF Curio and Relics book, and can be shipped directly to collectors who have a C&R license.

The French model 1949/56 has a lot going for it. The rifles are in excellent condition. They are semi-automatic, have lots of accessories are well made, and best of all, they are inexpensive. It is sure to be one of those rifles, that a few years from now you will be telling a friend “I can remember when I could have bought one of those guns like new for only…”

There is an excellent book available for those who would like to read about the French development of semiautomatic small arms. The book “Proud Promise” by Jean Huon, is published by Collector Grade Publications. The book reveals some surprising facts about French progress in small arms development.

Basic Field Stripping of MAS 49/1956

JSSAP, the Joint Service Small Arms Program, has helped the process of innovation in small arms technology in the past- notably the M16A2 improvements. They work on many projects, and one project that is on the current menu is the OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon). Both contractor groups that are bidding on the project have been showing off mock-ups at military shows for the last couple of years. At the Modern Day Marine Expo (Quantico, VA) in September 1997, Alliant Tech and FN unveiled their real entrant for the first time. This generated quite a “Buzz” through the industry. SAR thought that the readers would like to see a comparison of the two contenders- most of the details are secret, but we did manage to get exterior photos of each unit.

The OICW concept is to expand the capability of the individual soldier- it is the logical outgrowth of the M-16 / M-203 system. Since the beginning of the use of grenadiers, the problem of what to do for a weapon after you have thrown your grenade has been evident. During the Vietnam war, numerous after action reports included stories of highly qualified and courageous M79 grenadiers finding themselves in relatively close quarter battles, having only a .45 pistol for fighting with. The advent of the M-16 / M-203 combination gave each grenadier the additional position of rifleman (This was a very comforting change in the eyes of most grenadiers).

With the advent of modern technology, and “Smart” munitions, changes are again inevitable. The new OICW concept is for a 20mm HE Bursting munition to be part of the rifleman’s inventory. The trajectory is much more direct than the 40mm low pressure system. The “Over-under” concept, pioneered with the M-203 system, has now advanced to the following scenario:

The Optical system includes a special laser range finder that is exceedingly accurate. Once the target has been lazed, the operator can add or subtract distance by single meters. If his target is a soldier hiding behind a rock wall at 850 meters, he lazes, adds 2 meters to the fuzing, and takes aim directly over the rock wall and fires on HE setting. The projectile will explode at 852 meters, directly over, or slightly to the rear of the targeted soldiers. He has a 5.56 mm weapon under the 20mm, which can be used as a regular rifle or a machine gun. The upper and lower sections are separable, but only the AAI / HK offering is planned to be used as modular. If the sophisticated sighting system is knocked out of service, it can be removed, and there are iron sights that can be utilized. The munition is now point detonating.

This writer had some concerns about the effectiveness of the bursting munition being a 20mm. Could the size be a negative? After numerous discussions with both design teams, any hesitation has been negated. The brissance of the explosive used, the quantity used, and the pre-fragmented material used, indicate that almost all soft targets will be vulnerable, and PASGT body armor will not protect against the shrapnel- in a similar radius to the presently used 40mm M203 system. This is very encouraging. Munitions are planned for utilizing a timer that keeps expended cartridges from being left around on the battlefield- reducing risk to civilians as well as friendly troops

Both offerings seem to be extremely well thought out, and ergonomically designed (comfortable to the user). Both teams are in relatively early phases of development, with targets for production around the year 2005- however; live test firing is scheduled to begin early next year.

The SABR team is led by the prime contractor; Alliant Tech Systems, and is composed of HK, Contraves, and Dynamite Nobel.

AAI is the prime contractor on the OICW team, composed of Dyna East, FN, Omega, Hughes, and Olin.

Several fellow shooters within my circle of friends are connoisseurs of the .22 caliber suppressor. They like quiet guns. And the ability to discretely target shoot between trips out with the machine guns helps quench that need to shoot on a daily or weekly basis. With fewer and fewer areas available for shooting these days, a quiet .22 allows one to shoot in areas that would otherwise be unavailable. Most folks I know shoot removable muzzle cans on their rifles, while others utilize a permanently attached suppressor to the barrel as offered by several suppressor manufacturers. One of the major benefits of the screw-on muzzle can over the integral type is that the barrel produces higher velocities than are produced by a ported barrel, utilizing the same type of ammo. Additionally, the muzzle can is adaptable to both a rifle and a pistol, which gives the shooter twice the capability for the $200 tax paid on the suppressor. A disadvantage of a muzzle can (if there is one) is that the user must select the optimal ammunition to be suited to the particular task at hand. If one utilizes an integral type of suppressor, higher velocity ammunition can be used, since its velocity will be bled-off to subsonic levels to achieve quiet operation. This project started out as our own “need to know” type of endeavor for the muzzle can user. It soon expanded into an exhaustive evaluation. With all the different ammunition out there, we wanted to optimize our firearm to one or two particular rounds. This article will give an account of what we discovered.

Learning to master the discipline of superior marksmanship, and determining what the maximum performance that your firearm is capable of, can be a very satisfying avocation, which may take a lifetime attempting to master. The use of a suppressor can help in allowing one to safely and economically fire thousands of rounds a year. You can target shoot and practice often, without traveling to distant ranges or hunting grounds. Whether used for target shooting, pest elimination, hunting (where allowed by law), or general skill improvement, the suppressor and an accurate .22 rifle is a versatile tool. The low discharge sound and negligible recoil makes shooting a flinch-free endeavor. All sports require frequent practice, and the suppressed gun can be used to teach the elements of marksmanship which carry over to almost all firearms shooting. The rigors of special licensing, fingerprinting, background checks, and a one time $200 tax payment is usually enough to keep many folks from obtaining a suppressor, but it is possible for those who qualify. The use of a suppressor for hunting is illegal in most states. However, it is legal for pest elimination and target shooting. With less area available for shooting these days, a “quieter” .22 allows one to shoot in areas which would otherwise be unavailable.

Once the muzzle-can suppressed rifle is obtained, those interested in both accuracy and silence will need to confine their ammunition selection to target or subsonic rounds. Most accurate .22LR subsonic ammunition is usually loaded to provide a bullet velocity of around 1040-1050 fps, when fired from a rifle. This particular loading allows accurate performance, and is usually subsonic unless one is shooting in extremely cold weather. Hypersonic, or high velocity rimfire rounds will have a velocity from 1200-1600 fps, which is faster than the speed of sound, hence producing a ballistic crack. The bullet’s ballistic crack is similar to the sonic boom produced by an airplane as it flies faster than the speed of sound. The measured speed of sound in air at 32(F is around 1087 fps. At 68(F, the speed of sound increases to around 1126 fps. Atmospheric pressure, altitude, and humidity play very minor parts in the equation. Temperature is the primary factor in determining the speed of sound. Mathematically speaking, the speed of sound in air (feet per second) at atmospheric temperature is defined in Table 1.

Since the speed of sound increases with higher temperatures, this phenomenon may allow the shooter to “get away with” shooting higher velocity rounds in warm weather without the bullet breaking the sound barrier. The speed of sound is slower in cold weather, however bullets usually exit faster, because warmer powder burns faster. My experience has shown that as long as the bullet’s muzzle velocity is less than 97% of the speed of sound at any given temperature, it’ll be completely subsonic, and the report will be quiet. Supersonic ammo fired from a suppressed rifle will literally “wake the dead” in comparison. Consequently, firing a supersonic projectile from a muzzle can suppressed rifle will negate most of the benefits of the suppressor, as the ballistic crack from the bullet flight will be heard.

The test platform for our evaluation was a Ruger 77/22 rifle which was modified with a sound suppressor manufactured by Mark White of Sound Technology (P.O. Box 391, Pelham, AL 35124 – phone 205-664-5860). With the exception of the suppressor and a Volquartzen target sear, the 77/22 was stock. Velocities were measured using a ProChrono chronograph with the start screen placed 6 feet in front of the muzzle. Each brand of ammunition was evaluated for accuracy, velocity, extreme spread, cost, and bullet weight. Accuracy results were based on five, five-shot groupings at 50 yards. The same type of target was utilized for all testing with accuracy data based on center-to-center measurements using a digital caliper.

Our search for accurate and quiet .22 LR ammo started with the economically priced Russian Jr-Brass and CCI Standard Velocity. It soon escalated up the price range to the Federal Ultra Match which run somewhere around 20 cents/round. I personally find it very difficult to pay a lot for 22 ammo. I’ve spent too many years shooting for around a penny or two a round, and it really gets to me to have to pay the high price for match-grade ammo. If it was not for my desire to “know how much you get for what you pay for”, and for the benefit of completing this article, I would not get caught dead paying 20 cents/round for 22 LR ammo. I know there are those who pay for this kind of performance, so some of these rounds are included in the evaluation. The extreme spread (lowest velocity subtracted from the highest) is also important and must be consistent for maximum accuracy at longer distances as it will affect bullet drop and trajectory.

On the subject of having fewer places to shoot these days, if one’s back yard is wooded and happens to be in a moderately unpopulated area, one can set up a “quiet” shooting range. Use earthen backstops behind targets to allow the bullets to be captured for obvious safety reasons. This cuts down on the bullets impact noise which can be very loud when compared to the report of the weapon. A small shooting bench can also be constructed for a few dollars, and in conjunction with either sandbags or a rifle holding device, will help you to extract decent accuracy out of your particular firearm. The target holders should be able to hold paper targets at the top and bottom to cut down on the bullets impact noise. We tried cardboard and plastic type materials to attach our targets to, and they always added to the noise levels due to the bullet’s impact on the surface of the target holder. Of course, the usual fun targets associated with plinking (rocks, tin cans, water, etc.) all negate the quietness of the suppressor as the bullets impact on these is far noisier than the report of the firearm itself. For the pest eliminator though, the quiet “thud” of the round hitting the varmint is all that is heard.

The goal was to decide which particular ammo brand would be best suited for the suppressed rifle. Of course, our data should be used only as a guide as other firearms may perform better or worse than ours did. Topped off with a Tasco 3-9x40TR scope, previous experience with the 77/22’s baseline accuracy proved that the gun was capable of averaging 3/4-inch groups at 50 yards. After being modified with the sound suppressor, the smallest 50 yard grouping came in at .28 inches with RWS subsonic. Other small groups were generated by Lapua Pistol King (.29 inches), Eley Bench Rest Gold (.32 inches) and Fiocchi 300 (.32 inches). The ultra match type ammo cost is a little high for most 22 shooters, but some of this ammo was very accurate. CCI Pistol Match was the overall winner in the more moderately priced category. At around 3 cents/round, Jr-Brass and CCI Standard are pretty tough to beat. Jr-Brass sometimes went supersonic during our colder weather testing. The ballistic crack of the projectile breaking the sound barrier really woke us up. The best overall average accuracy results went to Lapua Pistol King, with Eley Bench Rest Gold, Federal Ultra Match, and Eley Tenex close behind. Overall, there were no losers in this exercise, with the exception of Remington Subsonic. This particular round failed to achieve acceptable results in our testing. Lapua Scoremax delivered very good results with the 48 grain bullet weight. Apparently, the 77/22 testbed really liked this heavier bullet, as it delivered an accuracy average of .57 inches at 50 yards.CCI (Blount), Keng’s Firearms (Lapua), and Federal graciously provided us with some sample ammunition and technical support for this article. CCI provided us with a special Subsonic HP round which is not available here in the United States. Being designated only for export to European countries at this time (where the use of sound suppressors is more widespread), this was a good performer in our tests. Utilizing a 36 grain hollow point bullet, it was both accurate and quiet. I liked the hollow point design, and would recommend that all who are interested contact the folks at CCI and ask that their marketing people provide this round to American shooters.

I’m sure this round would be comparable in price to their other offerings. Federal UltraMatch (1000B) was also provided for our testing endeavors. The 1000B is loaded similarly to the Federal round which won the gold and silver medals in the 1992 Olympics, held in Barcelona, Spain. Utilizing a 40 grain solid bullet, the 1000B is loaded for a velocity of 1080 fps, but our measured velocities were a little higher than that. The largest .22LR weight bullet available is the 48 grain Lapua Scoremax. Most of the .22LR bullets weighed in at 40 grains.

In flight, the subsonic projectile has a tremendous arc in its trajectory. This arc makes it critical to correctly measure or estimate distance to the target. At the longer ranges, a small miscalculation of distance of only a few yards can result in a miss. Once you zero in on the particular round which best suits your requirements, a good way to compensate for bullet drop at different differences is to utilize a good scope with a bullet drop compensator elevation ring. The typical elevation ring will need to be dialed to the correct distance, especially with subsonic ammo. To accomplish this with the slower moving subsonic ammo, my procedure involves placing white tape around the elevation ring and marking the tape after zeroing the scope to each distance. This involves placing your zeroing targets at the various distances you want to shoot, and then dialing in your scope at those distances and marking the tape so you can return to the correct position depending upon what distance you’re shooting at. This procedure also helps one estimate target distances more accurately. I usually zero my scope at 25, 50, 75, 100, and 125 yards and place a mark on the elevation ring for each of these distances. It’s best to use the same type of ammo to alleviate the differences due to changes in velocity and brands, as it has a tremendous impact on bullet drop at the longer ranges. The results of our testing has proven my particular 77/22 to be most accurate with the Lapua Pistol King subsonic ammunition. My favorite pick for precision work on varmints with this gun is the RWS Subsonic for its quiet delivery and hollow point design. For economical plinking, the CCI Standard velocity is my favorite for its price, cleanliness, and performance. Hopefully the manufacturers will continue to produce good quality subsonic ammunition for a long time. The heavier Lapua Scoremax also rates up there with my favorites and should provide maximum terminal ballistics, due to its larger mass.

Every shooter should obtain a brick or two of ultra-accurate rounds to help determine just what their gun is capable of. Use the cheaper mid-grade rounds for practice. Always use the most accurate rounds you can afford for hunting or pest elimination. After running around the woods for 2 hours, and stalking for 30 minutes, you won’t believe it’s cost effective if your target is spooked by a single missed shot, caused by a cheaper bullet. I shoot into various targets at different ranges to learn how well different brands penetrate and expand. There is no substitute for this type of personal testing. It will quickly lead to the selection of the most effective round for your own particular use, and will allow you the opportunity to develop the shooting discipline discussed earlier. Hopefully the results of our testing will allow you to select the best combination of ammunition for your particular needs. While not as important for the casual plinker, the animal control officer, competition target shooter, and serious varmint hunter needs to select the best ammunition for the job at hand.

An acquaintance of mine has a vast collection of high quality and expensive rifles he never shoots. Many of them have never been fired at all. He researches and carefully selects his firearms for his perceived needs. However, I know he will probably never get out into the field and shoot these fine guns and determine which ammo works best, or even find out if the guns work at all. As Mr.Kokalis said in a previous interview: “Number one, because to be proficient in anything, including shooting, you have to practice.” Although for different subject matter, this point was also addressed by Carlos Hathcock: “Discipline and training are the keys, and you have to keep shooting and practicing all the time, or you will loose the skills that you need, the ones that will keep you alive.” In other words, keep practicing to stay proficient with your shooting skills. Mental discipline is also required to make that accurate shot. A good friend of mine is a sniper on my local Sheriff’s Office Tactical Team. He trains constantly developing his shooting skills and mental discipline. His departments budget does not allow him to shoot Federal Premium .308 ammo all day long, but he shoots weekly with a muzzle can attached to his favorite .22 rifle to help develop the mental discipline for accurate shooting. If called to carry out his duty as a sniper, its the first shot that must count. If that first shot fails to hit its mark, the results can cost the lives of others. That’s the bottom line.

I routinely shoot around 50 rounds per day off the back porch to stay proficient. As for my neighbors, they never hear a thing. I’ll set a few eggs off to the side of the barn on mornings after raiding the hen house. They make excellent targets at 100 yards with RWS Subsonic ammunition and the quiet .22 rifle. I’ll also set empty 12 gage shotgun shells on the sloped side behind the barn and pick them off at a distance of 100-125 yards. Since modifying the 77/22, I’ve never heard a word of complaint from my neighbors.

Sources:

Lapua
Imported by: Keng’s Fire-
arms Specialty
875 Wharton Drive
Atlanta, GA 30336

CCI
Blount, Inc.
2299 Snake River Avenue
PO Box 856
Lewiston, ID 83501

Federal Cartridge Company
900 Ehlen Drive
Anoka, Minnesota 55303

Fiocchi USA
5030 Fremont Road
Ozark, MO

Eley
Imported by: Tomart Inc.
122 Lafayette Avenue
Laurel, MD 20725

RWS
Dynamit Nobel-RWS, Inc.
81 Ruckman Road
Closter, New Jersey 07624

Remington Arms Company
Ilion, New York 13357

Commercialization of the Russian Ammunition Industry

The Tula Cartridge Works in Russia’s State Arsenal is the leading engineering enterprise in Russia’s defense complex. They have recently made some exclusive arrangements with the Prineas Group for exporting to the United States, among other end users. Tula considers that ordering through Prineas is ordering direct from the factory, and they want the customers to understand their commitment to quality and consistency in the ammunition products they offer.

The 7.62 x 39mm being offered is new manufacture, not surplus. Distributors can order bullet configurations in hollow point, FMJ, or soft point. Tula uses a special non-aging steel to increase strength with the use of a hot drying varnish (Lacquer) to seal the joints between the cartridge case, bullet and primer. This insures that the cartridge performance characteristics after prolonged storage, or during operation in adverse weather conditions, are optimum. This method is exclusive to Tula’s products, and is evident by the red-water mark seals. Tula also uses a non-corrosive, environmentally friendly primer that reduces any atmospheric contamination. (SAR’s editors applaud this effort, and sincerely hope that Greenpeace, etc, are paying attention to this effort). Tula’s manufacturing facility utilizes a state of the art high capacity transfer line system with built in checking devices to ensure the best quality control available today.

The packaging has been changed from the 1440 round wooden crate system to 1000 round cardboard (200#) cases. This reduces the case shipping by 26 pounds per case, and puts the ammunition in units that are easily shipped in the US, in a quantity that the end user prefers. Bar coding will soon be added to the shipping system as well, making an even more distributor friendly package.

The desirable “Western” cartridges; 9x19mm, 45 acp, .30 carbine, 5.56x 45mm, and 7.62 x 51mm (.308) will also be available in the user friendly packaging, with the same high quality manufacturing procedures being used.

The Prineas Group and Tula Arsenal have designed this program with the idea of forming a satisfying working relationship with the distribution system, and providing a top-level product for the consumer.

Further assistance or questions can be directed to the importer: Mr. Stacy Prineas, Tel: (206)-882-1161 Fax: (206)-882-0487

Introducing a briefcase that could save your life!

Now you can carry lifesaving protection with you everyday without a second thought. Introducing the “Executive Defense Briefcase” the only hard leather briefcase on the market that combines style and elegance with life saving capacity.

With the push of a button, a hidden compartment bursts open from the briefcase to reveal a strategically placed holstered firearm. The process to open the briefcase and draw your firearm takes less than 2 seconds. Each briefcase comes with a universal amb1rdexterous holster, magazine pouches, and the capacity to add a bulletproof panel, pepper spray, and a handcuff case.

As a traditional functioning briefcase, the suede and leather interior offers ample storage room for documents and valuables. The executive Defense Briefcase is ideal for wholesale jewelry reps and retail merchants as well as bodyguards, private investigators, law enforcement and security personnel. It makes a perfect accessory for nicely dressed executives who would like the security of carrying a full sized firearm without altering their wardrobe.

The Executive Defense Briefcase is built to last a lifetime, featuring solid bass wood and interlocking corners for added strength. It’s quality is that of briefcases sold in fine luggage shops, not in office supply stores. For the price of a an average full-sized firearm you can protect yourself every day for the rest of your life. This elegant and effective briefcase is only $495.00. How much is your life worth?

For more information contact Peter B. Gripon – Concealment Systems – 638 Lindero Canyon Road #323 – Agoura, CA 91301.  Tel:(818-889-3666.

In 1961, the Soviet Red Army took a major step in small-arms deployment by replacing the belt-fed 7.62x39mm RPD (Ruchnoy Pulemet Degtyareva) light machine gun with a magazine-fed RPK (Ruchnoy Pulemet Kalashnikova) LMG, also firing the 7.62mm M43 intermediate round. While the Soviets viewed this as a step forward, many small-arms authorities viewed this decision as a step backwards since the new weapon was neither as robust nor as well suited to delivering sustained fire as its predecessor. As its external appearance suggests, the RPK is a spin-off of the AKM assault rifle that is fitted with a heavier barrel and a light bipod. The first RPK prototypes were built on machined AK-47 receivers in the mid-1950s, but when the RPK went into production in 1961, the receiver was switched to the stamped AKM-pattern. The AKM had been adopted two years earlier, in 1959.

Designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov, the RPK appeared in public for the first time in the 1966 May Day parade in Moscow’s Red Square, but Western intelligence agencies were aware of its existence before then. Like most other small arms manufactured by the Soviet Union and its allies, the RPKs were distributed to many countries under Soviet influence as well as to communist insurgents conducting their so-called wars of liberation. RPKs have, therefore, seen action in most conflicts throughout Southeast Asia, Central America, the Middle East and Africa since the 1960s.

Thanks to the prolific distribution of Soviet small arms to friendly countries and groups, there are probably more RPKs around the world than any other magazine-fed LMG. The RPK and RPK-style guns were manufactured at least in China, Finland (Valmet LMG 76 and LMG 78), Iraq (Al-Quds), North Vietnam (TUL-1), and Rumania and Yugoslavia (M65, M72, M77, M82). Some of these weapons can be called RPK-style guns because they are based on a milled AK-47 receiver rather than on a stamped AKM receiver. Certain RPK variants are semiautomatic-only guns aimed at the civilian marketplace. Not all RPK variants were designed for the role of squad automatic weapon, however. The RPK has also served as the basis for several sniping rifles. Perhaps the best known RPK-based sniping rifle is the Rumanian FPK, which is chambered for the full-powered 7.62x54R round. Valmet also made a 7.62x51mm sniping variant of the LMG 78 for a short time. The Iraqis fielded a semiautomatic sniping variant of the Al-Quds chambered for the unsuitable 7.62x39mm M43 cartridge. The RPK family’s complete caliber selection includes chamberings in 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51mm for the Western marketplace.

While a fixed-stock RPK is the most commonly encountered variant, a folding stock version chambered for the 7.62mm M43 cartridge, called the RPKS, can also be encountered. In 1974, introduction of the AK-74 assault rifle chambered for the 5.45x39mm M74 cartridge was followed by the introduction of a 5.45x39mm light machine gun, the RPK-74, and a folding stock variant, the RPKS-74.

At this point, one might wonder if the RPK or any other weapon of similar pattern is really a light machine gun or simply an assault rifle with a heavier barrel and bipod. After all, virtually all members of the RPK family lack a quick-change barrel and fire from a closed bolt. Therefore, such a weapon can only deliver limited sustained-fire capability. Guns of this type are called machine guns because they are put in a role of the machine gun, not because they incorporate all desirable MG or LMG features. Back in the era of semiautomatic and bolt-action battle rifles, such designs were simply called automatic rifles. Modern designations like the light support weapon (LSW) more accurately describe their role. There are other machine gun definitions, too. To the anti-gun media, every small arm is a machine gun or assault weapon. Remarkably, the average sportsman buys into this errant terminology, as long as his side-by-side shotgun or pre-64 Winchester is not criticized by the media.

From a technical viewpoint, the RPK is pretty much an AKM fitted with a longer and heavier barrel and bipod. Yet some of it’s details are in fact borrowed from the AK-47 and RPD. Most RPK parts and components are interchangeable with the AKM assault rifles. Interchangeability simplifies both production and usage. This is likely the main reason why the belt-fed RPD was not replaced by another belt-fed design, but rather by a magazine-fed pseudo-machine gun, the RPK. Fielding a light machine gun very similar to an assault rifle simplifies the training of infantrymen as well as armorers, which is a particular advantage if it is employed by an army based on large reserves. This is the real genius behind the design of the Ruchnoy Pulemet Kalashnikova.

While the first RPK prototypes were built on AK-47 machined receivers, production models have stamped receivers. The receiver sub-components are stamped from sheet steel and assembled by spot welding. The barrel extension, which is machined from solid steel, is mated to the receiver by rivets. The most visible difference between the RPK and the AKM receiver is the RPK’s more massive barrel extension, which requires an enlarged frontal section of the receiver. The difference is clearly visible. The RPK’s receiver cover is similar to the AK-47 without the reinforcing ribs typical of the AKM.

The RPK’s breech block and gas system are identical to the AKM. The AK-type action is neither ammunition nor moisture sensitive and will provide reliable functioning under the most adverse conditions. Like its assault rifle counterpart, the RPK fires from a closed bolt, which is not the best method for weapons shooting continuous full-auto fire. Prolonged firing can heat the chamber to the point that cook-offs can occur, and the barrel rifling can be damaged by sustained firing.

The RPK does have a longer and heavier barrel than standard AK-47 or AKM assault rifles, which does improve heat dissipation to some degree. Barrel length is 23.3 inches (59.1 cm). The bore has four grooves with a right hand twist of 1 turn in 9.25 inches (21.0 cm). Like most military small arms of Warsaw Pact origin, the bore and chamber are chrome lined. Chrome lining provides better durability and corrosion resistance against powder and primer residues. Many people seem to have the wrong idea about wear resistance. It doesn’t mean that the bore will better resist wear from friction generated by steel-jacketed bullets. A different process is at work. Steel-jacketed bullets have a poor ability to conform to rifling and thus seal the combustion gases behind the projectile. Chrome is not as reactive as steel, so chrome plating is eroded less by the blow-by of hot combustion gases.

The RPK is poorly suited to the machine gun role, where long bursts or sustained firing are required. For that purpose, the barrel is too light and has no proper cooling system. Furthermore, the RPK barrel is not a quick-change design; instead, the barrel mounts permanently on the barrel extension by means of threads like the AKM barrel. However, at least one RPK variant—the Yugoslavian M65B—features a quick-change barrel.

Like the AK-47 and AKM assault rifles, the RPK muzzle has a left-handed metric M14x1 thread. It was originally intended for mounting a blank-firing adapter, but the threads have been subsequently used to accept various grenade launchers and sound suppressors. There is no compensator after the AKM fashion, but threads are protected with an AK-type nut. Fortunately, the RPK has no bayonet lug, unlike most other Soviet small arms including sniper rifles.

The RPK has a selective fire trigger mechanism similar to the AKM. It has a single trigger sear (instead of twin trigger sears used with the AK-47) and a rate reducer which delays backward movement of the hammer. However, the value of the rate reducer is doubtful. Both the AKM with rate reducer and the AK-47 without a rate reducer produce an equal rate of fire: 600 rpm. Because its longer barrel increases the amount and pressure of gas available to piston, the RPK has a slightly higher rate of fire: 660 rpm. Bear in mind, however, that these rates of fire are theoretical and depend greatly on ammunition.

The Soviet-made RPKs usually have furniture made from laminated wood. The fore-end has no longitudinal swells typical to the AKM, but otherwise the fore-end as well as the hand guard and pistol grip are patterned after Kalashnikov assault rifles. RPD stocks are made from various materials, and different shapes can be encountered. The sling swivels are mounted on the left side of the gun, and they accept an AK-type sling with a leather loop on one end and a metal hook on the other.

The shape of the butt stock reveals that the RPK should be fired from a bipod rest. The butt stock is patterned after the RPD, and it allows a support hand to grasp underneath the stock. This style of marksmanship could be referred to as “European,” while the practice of grasping the top of the stock with the nonfiring hand could be termed the “American” style of firing an LMG. Like most other small arms produced in the Eastern Bloc, the RPK has a remarkably short length of pull. The distance from the trigger to the butt plate is only 12 inches (30.0 cm). The short butt stocks are well suited for operators of somewhat smaller stature than the average American or operators wearing heavy winter clothing.

The Russian-made RPKS features a side-folding butt stock made from laminated wood and patterned after standard-issue RPK fixed stock. Yugoslavian variants have the same MP38/MP40-style stock folding underneath the receiver as used with AK-47 and AKM rifles.

Like most AKM rifles of Soviet and other Eastern European origin, the RPK usually features a painted black finish. However, blued and parkerized (manganese phosphate) guns can also be encountered.

The cleaning rod is located beneath the barrel. Other cleaning gear and a general purpose tool is carried in a stamped steel capsule placed in a compartment located in the butt stock.

The RPK bipod appears to be a simplified variation of the RPD bipod. It is mounted permanently near the muzzle. This arrangement provides maximum accuracy when engaging a stationary target but inhibits the gunner’s ability to traverse for engaging moving targets. The bipod’s hinge and mounting piece are machined from solid steel, and its legs are stamped from sheet steel. The bipod does not feature a provision for height adjustment. Despite its simple design, the bipod is rugged. Finally, there is no provision to fasten the weapon to other mounts.

All 7.62x39mm Kalashnikov magazines are interchangeable. The magazines especially designed for the RPK are a 40-round curved box magazine and a 75-round drum.

The 40-round magazine is similar to a standard issue 30-round staggered row box magazine, but it is longer and slightly more curved. While the longer magazine provides an additional 10 rounds, it seriously handicaps the maneuverability of the whole system. A 40-rounder works fine at the shooting range, but in rough terrain, the long magazine can interfere with firing the weapon from the bipod. In the field, it is much better to use a standard 30-round magazine or a 75-round drum.

The Soviet-made drum is completely different from the more frequently distributed Chinese design. The Soviet drum has no openable back cover, but it is loaded with loose rounds (or with a clip guide and stripper clips, if there is one available) from the top. The Soviet-made 75-round drum magazine is reliable, and it provides a lower profile than a 30-round magazine.

The Soviet RPK’s front sight is similar to the AK-47 or AKM rifles; it is a rectangular post with protective ears, not a hood as used with Chinese variations. A tangent-type rear sight has a U-shaped notch. In addition to its basic Kalashnikov design, the RPK rear sight is fully adjustable for both windage and elevation. The range scale is optimistically graduated to 1,000 meters. However, due to physical limitations and moderate external ballistics, the RPK’s effective range is no more than 400 meters.

Some RPKs have a rail-type scope mounting bracket on the left of the receiver. It is presumably intended for mounting an infrared or passive night sight, but not an ordinary rifle scope. There is no specific nightscope intended for the RPK. But according to the new Russian classification method, all current-issue small arms have an “N” suffix in their names if they have scope-mounting capability. For example, the scope-fitted (either 4 power 1P29 scope or passive night sight) 5.45x39mm RPK-74 is called as the RPK-74N.

Handling and disassembly procedures for the RPK follow the familiar Kalashnikov pattern. If you can handle and fire any AK-47 or AKM variant, you can fire the RPK. There are thousands and thousands of people who can’t read or write, but are nevertheless experts at handling and firing the Kalashnikov family of weapons.

The RPK in all its guises is the most widely distributed—but certainly not the best—LMG available in the world today. It is too light to provide good controllability for full-auto firing, and it’s closed bolt operation limits it’s ability to deliver sustained fire. On the other hand, the RPK is light and maneuverable, so it can be easily carried in difficult terrain. Fitted with a full 40-round magazine, the RPK weighs just 13.4 pounds (6.1 kg). The RPK’s similarity to the AK-47 and AKM facilitates the training of troops who must use and maintain these weapons. This similarity also lowers the cost of production, enabling the fielding of this LMG in greater numbers. While the RPK may not have the quality of the RPD it replaced, the deployment of the RPK brings to mind Stalin’s comment to Churchill that “quantity has its own quality.” Clearly, deployment of the RPK and its variants remains quite logical from a certain point of view. Nevertheless, perhaps the Ruchnoy Pulemet Kalashnikova should be viewed as an assault rifle on steroids rather than as a true light machine gun.