The Vickers Guide team has managed to outdo themselves. Several months ago I had the pleasure of reviewing two titles from the Vickers Guide series (SAR, Vol. 23, No. 7). Back then I wrote that the two titles (WWII Germany, Volume 1, and Kalashnikov, Volume 1) were truly beautiful books, with more than enough technical insight to set them apart from the usual “coffee table book” fluff. 

Now that I have read both of the recently released follow-up books in the series, I can state that authors Larry Vickers and James Rupley, along with several guest authors, have set the standard even higher. The Vickers Guide team travelled to many countries, museums and private collections to study and photograph many unique firearms. These include pristine-condition examples of otherwise common guns or elaborately engraved presentation pistols, as well as extremely rare prototype guns. 

WWII Germany, Volume 2 

Vickers Guide: WWII Germany, Volume 2 

• Larry Vickers, James Rupley, and many guest authors 
• ISBN: 978-0-9965032-5-9 
• Copyright: 2019 
• Pages: 376 pages 
• Size: 13”x11” (approx.) 
• Publisher: Mott Lake Publishing 
• Nashville, TN 37215 
• Available on vickersguide.com 

The WWII Germany book begins with displays of several finely engraved presentation pistols, mostly Walther PP and PPK pistols. Also featured is a very ornate Luger P08. It is one of only six such pistols known worldwide. It would have been presented by Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, Hermann Goering, to Luftwaffe pilot aces. 

The section on semiauto battle rifles studies the progression towards self-loading rifles. The G41(M), the G41(W) and the G43 are shown and discussed. (The “G” prefix stands for “Gewehr,” German for “rifle” or “gun,” while the suffix in parentheses stands for the factory; Mauser and Walther in these examples.) Guest author Ian McCollum wrote a short piece on the change of name from G43 to K43, for Karabiner. McCollum and Maxim Popenker co-wrote an article on the Soviet SVT-38 and SVT-40 rifles and how they influenced German design. 

The Select-Fire Service Rifles portion features the FG42 paratrooper rifle (both early and late varieties), as well as the progression of the Sturmgewehr concept. Beginning with the Maschinenkarabiner MKb 42(H) by Haenel and the MKb 42(W) by Walther, and moving through the MP43/1, MP43, MP43 and finally the StG44, the Sturmgewehr (“storm rifle,” or assault rifle) is well covered. As with the other books in this series, James Rupley’s stunningly beautiful photography draws the viewer right into the page with overall photos from both sides, and often a 3/4 diagonal view as well, giving a complete view. A series of close-up detail shots are included. 

Guest author R.D.I. Weigt wrote articles on StG44 accessories and magazines. Larry Vickers offers a personal assessment of the StG44, based on his firing experience (heavy and quite controllable; probably due to the weight). The section ends with guest author Michael Heidler looking at the StG45(H) from Haenel. Never heard of the StG45(H)? That is not surprising, as only the one prototype is known to exist. It was captured when U.S. troops captured the Haenel factory. 

The Machine Guns section deals mainly with the MG34 and MG42 guns, but also looks at the MG15, MG81 and the Czech-designed ZB-26 and ZB-53 guns. Michael Heidler wrote an article on the MG30 titled, “MG34 Ancestor.” This study of the lineage of the MG-34 is quite interesting. Ian McCollum wrote about the General Purpose MG concept pioneered by the MG34, while Reidar Daae wrote several short articles on MG34/42 accessories. It is interesting to note that McCollum finds the MG34 pleasant to fire from the tripod, while Vickers considers the bipod somewhat flawed. 

The chapter titled, “Last Ditch Weapons” deals with the Volkssturm (“People’s Storm”) weapons program. Besides the crude looking rifles built at World War II’s end, there are improvised hand grenades made from glass and even cast from concrete! Also shown is the MP3008 submachine gun, a near copy of the British STEN gun. As crudely made as the STEN was, the MP3008 was far worse! I found it quite ironic that Rupley’s photography showed off every file gouge, hammer dent and pig-ugly, snot-weld with maximum clarity. 

The Appendix contains some real gems, including a pristine, unissued K98k with ZF-41 optics, a one-off experimental folding stock for the G33/40 (a shortened K98 variant) and a late-War mash-up of MP38 and MP40 parts, etc. Michael Heidler provided two more ar

ticles on the M.SS.41 and the Granat Busche 39 anti-tank rifles, as did R.D.I. Weigt on rifle grenades and the unique curved-barrel Krummlauf attachment for the StG44 rifle. The book finishes with an article on German cartridges by Jack Dutschke. 

Kalashnikov, Volume 2 

Vickers Guide: Kalashnikov, Volume 2 

• Larry Vickers, James Rupley, and many guest authors 
• ISBN: 978-0-9965032-6-6 
• Copyright: 2019 
• Pages: 352 pages 
• Size: 13”x11” (approx.) 
• Publisher: Mott Lake Publishing 
• Nashville, TN 37215 
• Available on vickersguide.com 

Volume 1 of the Kalashnikov books dealt with 7.62×39 caliber guns. Volume 2 covers AK-74 variants in the more recent 5.45×39 caliber, as well as some variants in 5.56 NATO. 

Beginning with the A-3 pre-production prototype, which eventually became the AK-74, the book studies the many variants of the basic design. Options include wood or polymer stocks and handguards, side folding or under folding stocks, short barrels, GP-25 or GP-30 grenade launchers mounted below the rifle barrel, and so on. 

Following that, the book then looks at the “100 Series” designs that arrived around the turn of the century. The AK-101 and AK-102 are chambered in 5.56 NATO, while the AK-105 is in 5.45 Soviet. The AK-107 and AK-108 rifles incorporate the intriguing Balanced Recoil System, in which a counterweight moves in the opposite direction of the bolt carrier group, to cancel out some of the felt recoil. Several pages worth of photos attempt to explain the inner workings of this system. If I have one minor complaint about this book, it would be the lack of a diagram to show the operation. 

The most modern AK is the AK-12. It has been chosen as the new Russian service rifle, and the first deliveries began in late 2018. The Vickers Guide team was given access to several versions of the prototype and trials guns. It is most interesting to compare the photos and note the changes over the years. At some point, the classic stamped-steel selector switch was done away with and replaced with an ambidextrous polymer switch. The fire control markings were replaced with HK-style pictographs also. Oddly enough, the final version of the AK- 12 has reverted back to the “classic” look. 

Following USSR/Russia section, other countries that produce small caliber AK system rifles are profiled. This includes: Bulgaria, Burma (now called Myanmar), China, Czech Republic, DDR (East Germany), Finland, Hungary, Israel (the Galil series), Poland, Romania, South Africa (the R4, R5, R6 series and the Vektor CR-21 bullpup). 

The book ends with an impressively large collection of magazines and an article on 5.45x39mm ammunition. The magazines are representative of numerous countries, materials, sizes, styles, etc. The ammo article is written by Maxim Popenker, N.R. Jenzen-Jones and Jack Dutschke. 

Three Versions of Each Title 

Each title is available in three different versions or editions, these being the Standard, Signature and Limited Editions. The Signature Edition is hand-signed by Larry Vickers. The Limited Edition of each title is also hand-signed by Vickers, along with a personal handwritten message of your choosing. This numbered series is limited to 250 books. 

Great news! The website vickersguide.com states that the AR-15 Volume 1 will be re-released soon. All three versions are currently sold out, so this is welcome news. I have no inside info about any future titles, but I suspect there may be more yet. 

The Forensic Institute of the Security Police (Kriminaltechnisches Institut der Sicherheitspolizei / KTI) was a department of the Reich Main Security Office (Reichssicherheitshauptamt / RSHA). The Security Office was an organization subordinate to Heinrich Himmler in his dual capacities as Chief of German Police (Chef der Deutschen Polizei) and Reichsführer-SS. The organization’s stated duty was to fight all enemies of the Reich inside and outside the borders of Germany. In 1944, the KTI began to deal with, among other things, toxic bullets for small arms. The initial spark was the arrest of a Russian agent in the area of the Heeresgruppe Mitte in January of that year.

When he was arrested, numerous objects were secured, including a Mauser pistol in 7.65mm caliber, six associated cartridges and two small bombs, one incendiary and one explosive. The use of such a pistol is not unusual, because at that time the small caliber was very common among the self-loading pistols used in the German Reich, and it would have made it difficult to draw conclusions on the perpetrator in an assassination attempt. The serial number 557 453 and the circumstances indicate that the weapon may have been a Mauser model 1934.

However, the security forces became aware of the ammunition. The standard brass cases with the headstamp “Geco D 7.65” were made in Germany by the company Gustav Genschow & Co. The bullets, however, did not conform to any common pattern: hollow-pointed bullets with a steel cap and a four-piece coat. Of course, such suspicious ammunition had to be examined more closely, which is why the seized objects were delivered to the “Chemical Investigation Center” of the Heeresgruppe Mitte on January 13 and 15. There, it was first noted that each of the bullets contained 0.04 grams of an unknown substance that was not one of the commonly used poisons or explosives. It could not be more precise, because the existing equipment of the field laboratory was not sufficient for a precise analysis of all chemical substances.

The commander of the security police in Minsk therefore decided to have the prisoner and all objects brought to the Reich Security Main Office in Berlin. There, the agent was questioned again on January 26, and he started to talk. As it turned out, the man should have committed an assassination attempt on SS-Gruppenführer Curt Gustav Friedrich Walther von Gottberg. He received all his equipment by courier from Moscow. The bullets were filled with poison and would be deadly even with the slightest wound. He had received three cartridges, but had three more left from his previous mission. Accordingly, the Russians had probably used such ammunition more often in assassinations.

That same day, the RSHA handed over the items to the Forensic Science Institute. The analysis of the substances was difficult. It was only on March 21 that the final report was finished. The poison was the extremely toxic Aconitine, which can be obtained, for example, from the monkshood plant. It is considered one of the strongest plant toxins ever. The lethal dose for an adult is 4mg. The report thus comes to the conclusion that the bullets with their filling of 20mg to 30mg of Aconitine must be absolutely deadly, because “by a shot, always several blood vessels are injured, so that the poison can get into the body.”

The functioning of the bullet is indeed very well thought out. Its coat has four elongated cuts as predetermined breaking points. In the moment of impact, the rounded steel tip pushes the four-part bullet along the predetermined breaking points apart. The hollow tip and the sharp parts of the breaking bullet increase the wound formation. The poison gets into the wound and the bloodstream even if the shot is poorly aimed.

In a request to the KTI from April 1944, the General of the Nebeltruppe (rocket artillery) pointed to the problem of such bullets, because “the use of poison or poisoned weapons is forbidden according to Article 23a of the ‘Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land’ from October 18, 1907. This includes well and food poisoning, poisoned arrows and bullets.” However, the answer did not elaborate on this but merely emphasized that it was special ammunition of the Soviet Russian secret service and not captured Army ammunition.

The design of the small bullet with its extremely effective content seemed to have impressed the KTI deeply. It was considered so important that they sent a report to SS-Sturmbannführer Otto Skorzeny, who immediately expressed his interest in it. In the meantime, the Army Weapons Office (Heereswaffenamt) also got wind of the matter, and in June 1944, requested a copy of the sectional drawing from the KTI. 

Even the Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler personally received detailed information including drawings and photos in August. 

Such a kind of special ammunition would fit well into the ordnance of the Waffen-SS and the SS police units. In fall 1944, therefore, a group under the direction of Dr. Joachim Mrugowsky (Chief Hygienist and Chief of Staff III at the Reich Medical Doctor SS and police) began with experiments on humans. The Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp was selected because since 1941, the KTI had maintained a workshop for the production of toxic products, such as hydrocyanic ampoules, by prisoners. For the following experiments 7.65mm bullets were filled with 38mg of Aconite Nitrate in crystalline form. On September 11, the group of doctors (including Dr. Albert Widmann) selected five Russian prisoners who had been sentenced to death; these bullets were shot in the upper part of the left thigh. In two cases, the bullet went straight through, and no effect of the poison was observed. The other three suffered for about two hours until they died. The surviving report describes in detail the development of reflexes, pupils, salivation with foaming and the unsuccessful attempts to vomit: “The motor unrest increased so much that the persons flung themselves up, and down, rolled their eyes and made meaningless motions with their hands and arms. […] Death occurred 121, 123 and 129 minutes after entry of the projectile.” Despite insignificant injuries, the poison had thus unfolded its deadly effect.

As late as September 1944, Dr. Widmann received an order of 200 poison bullets in 7.65mm caliber. The client was a good friend of Otto Skorzeny: SS-Obersturmführer Adrian Freiherr von Foelkersam of the SS-Jagdverband Ost. Whether these bullets were actually delivered, is not known. In general, so far no evidence for the use of toxic bullets on the German side could be found. Von Gottberg committed suicide on May 31, 1945, in British custody and Dr. Mrugowsky was hanged in 1948 in the War criminal prison Landsberg. 

Here in Las Vegas, the weather has been known to get a tad on the warm side from time to time. When the temp crawls above 110, the uniform of the day is shorts, shirt, flip-flops and sunscreen. Packing a CCW weapon can be rather tough. Anything that weighs more than a few ounces can render your shorts to a new low if a belt isn’t employed. Even my Smith & Wesson 342 PD that weighs in at 10.8 ounces empty, will sink my shorts when it’s loaded with five .38 Special +P loads. So, what happens is that the gun stays home, where it does no good whatsoever. 

The North American Arms Mini-Revolver comes chambered for the .22 Long Rifle or for the .22 Magnum. The Magnum is the best choice for hot-weather concealed carry, as it can be hidden just about anywhere—even in the breast pocket of a shirt. It is available with an ankle holster, and seeing as how the gun weighs less than 8 ounces loaded, it would be an easy carry. An associate of mine packs an M4 as his main tool, but carries a GLOCK G27 .40-caliber subcompact in a shoulder holster as his backup. He also has a Mini-Revolver in an ankle holster. His .40 is his go-to gun if the M4 is out of reach, but if everything goes Tango Uniform, he’s got the Mini as his last chance weapon. 

It would be easy just to drop one in your pants pocket, but it can be tricky to get it out in a hurry. My method of carry is to use the combination holster/grip. It has a clip on the side that can be attached anywhere on your clothing. This revolver has the 1-5 / 8-inch barrel, and the holster grip actually makes the gun controllable. All my fingers fit on the grip—no little finger below. The Mini is single-action, so it must be cocked for every shot. This can take an extra second, but if your gunfights go down in 2 to 3 seconds, you either need something that can be rapidly deployed, or you need another line of work. The NAA Mini-Revolver is intended to be something to carry when other options won’t work. 

When you’re out of ideas, ammo and places to duck, and your back-up 9mm is doing pushups in your safe; having this little beast tucked away in an accessible spot becomes a good idea. 

North American Arms Mini-Revolvers are equipped with a unique safety cylinder, giving you maximum protection against accidental discharge. 

NAA Safety Cylinder 

North American Arms’ website offers the following useful information and advice: 

“The North American Arms Safety Cylinder feature allows the gun to be carried fully loaded. There are halfway notches located between the chambers. The hammer is lowered into one of these notches after the gun is loaded. When the hammer is pulled back to the firing position the cylinder rotates to the next chamber. 

NOTE: The traditional half-cock position is to be used for loading and unloading only. THE HAMMER SHOULD NEVER REST IN THE HALF-COCK POSITION OVER A LIVE CARTRIDGE OR ON THE RIM OF A LIVE CARTRIDGE. 

If you have an older model NAA Mini-Revolver, or know someone who does, please check to see if it is equipped with the NAA Safety Cylinder—if not, please call [NAA] at 800- 821-5783 to find out how to update the gun to the new cylinder. 

NAA Mini-Revolvers come with a Lifetime Warranty. If anything should ever go wrong with your Mini-Revolver, please call Customer Support to find out how to send the gun to us for repair. 

NOTE: The following instructions are from our FAQ – .22 Caliber Mini-Revolvers: 

The Safety Cylinder is a critical part of the gun. We recommend that you practice the following steps to become proficient at using the Safety Cylinder before loading the gun. 

1. Make sure the gun is unloaded. 
2. Make sure the gun is unloaded! 
3. Retract the hammer to the point that the cylinder spins freely (about half-way) and keep it retracted. 
4. Looking through the top/rear of the frame, locate any of the five milled safety slots (those notches on the cylinder between the chambers) and position any slot directly beneath the blade of the hammer (which is still retracted).
5. While still retracting the hammer, depress the trigger (and keep it depressed); you will now be able to slowly lower the hammer and allow it to settle into the slot.

You can (should) confirm engagement of the hammer in the slot by attempting to rotate the cylinder. If it does rotate, the hammer was not engaged in the slot; repeat the process. Always visually confirm by examining the alignment of any chamber with the bore; if a bullet could physically pass from the chamber through the bore, the gun is not ‘safe.’ In other words, if a chamber is located at 12 o’clock, the gun is not ‘safe.’ In the ‘safe’ condition, the upper two chambers are at one and eleven o’clock. 99.9% of the failures are because the trigger was not kept fully depressed while the hammer was being lowered (Step 5). Once you get the hang of it, however, you’ll find the process becomes surprisingly easy, quick and natural.”

.22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire (.22 WMR)

The .22 WMR was introduced in 1959. It was loaded with bullets that ranged from 30 grains to 50 grains. The 30-grain bullet travels at 2,200 feet per second and has 322 ft-lb of muzzle energy from a rifle. It has 50% more energy at 100 yards than its cousin the .22 Long Rifle has at the muzzle. Sighted for maximum point blank range, it is effective out to 125 yards. At first glance, it seems like a too-small caliber for a defense weapon; however, that’s not quite true. Many guns have been developed for the cartridge, but the one that stands alone is the Argentinian EDDA submachine gun. It is a blowback weapon that resembles a MAC and has select-fire capabilities. It is fed by a 30-round magazine. It seems as though at least one country feels like the .22 WMR is sufficient for the job.

One of the more potent loads for the .22 WMR is the CCI 22 Maxi Mag TNT. It’s a 30-grain Speer TNT jacketed hollow-point bullet. When shot through a 1.63-inch barrel, velocity is 1,253 fps. At up close and personal distances, it expands almost out to 40 calibers. Penetration in wet dirt varied from 4 to 6 inches. Accuracy? Out of a barrel that’s less than 2 inches long, it shot minute of softball. Plenty accurate for what it’s intended to do. See northamericanarms.com for more information.

NAA Mini-Revolvers come with a Lifetime Warranty. If anything should ever go wrong with your Mini-Revolver, please contact NAA’s Customer Support to find out how to send the gun to them for repair. 

Dominican Republic, April–June 1965 

On June 6, 1965, Col. Francisco Alberto Caamaño Deñó’s rebel forces suspended negotiations and moved to break free from the noose around their strongholds within Ciudad Nueva. Nine days later, at 0750 hours, they launched the most violent attack against U.S. and the Inter-American Force’s positions. “By 0915hrs they were directing continuous fire at American positions, and at noon they assaulted Brazilian positions with a coordinated use of mortars, bazookas, and tanks.”1 Spearheading the offensive was a handful of captured armored vehicles, which faced Brazilian and U.S. jeep-mounted 106mm recoilless rifles (RRs). U.S. paratroopers used a 106mm RR to knock out an L60 light tank, stalling the attack. It was the bloodiest battle of the intervention, with the rebels suffering a sound defeat and the lost 56 square blocks of territory. By the time it was over, there were between 500 regulars and 325 police officers killed on the Loyalists’ side, and 600 regulars, hundreds of armed civilians and five light tanks destroyed on the Constitutionalists’ side. For its part, the U.S. was to suffer 10 Marines and 13 paratroopers killed and 283 wounded, most of them casualties of sniper fire. 

As it happened, in early 1965 the Dominican Republic sank in a civil war between Loyalists and Constitutionalists, so the U.S. intervened to prevent another Cuba. The U.S. stability operation, later code-named “Powerpack,” took place in three phases between April 30 and May 3, 1965. The plan consisted of landing at San Isidro Airfield (about 10 miles east of Santo Domingo) then advancing 8 miles west to the Ozama River and finally establishing a line of communications to link the airfield with the International Security Zone (INSZ) around the U.S. Embassy thereby separating the two factions. The U.S. acted unilaterally and was nominally neutral, but it backed the Loyalists; however, the intervention took an international turn when the Organization of American States (OAS) authorized the formation of the Fuerza Interamericana de Paz (FIP / IAPF) on May 23, 1965. The FIP was under the command of Brazilian General Hugo Penasco Alvim, heading an 1,130-strong Brazilian Battalion and a Fraternity Battalion with a Brazilian Marine Company, and three other infantry companies from Honduras (250), Paraguay (178) and Nicaragua (164), plus a 25-strong police squad from Costa Rica. However, the U.S. continued to provide the bulk of the FIP, with elements from the 1st Brigade/82nd Airborne Division, 16th Support Group, 7th Special Forces Group and assorted U.S. Air Force personnel.2

The FIP started deployment on May 24, but before that, the Marines had come ashore in late April with all their tools of the trade, including the M50 Ontos, an ugly light tank-destroyer equipped with six M40 RRs. In addition, each Marine company had a section of 106mm RRs to bolster their firepower. Facing them were the Constitutionalists, led by Caamaño Deñó, with 1,500 soldiers with five light tanks and one gunboat, plus another 5,000 armed civilians. The Loyalists, on the other hand, had the CEFA, the Armed Forces Training Center, under general Elías Wessin y Wessin, at San Isidro barracks, collocated with the 19th of November air base. This meant some 4,000 soldiers and the General de Brigada Felipe Ciprian Armored Battalion, consisting of four armored companies, one with AMX-13 light tanks, another with the Scania L60 truck, one with Lynx armored cars and one more with mechanized infantry with halftracks. Soon after the U.S. Marines landed, the Constitutionalists’ armored forces clashed with an armored column, resulting in a Marine M50 quickly destroying an L60 light tank but also losing an M50 in the fire exchange. Another M50 is credited with blowing the turret off a rebel AMX-13, while another light tank was destroyed by an M48 Patton tank. It is not clear if the AMX-13 with the turret blown off was later recovered, but Captain Manuel Antonio Cuervo Gómez and mechanical engineer Lazaro Rosado developed the MAC-LR, which matched one AMX-13 chassis with an HS630 triple 20mm gun. The MAC-LR was also reported destroyed in those early clashes of April 1965.

After these skirmishes, fighting was largely restricted to dealing with the occasional sniper fire, to which U.S. troops discovered that their 106-RRs were excellent anti-sniper weapons. They also used a single 106mm round to sink a boat that shelled their position with mortar fire. The U.S. retired its M40A1 recoilless rifles in favor of guided missiles starting in 1970, but 54 years after the skirmishes in the Dominican Republic, the 106mm-RR continues to be the main anti-tank and fire support weapon used by the Mexican and many Central and South American militaries. Those manufactured in Spain received the denomination “CSR-106” or “CSR CETME” 105mm while those built in Israel were called “M70s.”

Latin America’s M40A1 RR

Mexico has about 102 CSR-106s still in use, distributed among Recoilless Rifle Groups, comprising the First at San Juan Teotihuacan, the Second at Queretaro, the Third at Puebla, the Fourth at Sarabia, the Fifth and Sixth at 1-A Military Camp, Mexico D.F., the Seventh at San Miguel de los Jagüeyes and the Eighth at Chicoasen. The first M40A1 examples arrived in the early 1970s from Watervliet Arsenal (NY), followed by Spain’s Santa Barbara models in the 1980s, and then again from the U.S. in excess in the 1990s. The Mexican Army mounted its M40 RRs on Willys M38A1C, or its local equivalent the VAM J-3M, while the Navy mounted some of them on Jeep CJ-7s. Mexico received hundreds of M151s and M825s (together with numbers of M40A1s) in the early 1990s from excess stocks and U.S. pre-positioned warehouses. By 1994 Mexico had also incorporated thousands of Humvees, and eventually the M825 MUTTs (Military Utility Tactical Trucks) were replaced with M1038A1 troop carrier models. These RRs’ carriers were slightly modified with short pedestals to raise the M79 tripod high enough for the M40A1 tube to clear over the soft-top cabin, so the windshield could remain raised for travel and shooting. In 2014, Mexico purchased another 3,335 Humvee M1100 series vehicles, to include M1152 variants. This is an improved cargo/troop transport version with an integrated armor protection;3 modified as TTP (troop transport protected), and with modifications similar to the M1038A1 RR, an M1152A1 TTP-RR would have made for an expedient and more efficient armored support vehicle.

In Central America, Guatemala received a few U.S. examples, but ended up acquiring more than 56 M40A1 CSR-106s from Spain along with ECia 120mm mortars. In 1998, El Salvador organized the “AT Battalion” within the Cavalry Regiment, equipped with 18 AIL M-240 Recce Storm Jeeps and 18 M-240 Anti-Tank models. By 2019, only 12 operational CSR-106s were available, all mounted on repowered M-240 AIL jeeps. In 1977, Honduras obtained 16 160mm M66 mortars together with the first nine 106mm M70 RRs4 from Israel, and eventually amassed some 80 M40A1s to include U.S. and Spanish models. There were eight M70s on RBY-MK1 light armored vehicles, while others were mounted on M606A2 Jeeps, and Israeli Matmar Industries’ Jeep CJ-5 or CJ-6 Tolar versions.5 Honduras also adopted the Israeli practice of providing an anti-tank squad to each infantry battalion, and each brigade received an anti-tank company. Some 50 remain, mainly mounted on M825 or M998 vehicles.

In 1994, the Colombian Army restored 40 M3A1 Scout Cars, replacing the gas engines for diesels and mounting the M40A1 in the open bed. Within a decade, the Scout Cars RRs had been retired and replaced with M462 Abir Portee light trucks. The Portee was a dedicated weapon platform developed by AIL and fitted with ammunition racks, an additional fire extinguisher, equipment for the recoilless rifle and a rack at the rear for additional jerry cans, while the Colombians added some armor. Although local sources indicate that there are 75 M40A1s still operational, officially there are 63 of them.6 As a side note, Colombia has been the recipient of hundreds of Humvees, mostly M998s and M1097s, and the maintenance battalion (BAMAN) has reconstructed at least three of them to Buffalo VLBB standards. These are upgraded HMMWVs with an armored capsule that brings MRAP Level 1 protection for the crew. One of the capsule’s designs fits the two-cabin M1097 cargo variant, which, with further modifications as an RR carrier, would be an ideal fire support platform and an ideal replacement for the Abir Portee. 

The ground version of the M40 is mounted on an M79 “wheelbarrow” tripod, with a single front wheel and two solid legs while the M40A4 uses a conventional 3-leg M27 tripod. Either way, the weapon is not easily emplaced by hand. As result, Norway mounted its M40 on a two-wheel carriage and called it the Rekylfri Kanon 106mm M40. Austria built its own trailer and named it 10.6 cm rPAK (also rPak-66), and in its original form, the M40 was mounted on a simple two-wheel carriage towed 106mm RR M79 trailer. In August 2019, the Venezuelan automobile industry (ENSOVEN) developed a rolling platform for the weapon. It is similar in shape to the U.S. Marine M274, but unlike the Mule, the platform has two wheels and is not self-propelled. A number of Venezuelan RRs have been mounted on the Tiuna 106, a shortened version of the UR-53AR50 light truck, similar in design to the South Korean KM424 106mm recoilless rifle carrier, and developed by CENARECA (military auto industry). The Venezuelan Naval Weapons and Electronics Directorate (DAE) recovered four M40A1s in June 2016 for the 22nd Mariscal Antonio Jose de Sucre Marine Battalion, and by September 2019, the Military Industry complex (CAVIM) had refurbished the remaining 171 M40A1s. The weapons then were tested by the 12th Caribes Brigade before redistribution. 

Brazil has been a large user of the M40A1, retaining some 160 pieces that are operational today. The M40A1 is used by Bolivia, and there are some 24 with Ecuador. Uruguay has 69 M40A1s in use, some of them mounted on OT-64C/OT-93 APCs, and has deployed them with their forces serving with MONUC. In 2013, it was reported that Peru had deployed 36 M40A1s along the southern border with Chile.7 At one-point, Chile deployed some 500 M40A1/ CSR-106s. In 1978, when Chile’s Beagle Conflict with Argentina became acute, the No. 14 “Caupolicán” Infantry Regiment was the southernmost military unit of the Chilean Army facing Argentinean forces. It was the sole unit permanently based in Tierra del Fuego, so reinforcements came from the No. 10 “Pudeto” Infantry Regiment and from the “Cochrane” Marine Corps detachment. The M40A1 was the most important Chilean anti-tank weapon against the Argentineans, so these were supplied in quantities. The No. 145 regiment became the Reinforced Regiment No. 11 “Caupolican” on January 13, 2003, having as its headquarters El Porvenir. Currently, these regiments have become known as motorized detachments (DM), and the No. 11 DM still comprises one RR anti-tank company, together with the No. 11 “Caupolicán” Infantry Battalion, and the No. 13 “Tierra del Fuego” Artillery Group. Today, Chile has some 213 M40A1 RCLs in inventory, but only a handful are in service with the mentioned anti-tank company and the 106mm “Karut” Anti-tank Company, a unit subordinated to the No. 14 “Aysén” Reinforced Regiment based in the city of Coyhaique, under the IV Army Division. Some of the Chilean models have been upgraded with Simrad LP101 locators, computerized laser sights (CLASS) and MVS-800 night-vision systems, which allow accurate shots between 1200m and more than 2000m. The M40A1s are mounted on Jeep M-240 Storms, a multi-mission vehicle based on the Jeep Wrangler YJ and the CJ-6/CJ-8 wheelbase, built by the Israeli AIL. The M40 is used by conscribed soldiers, and familiarization is provided at “Las Bandurrias” training camp. The troops practice tactical use and combat doctrine. 

Paradise Was Hell,8 1980-1993

The offensive started with some 3,000 FMLN (Frente Farabundo Marti de Liberación Nacional) guerrillas descending from the mountains to San Salvador, occupying the neighborhoods of Mejicanos, Ciudad Delgado, Soyapango and San Jacinto, and then taking positions in the upper-class neighborhoods of San Benito, Maquilishuat, Lomas Verdes and Escalón. They also attacked the eastern cities of Zacatecoluca, San Miguel and Usulután. In their wake they overran the 1st Infantry Brigade’s positions, pushing the troops inside the Capital.9 Soon after the initial firefights, there were skirmishes in the north, east, and to a lesser extent, west of the Capital, and within 48 hours, San Salvador was a battlefield. Meanwhile, at El Paraíso Camp, in Chalatenango,10 everything was quiet—too quiet … .

El Paraiso Army Camp was one of the most besieged military garrisons in the country. The camp came into intensive fire in January 1981, when elements of the “Modesto Ramírez” guerrilla front, part of the FMLN, assaulted it and besieged the zone. In the early hours of December 30, 1983, 25 elements of the Selected Special Forces (FES), led by Dimas Rodríguez, had cleared a path through the trenches and mine fields of El Paraiso Camp with Bangalore torpedoes. Another 150 fighters of the X-21 battalion of the Popular Liberation Forces (FPL), who were hidden along the outer fence, charged through the openings, occupying and destroying the base. The attack had been executed perfectly, with the FPL’s K-93 battalion deployed west, occupying positions in the area of the Troncal del Norte highway, and attacked units at nearby El Refugio, El Barrancon in La Reina and the Colima bridge to block relief forces. The FPL’s SA-7 battalion besieged an infantry company stationed at the town of El Paraiso, setting up containments along the road to Santa Rita while the SS-20 battalion set siege to Military Detachment 1 in the city of Chalatenango. The guerrillas occupied the base for 2 days, ironically surrounded by companies from the Atlacatl and the Paratrooper battalions. As they threatened to kill the survivors, a compromise allowed them to leave on a convoy of 17 trucks and buses.

On March 31, 1987, guerrillas penetrated the perimeter once again,11 killing 64 Salvadoran soldiers and wounding 79. Their attack also killed SFC Gregory A. Fronius, an element of the 3rd Battalion, 7th SFG (A). El Paraiso was subjected to another attack in March 1988, and on September 13, 1988, another attack to the base was repelled by Army troops and U.S. advisors, Major James Parker, SSG Michael Roth, Captain Gilberto Aguiar, SFC Mario Orozco Torres and 1st Lt. Byron Castleman.12 In one of those assaults, the rebels decimated the crew of an M40A1 recoilless rifle (RR), seizing it but then failing to find the trigger to fire it against Army positions, allowing the soldiers to retake the piece. Another attack had taken place in September 1989, so upon the news of the offensive in San Salvador in November of that year, the garrison commander, Colonel Ciro López Roque cancelled all leave, while Colonel Gilbert Cáceres, S3 Officer, ordered a defensive posture. 

El Salvador, November 12, 198913

In the darkness of the early morning of November 12, 1989, on one of the defensive hills, Lieutenant Geovanni Hidalgo, Battalion Azmitía/2nd Company commander, kept watch along with a renewed crew of that same 106mm recoilless rifle momentarily lost to the enemy in a previous fight. Lt. Hidalgo watched the top of the mountain in front of him; he was aware that there was a bunker manned by local Special Forces at the crest and that previous attacks originated from that mountain just outside the base perimeter. Expecting any movement to come from the same place, Hidalgo decided to test fields of fire and calculated a point midway up the hill. After calling and checking with the nearby patrols, and lacking 12.7mm ammunition to use in the recoilless rifle’s aiming device, he, along with the gunner, simply measured the distance by sight. Hidalgo then ordered the crew to open fire. With orders to be silent, the gunner hesitated, but Hidalgo repeated, “I am telling you to shoot.” The gunner responded immediately and fired. The quick gunner’s reaction and the backblast cached the lieutenant by surprise, blinding him. While he wiped his eyes trying to recover, the radio came alive. Initially, it was feared that the round hit a nearby patrol but then they realized that the officer on the other side was asking for additional fire since the patrol had detected movement at the site of impact. Hidalgo then ordered another shot as he was recovering from his blindness; the gun crew was ahead of the order and fired, catching Hidalgo off-guard again and blinding him one more time.14 The crew and officer had forgotten that the 105mm projectile follows a curved trajectory, and instead of the side, the rounds were smashing at the foot of the mountain. The first round landed on top of the guerrilla concentration. To everyone’s surprise, as the second round landed, the base of the hill lit up. The round had smashed right on top of the guerrillas’ ammo and explosives, causing a catastrophic reaction at the point of impact. The survivors attempted suppressive fire against the recoilless gun position, but that ended quickly. At day light, the troops found the disabled mortars, traces of blood and signs of casualties.15 

From that point-on, all continued to be really quiet at the 4th Brigade while hell rained on San Salvador, where the fight was house to house. As elements of the 1st and 4th Paratrooper Squadrons broke the siege around Ilopango Air Base, they were joined by elements of the Arce Reaction Battalion pushing against a Soyapango suburb, where they engaged some 1,500 rebels of the PRTC and RN factions. As the troops advanced on rebel strongholds, the fight centered around the neighborhoods of Santos-I, Las Brisas and Reparto Guadalupe. The guerrillas finally relinquished their dug-in positions on the 16th, and were in full retreat on the 17th, with the paratroopers on their heels. The troops dragged an M40A1 RR with them to the edge of Venecia and Prusia areas, where some rebels were trapped, shelling their positions and decimating their strongholds until the fight finally ended. The battle continued elsewhere in the Capital for another 2 weeks. The CSR-106 had proven its worth, disrupting the fight in El Paraíso and helping to subdue enemy positions in Soyapango. 

A Place Called “Paradise”

It is important to dispel claims that El Paraiso base in El Salvador was devised by American advisers. “Paradise” Camp, located 64km from San Salvador and 24km from the departmental capital, Chalatenango, actually took shape in 1968-1969 as an advanced Salvadoran Army depot and as a blocking strongpoint against any Honduran incursion. It gained importance after the July 1969 war between the two countries. In the mid-1970s, the Salvadoran Army reorganized and consolidated its maneuvering units, with the 1st Infantry Brigade at San Carlos Camp (cuartel/barracks) in San Salvador, comprising the 1st Regiment, the Engineer Battalion (detachment) from Zacatecoluca, and the 4th Infantry Regiment from Chalatenango. It deployed troops along the border detachments housed at El Paraíso, Chalatenango, El Refugio, Arcatao and El Guayabo Dam. 

El Paraíso Camp was located on an esplanade not very strategically located in the municipality of El Paraíso, Chalatenango. The base covered a square kilometer of flat land while its installations occupied a hollow between Loma (“hill”) El Espinal to the north and Loma Lisa to the south in Columbia. The small town of El Paraíso is approximately 1.5km (by road) to the northeast while the Guayabo is less than 2km northwest. A main entrance to the Cerrón Grande Dam is approximately 1km southeast. The development of the Camp continued until November 4, 1980, when it was established as headquarters for the 4th Infantry Brigade, and with U.S. assistance, the defensive perimeter was established with barbed wire, fortifications and night lighting, in addition to the usual mobile patrols, fixed posts and a prevention guard. The base was neither impressive nor impregnable. 

Documents captured in 1990 indicated that the guerrillas’ attacks in November 1989 pretended to overrun the Ilopango Air Base, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 6th Infantry Brigade bases, the Engineer Detachment and the Arce and Atonal Battalion camps. Therefore, the failed attack on the 4th Brigade was diversionary in nature and was prepared by “only” about 100 rebels. Two well-placed—and lucky—105mm shots from the M40A1 were sufficient to thwart their intentions in 1989.

1. history.army.mil/html/reference/army_flag/dominican.html.
2. dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/mexico-m1152-high-mobility-multi-purpose-wheeled-vehicles-hmmwvs.
3. United States Congress, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 1979.
4. pmulcahy.com/light_uv/israeli_luv.htm.
5. Colombia: A Country Study. Edited by Rex A. Hudson, Library of Congress (U.S.), Federal Research Division.
6. elmostrador.cl/noticias/pais/2013/07/15/los-desconocidos-preparativos-militares-en-chile-y-peru-previos-al-fallo-de-la-haya.
7. soc.mil/ARSOF_History/articles/v3n1_paraiso_page_1.html.
8. cambridge.org/core/books/the-salvador-option/guerrilla-second-final-offensive-november-1989/6562240F43C7C91E92901ABA8788AF36.
9. contrapunto.com.sv/archivo2016/cultura/literatura/romper-un-candado-asalto-al-cuartel-el-paraiso-1983. cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90- 00965R000200730001-2.pdf.
10. cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00965R000200730001-2.pdf.
11. fas.org/irp/agency/dod/socom/2007history.pdf.
12. From LA F.A.E.S. a Fierro y Machete: Recopilación de Detalles Históricos de las Fuerzas de Tierra de El Salvador, draft presented to the Salvadoran Ministry of Culture, July 2019.
13. Testimony provided by Geovanni Hidalgo.
14. From LAF.A.E.S.aFierroyMachete:RecopilacióndeDetallesHistóricosdelasFuerzasdeTierradeElSalvador, draft presented to the Salvadoran Ministry of Culture, July 2019.

During World War II, the Japanese military forces only used a few different flare pistol models. The Imperial Army used almost exclusively the single-barreled Type 10 in caliber 35mm; however, flare pistols with several barrels came into service with the Imperial Navy with the Type 90.

The designation Type 90 comes from the year of introduction, calculated according to the then valid Kōki calendar, in which the era begins 660 BC. The Type 90 was therefore introduced in the year 2590, according to the year 1930 in our calendar. The weapons themselves are not marked with a model designation. It is only found in documents.

The flare pistols Type 90 were developed by the weapon factory Nambu and were produced in two different configurations: Kayaba Seisakusho made them with two barrels and Kayaba Kōgyō with three barrels. The Imperial Japanese Navy used both of them throughout the end of the War. On the two-barreled model, both barrels are positioned parallel to another. On the three-barreled model, the third barrel is placed along the top center of the two parallel barrels. The functioning remained the same. In contrast to the Army, the Navy chose a slightly smaller caliber of 28mm. This means that the ammunition was not interchangeable.

A spring-loaded, non-breeching lever is placed below the bottom barrels, which when pulled, allows the breech to be opened for loading. Empty casings are extracted by a central extractor placed in the middle of the three barrels. Rectangular, colored markings on each barrel indicate which type of cartridge is to be loaded in which barrel. On the triple barrel Type 90 these are: 

• Right barrel: two green stripes with a black stripe in between; 
• Left barrel: two red stripes with a yellow stripe in between; 
• Upper barrel: a wide white stripe.

The white stripe represents standard flare rounds for illumination in the dark. The barrel with the green stripes was loaded with a black smoke round for obscurement to disturb the enemy’s view. And the barrel with the red and yellow stripes was used for all sorts of color-coded signal rounds. The markings are mostly decals, but on some weapons they were completely painted or restored with paint. The entire weapon is otherwise covered with a black lacquer to protect it from the salty sea air and splash water. On some weapons, the barrels were blued instead of lacquered. 

A rotating lever on the back of the upper receiver is used for cocking all three barrels. The operator turns it about 150 degrees counterclockwise before letting it snap back to its vertical resting position. Now all three firing pins are cocked. There is a small control hole behind every barrel, and in the cocked position the rear end of the striker for each barrel protrudes through its hole as a cocking indicator. The barrel is selected by a smaller lever located below the cocking lever: right for the right barrel, left for the left barrel and center for the center barrel. It is not possible to fire two or three barrels simultaneously.

Both Type 90 models incorporate a recoil buffering system to absorb, at least partly, the heavy recoil. When the weapon is fired, the upper assembly moves backwards on the grip frame against spring pressure. It is only a short distance of movement of about 1/8 inch. A manual safety switch is located on the left-hand side of the weapon above the pistol grip. The lower position is “safe” (white letter) and locks the trigger. When set on “fire” (red letter), the trigger is allowed to be pulled for firing. On the double-barrel model the center position acts as an additional safety.

Modifications

Over time, the design of the three-barreled Type 90 has undergone some modifications. Some were production-related, others offered small improvements. The early variation had wooden grip plates and a vertical break-open lever with finger recess. This recess soon disappeared, and later, grip plates were made from Bakelite. In the last variation, the redesigned break-open lever was curved, and the barrel selector lever engaged in detents for positive identification of the selected position. The most striking design change, however, affected the receiver. It was for many years made of two parts, connected together between the barrel assembly and the action housing. On later variations it was only made of one piece.

A carrying bag with shoulder strap was issued with each weapon. Most of them were made of leather, but there are also a few known made from canvas. Instead of a printed manual on paper, the bag contained an aluminum plate with printed instructions. These plates made more sense than paper, considering the tropical climate on the Asian islands and the humidity at the high seas.

Rarity

In the entire production period from 1930 to 1945, only about 6,000 pieces of the triple-barrel model have been produced according to Japanese sources. The number of the two-barreled model varies around 10,000 pieces, depending on the source. But according to American foreign weapons research reports, the total number of flare pistols manufactured in Japan for military purposes in World War II was only about 30,000.

Naval weapons are very rare today. When Japan surrendered in September 1945, there was not much left of the once proud Imperial Navy. Most flare pistols had gone down with the ships. And what survived received little attention, because the American soldiers preferred to collect “real” pistols, rifles and edged weapons as souvenirs. 

French missionaries tried to convert Siamese people since 1550 but without success. One century later, they established some missions, and a Siamese delegation came to France in 1684 and 1686; it was received by King Louis the XIV. Some ambassadors, military councilors, soldiers and Jesuits were sent into the country to curb the British influence. But a revolution at the end of the 17th century put an end to the French presence.

Both countries established new diplomatic relations in 1856. A few years later, the French settled in Indochina, namely in Tourane in 1858, and took control of the Mekong Delta between 1859 and 1867. The King of Cambodia accepted a protectorate of France in 1863, without the agreement of Siam which was holding sway over Cambodia. But this situation was accepted by a peace treaty signed on July 15, 1867.

France extended its colonization of the country by the conquest of the Red River Delta and of Hanoi in 1873. In 1887, the Indochinese Union was created with Tonkin, Annam, Cochinchina and Cambodia. Laos would join later, in 1893.

Few people know that a war happened in Indochina, between France and Thailand in 1940-1941. Tourist guides are silent on the subject, and tours of the city of Bangkok never show the Victory Monument built after the conflict. 

The Origins of Conflict

Siam resented the integration of Laos in the Indochinese Union. Many skirmishes happened on the border, and France sent a warship off Bangkok. Without any help from the British, Siam accepted this situation.

New incidents erupted in 1906 and 1907 because of new territorial claims concerning territories in Cambodia and in Laos. After a British mediation, some exchanges of land were made, and the problem was solved by an agreement in 1909.

During WWI, Siam joined the Allies in July 1917, and an expeditionary force of 1,284 volunteers was sent in France. They were mainly assigned to services such as drivers, medical service and ordnance. One hundred of them were trained as aircraft pilots.

After the War and for 20 years, no trouble occurred between France and Siam. In 1932, after a coup d’état, the King was forced to accept a constitutional regime. Lieutenant-Colonel Prajadhipok, also known as Phibun, became the leader of the country. He was a former cadet of the French Military Academy and an admirer of Mussolini. He established a strong, nationalist, authoritarian government. He changed the name of the country of Siam into “Thailand” and claimed the incorporation to Thailand of all Thai people living in Burma and Laos. After discussions with France, a no-aggression agreement was reached and signed on June 12, 1940.

Hostilities

After the disaster of June 1940 and the defeat of France, Thailand expressed again territorial claims. Japan was probably part of this scheme. Japan issued an ultimatum to the French to allow the Japanese Army to march through Tonkin and take the control of the railway between Hanoi and the Chinese border. General Catroux, commanding the French Army in Indochina declined, but he was dismissed by the Vichy French government and replaced by Admiral Decoux. 

Decoux reached an agreement on September 22, 1940, with the Japanese. They were allowed to use French air bases and set up 6,000 men on the Northern bank of the Red River. On the same day in the evening, 30,000 Japanese soldiers invaded Indochina. Despite the resistance of the French, 4 days later, the Japanese occupied the country. But strangely, the French administration remained in place. 

During this time in Thailand, Phibun became general and prime minister, setting up an authoritarian policy. 

He believed that he could take advantage of the weakness of France to send an ultimatum to the government of Vichy, claiming the territories lost during King Chulalongkorn’s reign: Melou Prei and Tonle, Repou in 1904; and Battambang, Sisophon and Siem Reap in 1907. 

In November 1940, taking advantage of the French being busy quelling a rebellion among peasants, Thai Armed Forces crossed the Cambodian border on several locations. The Thai Air Force dropped bombs on Thatket and Savannakhet in Laos. After December 1, new incidents happened in Cambodia: bombing and artillery shelling. In retaliation, several Thai air bases were attacked by the French Air Force. 

In January 1941, Thai forces attacked both Cambodia and Laos. They invaded Yang Dang Khum and Phum Preav, and the French forces reeled back. Admiral Decoux set up a counter-attack with the 5th French Foreign Legion Infantry regiment on January 16. Several Thai villages were taken, but the troops could not hold on the battlefield. Thai tanks tried to pursue but were stopped by an anti-tank gun. 

Admiral Terreau, the French Navy commander, received the order to set up urgently a naval force. He rallied all the warships available: the Lamotte-Picquet cruiser, the Dumont d’Urville, Amiral Charner, Tahure and Marne corvettes. Its commander was Captain Bérenger. He attacked the superior Thai fleet in the Koh Chang Gulf. After 2 hours, the torpedo boats Songhkla, Chonburi and Trad were sunk; the Donburi and Sri Ayudhya armoured gunboats, severely damaged. 

End of the War and the Japanese Mediation 

On January 19, 1941, the Thai Army reached the South of Laos, and Angkor was bombed. One day later, Japan imposed its mediation. On January 30, an armistice was signed in Saigon, and hostilities stopped for 2 weeks. The troops had to pull back 6 miles from the frontline. 

Negotiations were opened in Tokyo on February 7. At first, the French delegation rejected the Thai claims. But at that moment, Admiral Darlan became the head of the Vichy government, favoring cooperation, and it had to submit. 

A peace treaty was signed on March 11; Thailand recovered the territories given to France: Battambang, Siem Reap, Kampong Thom and Stung Treng in Cambodia; Sayabouri and Champasak in Laos. 420,000 people and 19,000 square miles were involved. The monarchs of Cambodia and Laos were not even consulted! The territories annexed by Thailand were returned to France only on November 1947.

Retaliation

These annexations and the growing Japanese influence had a negative influence on the relations between Japan and the United States, which declared an embargo on steel and oil sales to Japan.

Meanwhile, the American secret services and the British set up a local resistance against the Japanese called “Seri Thai.”

Epilogue

After the war between France and Thailand, Japan invaded Cambodia and demanded to march through Thailand into Malaysia and Burma.

Without any answer from the Thai government, Japan invaded Thailand. Despite the resistance of the Thai Army, the government was forced into an agreement with Japan, and an alliance treaty was signed on December 21, 1941. Thailand declared war on Great Britain and on the United States on January 25, 1942. The Thai troops clashed with the British in Burma. A resistance was organized by the OSS.

At the end of war, the government of Thailand was overthrown and Phibun stepped down . He was arrested by the Allies as a war criminal, but could not be put in court because of a strong popular support; he was ultimately released. 

The AK-47 is an amalgam of several older systems which, when assembled into the rifle, is greater than the sum of its parts—for the Soviet Union of the 1940s and 1950s, and even into the 1980s, a near perfect tool for its people and armies. The people were un- and under-educated, drafted in large masses for “The Great Patriotic War” (World War II everyplace outside the Soviet Union). They were uneducated to the point that many had never seen a machine beyond a simple wagon. There are many tales of Russian troops stealing faucets from homes in occupied areas and being surprised when they stuck them into the wall of the hovels, turned on the faucet, and no water came out.

Their leader, Joseph Stalin, is quoted as saying that “Quantity has a quality all its own.” Certainly his massive armies won many battles because of their sheer numbers, rather than any tactical genius. Stalin had depopulated his officer corps of anyone who may have even thought of resisting his orders, or who was of the wrong background. He espoused the idea that the common man was as capable as any intelligent, educated man—the despised “intelligentsia.”

The Rifle

As of 1986, it was believed that 30 to 50 million AKs had been produced; today it is probably twice that number. The AK is a gas-operated, turning bolt, semi- and fully automatic firearm, fed from a 30-round detachable magazine. The Model 1947 was designed around the 7.62×39 cartridge, which was based on the German 7.92 Kurz (short) round. In this country, the semiautomatic versions are almost universally called “AKs,” even without the full-auto feature. A sidelight to its design is that purportedly, Stalin ordered the caliber so the barrels could be made on existing machinery for the M1891 7.62×54 rimmed cartridge, to be sawn in half prior to being chambered for the shorter round. These and the bullets could be made on existing machines after a minor adjustment.

The two items that are most criticized are the short stock and the safety arrangement. The short stock is easy to explain. Most Russians were short (as were most Americans in those days); more so in Russia due to their food production, food distribution problems and limited diet. In addition, Russia’s greatest ally in history has always been “General Winter,” when the troops would have to wear thick, heavy clothing to survive. Keep in mind that a tall person can easily, if not totally comfortably, shoot a short-stocked rifle, while a short person can have great difficulty shooting a long-stocked rifle.

As for the safety, which is only present on the right side? The author can only speculate that it may have been placed to keep the un-/under-educated peasants from “accidentally” shooting each other—or their officers.

In any event, the large tolerances built into the design, along with its being somewhat “overgassed” with more operating power than really needed, put a very reliable weapon into the hands of the troops.

The Official Tale

In keeping with Stalin’s beliefs, the official history of the designer, Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov, presents him as the son of a poor but noble peasant family. In The AK-47 Story by Edward C. Ezell, he comments that even in an East German article, the reader is “presented with an interesting mixture of fact and fiction” about the designer. Keep in mind that dates of birth were “moveable” in the USSR, if required by The State. While a “self-made man,” he still needed the assistance of the Party and his comrades to perfect his design. 

In the official version, he worked for the railroad before enlisting into the Army in 1938. His interest in things mechanical was, of course, recognized by his officers and the Party, and he was trained as an armorer before his training as a tank driver. They claim that during his tank training, he invented both a way to measure gas consumption and new tracks for tanks.

Promoted to Sergeant, he was appointed to supervise the manufacture of his inventions. He was later sent to an active tank unit, where he was wounded in action. While in the hospital, he thought he could help the Motherland by designing better guns. He was given a book obtained by his nurse, written by another Russian firearms inventor, Federov, published in 1939 on the evolution of small arms.

Kalashnikov was given 6 months to heal and went to visit his friends at the railroad, where he announced he wanted to build a working model of a submachine gun he had designed. With the assistance and permission of the local Communist Party, he was allowed to proceed. This lead to his assignment to a design bureau and ultimately to the design of the AK-47.

But Is It True?

At this point, let me add some observations about the “official” tale. 

The poor but honest peasant being recognized by The Party and elevated to a high level is a recurrent story in Soviet literature of the time. Here, Kalashnikov fits the mold perfectly—a bit too perfectly. It was a common theme in the Communist ideology, but here it fails.

After the 1918 Russian Revolution, landowners and the intelligentsia were purged from the society. The definition of intelligentsia was … flexible. Anyone with a college degree was included, along with Jews, shop owners and people who were well-read. In some areas, if you wore glasses you were included—the only reason to wear glasses would be to read, so you went off to the gulag or the firing squads. The “common man” was to be exalted. They were the “proletariat” or “proles.”

In the Soviet Union, any information about places or people was SECRET! There were few people with telephones and no public telephone books. There were also no maps of any place in the entire country, other than for ranking party members. Even asking about a person or place (or telephone number) could mean an unhappy meeting with the internal security police. Everyone was required to be an informant.

All information on weapons design was classified—highly classified. The idea that Kalashnikov’s nurse could nip down to the local library and bring him such a book is a flimsy construct. In fact, had she even asked about books on weapons design, she would have had a very uncomfortable interview with the KGB—the internal security police. Then Kalashnikov would have had a similar interview. At best, they may have both been sent to Siberia and the gulag. More likely, they both would have been shot as spies.

Then, for him to get 6 months to heal is ludicrous. He had a shoulder wound, when the Soviet Union was rounding up every available body to go to the Front and were publicly celebrating soldiers with far more serious wounds who fought on. Of course, he is portrayed as asking to be sent back to the Front when told he would be placed on leave, ever the faithful servant of The Motherland.

Finally, the very idea that his friends at the railroad shop could get permission to make any kind of firearm is unbelievable. They too would have been rounded up, along with the local party officials who gave permission, and shot as “counter-revolutionaries” and “enemies of the State.” The KGB officers would have been given medals and promoted for “eliminating these criminals.”

An Alternative Possibility

Here in the U.S., well into the 1960s, there was great fear of another war. The author recalls “Air Raid Drills” in grade school. When the sirens went off, we had to hide under our desks to “protect” us. Living 30 miles from a major target, it is unlikely that a school desk would have saved the author. Information about the Soviet Union and its guns was near impossible to obtain, other than in W.H.B. Smith’s Small Arms of the World (originally printed in paperback as A Basic Manual of Military Small Arms in 1943).

In Russia, mere possession of even a piece of paper from any of the many “Development Bureaus” would mark you as a spy. After you were tortured for the source of the paper, you would be shot. There were “closed cities” for weapons development, which officially did not exist. Weapons designers went in, but they never came out—alive. Asking a question—any question—about such a place would send you to Siberia.

Most of our data on Russian firearms came from humans—“HUMINT” in today’s language. A whisper here, an overheard conversation there and almost nothing on paper. We actually paid big rewards to Russians or “third-party nationals” who could give us data on weapons development behind the Iron Curtain.

Why Disbelieve the Soviet Tale?

So, why would this author believe Kalashnikov was NOT just a humble tank Sergeant? Because of a minor note in a formally classified U.S. government publication. When you write about military firearms history, you read a lot of “unusual” publications. In fact, you start to haunt bookstores and thrift shops, looking for old books on guns. My searching of the latter lead me to a complete set of a U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance books titled simply The Machine Gun, by Col. George Chinn, USMC. This is a complete history of repeating firearms, and Volumes II through V were classified “Confidential Security Information” when they were first published in the 1950s. Volume I dealt with the early evolution of firearms and the mechanical machine guns (Gatlings) and self-powered guns through World War I, so it was not classified. 

After reading the 680 pages of Volume I, I read the much smaller (200 pages) Volume II, Weapons Development in the Soviet Union and her Satellites. On page 25, there are a few sentences that throw a possible new light on the weapon designer. In a discussion of the “Maxim–Tokarev” (MT) machine gun in 1928, the following paragraph appears:

In competition with the M–T was another version of the Maxim. This gun was modified by Koleshnakov and therefore called the M–K (Maxim–Koleshnakov). It differs outwardly from the M–T in the shape of the stock, but otherwise there is little difference. Koleshnakov was not successful in securing adoption of this weapon, but enough were made for trial to allow its use in the Spanish Civil War.

A designer of the same name is credited with the development, some years later of a machine gun mount for a caliber 12.7mm gun …

In an age when HUMINT was the primary source of information, is it possible that the name was spelled phonetically? How many of us refer to the AK as the “Koleshnakov?” Non-native Russian speakers were and are rare, and were rarely trusted. After all, why would someone know Russian, unless he was a spy? Even a minor typing error at some point could convert a written “a” to an “o,” or an “e.”

Which Tale Is True?

Could the “official tale” be true? Possibly, but unlikely for the reasons listed above. Could the author be wrong? OF COURSE! Neither “Koleshnakov” nor “Kalashnikov” are listed in the index of any of the 5 volumes of The Machine Gun. A Russian speaker of my acquaintance has said that “Koleshnakov” is an odd name in Russian—not familiar in any way to him.

Ultimately, it makes no difference. The AK-47 and its follow on guns are highly successful, both individually reliable and as instruments of Socialist/Communist ideology. When you find an AK series gun, if all the parts are there, no matter their condition, the gun is likely to work. 

Now, this author needs to search for more nuggets of information in the remaining 2,028 pages of The Machine Gun, while looking for other obscure titles. 

The AMTAC MANTIS-P is an over-barrel, stainless steel, direct thread, monocore suppressor. It reduces sound by 26 decibels and is optimal for precision rifles. The over-barrel design can accommodate barrels up to .95 inches and will only add 5.7 inches to the overall rifle platform. The ruggedized nature of the AMTAC MANTIS-P weighs in at 23 ounces, and the model tested was designed for .30 and 6.5 calibers.

Whenever you thread a muzzle device on to your precision rifle, whether it be a muzzle brake or a suppressor, you run the risk of decreasing its accuracy. The machining and attention to detail for a precision rifle suppressor must be of the highest order. In an increasingly crowded market, a few suppressors stand head and shoulders above their competition. Four months’ worth of testing demonstrated that the AMTAC MANTIS-P is one of the best suppressors currently available for the precision rifle market.

AMTAC’s parent company, Advance Manufacturing Technology, has been in business for over 40 years. Advance Manufacturing Technology, based in Salt Lake City, does custom fabrication for the aerospace, defense and medical industries and is AS9100, ISO 9001 and ITAR Certified. A visit to their spotless factory several years ago showed a floor with rows of CNC machines and a professional and dedicated workforce. In the heart of the factory was a state-of-the-art quality control laboratory. 

Field Testing 

Field testing took place at a private ranch in the high desert of Central New Mexico over the course of several months. For testing, the AMTAC MANTIS-P was attached to a customized Howa 6.5 Creedmoor, which was mated to a Modular Driven Technologies (MDT) ESS chassis. To ensure that the threads on the barrel were concentric to the bore, the test rifle was sent to Whiskey Mountain Dynamics outside of Edgewood, New Mexico. Whiskey Mountain Dynamics removed 1 inch of the barrel, then re-threaded and crowned it. Ensuring that the outer threads of the barrel are concentric to the bore is vital when attaching a suppressor to a precision rifle. If they are not concentric, there could be a loss in accuracy, or worse, a bullet could strike the suppressor as it exits the barrel. 

Accuracy, “First-Round Pop” and Impact Shifts 

Accuracy testing was conducted in the prone position using 147-grain Hornady ELD-M 6.5 Creedmoor ammunition. Attached to the MDT ESS chassis was the rock-solid Thunder Beast Arms Corporation bipod. Four 3-round groups were fired at 100 yards with and without the AMTAC MANTIS-P suppressor. Data gathered in testing, of group size when various calibers are shot with and without the suppressor, demonstrate the remarkable consistency achieved with the AMTAC MANTIS-P. The last group shot, with the suppressor, opened up slightly due to an aggressive full-value wind (Aerodynamic Jump). On average, groups shifted low 11mm/.43 inches with the suppressor attached. 

Was there a “first-round pop?” First-round pop is when the first round fired through a suppressor is noticeably louder than subsequent shots. This additional sound is due to oxygen in the suppressor, which burns off with the first shot. During testing, all shots sounded acoustically similar. Please note that testing was done in the high deserts of New Mexico, which have an average elevation above 6,000 feet and density altitudes that swing between 7,000 and 10,000 feet. 

Analysis 

The AMTAC MANTIS-P weighs 23 ounces, a few ounces heavier than its competitors. This weight difference is most likely due to the use of stainless steel. Most suppressors hang directly off the rifle at the muzzle, however, which leaves the rifle feeling front heavy. The over-barrel design of the AMTAC MANTIS-P causes it to sit closer to the receiver, thus shifting weight towards the shooter. This shift improves the balance of a suppressed rifle, which helps to counteract the minor increase in weight. AMTAC claims that the over-barrel design reduces gas blowback in semiautomatic platforms. This reduction is owed to the shortened baffles, which decrease pressure inside of the suppressor. Using a thread adapter, the .30 caliber AMTAC MANTIS-P was attached to a mid-length 5.56 AR-15 rifle. Though anecdotal, the rifle ran flawlessly with 55-grain XM193 and 77 grain .223 hunting ammunition. The rifle with the AMTAC MANTIS-P attached did not feel over-gassed. 

In regards to 5.56/.223: Thinking about building a suppressed Mk18 clone? Use an 11-inch handguard and a 16-inch barrel. The AMTAC MANTIS-P will cover 4 inches of the barrel: The result is a rifle the same length as a suppressed Mk18 without a sacrifice of velocity. 

From testing, AMTAC found that when a .30 caliber suppressor was placed on a 5.56 rifle, there was only a 2-decibel reduction in overall sound suppression. For example, the AMTAC MANTIS-P suppresses .30 calibers to a range of 26 to 28 decibels. When placed on a 5.56/.224, suppression dropped to 22 to 24 decibels instead. 

Closing 

The AMTAC MANTIS-P is a rugged and tough suppressor, perfect for general rifle and precision rifle applications. It is rated for magnum calibers, and the over-the-barrel design only adds a few inches to your overall platform. The model tested has an MSRP of $899 at time of writing. AMTAC offers a suite of suppressors for rimfire, pistol and compact semiautomatic platforms. The AMTAC MANTIS-P is an outstanding suppressor. It would be an excellent complement to a ranch, precision, semiautomatic or hunting rifle. Consumers cannot go wrong with this product. 

 ACCURACY TEST USING HORNADY 147 ELD-M 6.5 CREEDMOOR 

 SPECIFICATIONS 

The premise for this article is that a Dillon 650 XL reloading press can be used to create precision rifle ammunition. A slightly different methodology will need to be employed, and the production numbers will fall based on the precision bias, but it can be done and done much more quickly than using a single-stage press. The methodology for this article was NOT to provide maximum precision; but rather to compare precision while eliminating as many variables as possible. Due to starting with a caliber this author does not normally load for and using a loaner Precision Rifle in that caliber, I did not have a dialed-in load. With this in mind, I did not adjust the seating depth to chase the best possible group size. By eliminating this process, I saved five (or more) ladder tests and a ton of time and range trips. I will only be using one COAL at 2.800 inches. (Determining COAL, or cartridge overall length, is about finding the optimum length for hand loads, for your rifle.) This will limit my ability to get the perfect load, but it will give an equal basis for both single-stage loading versus using the Dillon 650 XL. It is also the most common COAL for factory ammo. Again, the goal of this test is not to define absolute precision, but to determine the difference in precision between single-stage versus progressive loading on a Dillon 650 XL.

The initial modifications to the Dillon 650 XL loading technique are to completely remove the powder measure and substitute hand weighing of the powder. The automated powder measure system integral to the Dillon 650 is a good system; but precision reloading requires much more consistency than just “good.”

Case Prep

Case prep is done the same regardless of loading method. Starting with brass from the same lot is always best. All my case prep is done manually. The first step is to tumble the brass with walnut shells mixed with Lemi Shine to remove contaminants. I do this even with virgin brass. It helps to insure all brass is similarly lacking in production gunk and oils. Next, is to lubricate and full-length resize to insure a consistent neck diameter. Then all brass is measured and trimmed to a standard length. The primer pockets are uniformed, and the primer flash holes are deburred. The last step is to chamfer the trimmed necks and deburr them. After all this is done, I sort cases for weight uniformity. This gives a very uniform starting position for all brass.

I also sort the bullets by “length,” prior to loading any projectiles. This is actually done using a comparator which checks a set spot on the ogive, as that is where the bullet engages the rifling. The comparator method is much more precise than measuring overall length. A second measurement needs to be done if you are using magazines to insure the ammunition will still be below maximum magazine length. The bullets are grouped in +/- .001-inch groups. Any oddballs are reserved for the practice round or barrel heating loading only.

For rounds used in competition, I never use virgin brass. It is best to use brass that has been fire-formed in the competition rifle’s chamber. The once-fired brass is then run through the above process, except only the neck is resized. With this said, the issue with virgin brass, is a higher tendency towards flyers, which I do not see as an impediment during practice.

For my single-stage precision reloading, I prime manually with a Sinclair hand primer. This provides very consistent primer seating depth but is extremely slow. By automating this portion of the process, it recovers some of the time lost with manual powder weighing.

The removal of the powder measure allows for precise manual powder weighing. It also removes the need for a powder check station as each charge is individually measured and added. I kept the check station as a safety and because I have one more station than is required. I do not crimp precision ammo. Crimping tends to have a detrimental effect on run out as well as provides variation in grip to the projectile. With this in mind, the final COAL die is put in place of the crimp die. 

For my experiment, I used a Gem loading scale that measures to (theoretically) 0.02 grains of powder. In practice, it is more like 0.04 grains. This is still magnitudes more precise than most powder measures at +/- 0.1 grains. The scale is affected by fluorescent lights, so be aware of that concern. The ballasts in fluorescent lights create electromagnetic interference. This tends to increase with the lamp’s age and creates instability in the reading of the charge for the Gem scale. My fix to this issue was to change the lighting in my reloading area to LEDs. This powder set-up requires manual trickle charging and manually pouring powder into each case. This dramatically slows down production compared to using a powder measurer. However, precision is the end goal, and this allows for very consistent powder weights. My goal was less than 10 fps variance for extreme spread. With the sin gle-stage press, the ES averaged 9 fps. The modified Dillon generated an average of 13 fps. 

The first seating die is set to 0.003 long. The second seating die is set to the exact COAL desired. This is the same method I use in single-stage loading, and I am usually able to stay within +/- .001 using this method. This compares to roughly 0.003 to 0.005 when I do a seating as a single step. In my experience, the fat part of the curve (70%) stays at the +/- 0.003 range with the single seating method. This is all I ever do for non-precision ammo, as it is perfectly fine for that use. But for precision shooting, it is unacceptably sloppy. It is still a 0.006 variance from shortest to longest length; this will greatly increase the variance in velocity from round to round.

Even then, 30% of the ammo falls outside that range. By going with a rough first seating and a final second seating, the fat part of the curve jumps up to +85%, and in that part of the curve, the variance is reduced to +/- 0.001. Automating the tighter tolerance helps to recoup time spent reseating. As you can see, it also reduces the variance greatly both in COAL and in percentage that fall outside the desired parameter. Any of the loaded cases that are still too long could be pressed again on a single-stage press to bring them into compliance. Any cases seated too short are sorted for length. Cases that do not exceed 0.002 short are used as fouling or barrel warming rounds. Any that exceed 0.002 are disassembled. The brass on disassembled rounds is checked for proper case prep / neck tension, and the bullets are rechecked for proper sizing as well.

The above process produces +95% usable ammo. Most of the remaining “faulty” ammo is usually traced back to poor case prep or an over- or undersized bullet.

I should note that some people sort for weight uniformity before starting the case prep process. I find this to be wasted time if one is starting with a known high-consistency brass. The lack of uniformity in this type of brass is usually fixed in the resizing/trimming stage as the discrepancy is usually a function of slightly longer brass or extra material in the primer pocket or flash hole. When fully prepped, this tends to disappear. In brass that is not known to be superbly consistent, sorting before and after case prep may be warranted.

Results

In single-stage loading, I was able to produce 30 complete rounds in 80 minutes starting with fully prepped brass. Remember, no attempt was made to determine if this rifle “liked” bullet jump or jam. Proper determination of this preference can easily remove 0.100 inch or more from group sizes. A better shooter than me may well be able to tease out another 0.100 inch from the groups. As an indication, Don Fraley routinely achieves groups in the high “1s” to low “2s” with this rifle. Considering I ran magazine-length loads, I was quite happy with the group sizes. 

• The best group was 0.252 inch; 
• The worst group was 0.683 inch and most likely involved user bobble; 
• Five groups were clustered between 0.360 inch and 0.395 inch with an average of 0.380 inch.

Including the probable flyer group, this gave an average group of 0.395 inch. Minus that group, the average was 0.362 inch. In this series, there were three groups tighter than the five-group bunch and two larger.

Using the Dillon 650 XL, the group sized opened up, but not nearly as much one might expect. Considering I was able to make 30 rounds in 30 minutes, I am quite happy with the trade-off. Also, with more practice, my efficiency should increase a bit for more rounds produced in that same time period. 

• The best group was 0.303 inch. 
• A cluster of five groups went from 0.412 inch to .0475 inch, with an average of 0.443 inch. 
• The worst group was 0.869 inch and almost certainly contained a user induced flyer.

Including the possible flyer group, this gave an average group of 0.492 inch. Minus that group, the average was 0.451 inch. In this series, there were two groups tighter than the five-group bunch and three larger.

I pulled out the clustered five-shot groups and averaged them as a means of at least partially editing out shooter error/lucky groups. The clusters in both strings of shooting show an average difference of 0.063 inch. At least for this shooter, that is a worthwhile compromise for nearly triple production numbers. I would not use rounds made on the progressive for competition, but I would gladly welcome less time reloading and more time spent behind the trigger, for practice.

I would be remiss if I didn’t discuss the rifle that made all this testing possible. When another manufacturer backed out, Don Fraley of Advanced Weapons Technologies (AWT) stepped up and loaned me one of his precision rifles. Notice folks, this is NOT a benchrest rifle. It is from his precision/tactical/varmint line. Having said that, at a local or regional competition, this rifle would not be the reason you weren’t competitive. My best group with this rifle was notably worse than what Don gets using his handloads, built with H-1000 and 140-grain projectiles. His load is fine-tuned for what the rifle likes in regard to jump versus jam and provides him groups in the 0.170- to .210-inch range. He is also a better trained shooter and gets in a lot more practice time. This leads me to believe, with proper adjustment/testing for jump preference, my group sizes would decrease by roughly 0.075 inch. This would provide average groups from the single-stage in the high “2s” and from the Dillon in the mid “3s.” That is with my shooting skills, which are far from poor, but also far from world class. The rifle shoots better than I do or at least better than my abbreviated precision reloading process allowed me to show.

To Summarize 

These are group sizes that are slightly larger but that are in line with what the gun builder and his shooting classes have obtained with this rifle.

Remove the same handicaps from the Dillon 650 XL reloader, and the average group size is 0.293 inch. There are many in the elite benchrest world who would be horrified by groups that large. For the rest of us, those are impressive (theoretical) groups. I would suggest that even the actual groups are pretty damn good.

The Details

• Primer – Standard CCI small rifle primers 
• Brass – Lapua, small 
• Primer – 6.5 Creedmoor
• Powder – Hodgdon 4831SC 
• Bullet – Hornady 147gr ELD Match 
• Scope – Leupold VX-6 7-42×56 
• Rings – Ken Farrel 34mm rings
• COAL – Author only tested at 2.800 inch; no jump or jam preference determined
• Rifle – 6.5 Creedmoor custom-built precision rifle by Don Fraley of Advanced Weapons Technology; 26-inch Wilson Select Match barrel with a Precision/Target contour and an 11° target crown; custom AWT short action chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor; M16-style extractor; HS Precision tactical stock; Timney 510 B Elite trigger; and an AWT custom bolt knob. 

was noticeable.

Today, even when you can find a “toy” machine gun for sale, it is bound to be bright plastic with an orange plug on the end—but that is when you can actually find such items in the few remaining toy stores. There was a time when an aisle at the toy store or department store toy section resembled a scaled down gun shop. 

There were kid-sized muskets, bolt-action rifles, cowboy six shooters and the most prized toy firearm of them all—the machine gun! Chances are if you were a boy (or perhaps a girl) growing up between the 1930s and the 1980s, you remember those toy machine guns, which were arguably the envy of every kid who didn’t have that pretend heavy weapon in their toy arsenal. 

History of Toy Guns 

The concept of a toy gun is actually a fairly new one, and while there have been toy soldiers in one form or another for eons, it was only in the 19th century that the “toy gun” emerged. Part of the reason is owed to the fact that many children certainly didn’t experience a childhood that included a lot of playtime. This was true for the working classes, where many children began to work at a young age. Those rural children were more likely to handle a real firearm for the purposes of hunting to help put food on the table.

The upper class and even the gentry also likely hunted but more for sport. Finally, there was the fact that the military in many nations was a career—but few boys “played at war.”

This changed as the middle class grew in the 19th century, and one of the earliest mass-marketed toy guns was the “rubber band guns,” which were first introduced in the 1840s. Stephen Perry is credited with patenting the rubber band gun in March 1845, and it began the childhood love affair with pretend guns. 

Even in the latter half of the 19th century in the United States youngsters were more likely to have their own actual firearm than a toy. In fact, the original Daisy air rifle was first introduced in 1888, and it was marketed door-to-door to farm families as a “first gun” for young men (and perhaps a few young women). 

Post-World War I and the Toy Machine Gun

Machine guns were truly an innovation spawned from the technological leaps of the Industrial Revolution. Invented just 4 years before the Daisy air rifle, the Maxim Gun was the first successful machine gun. According to the legend, its inventor Hiram Stevens Maxim was looking to make his fortune when a fellow American he met in Vienna suggested, “Hang your chemistry and electricity! If you want to make a pile of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others’ throats with greater facility.”

In 1884 Maxim patented the machine gun, which was soon adopted in one form or fashion by the major powers of the world. While it would take another 30 years until its potential was truly unleashed—during the First World War (1914-1918) the machine gun quite literally ended the lives of millions of men. 

The devastating firepower of the machine gun meant that the armies dug in, and then each side scrambled to find smaller but equally deadly weapons; by 1918, the “submachine gun” was born. One of these inventions was General John Thompson’s “Annihilator”—rebranded the Thompson Submachine Gun after the War. Sales of Thompson’s weapon were slow, but by the end of the 1920s it was soon adopted by criminals—and used by Al Capone’s gangland enforcers in the 1928 St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. 

By the 1930s, gangsters were popular villains in the movies, and while this was long before the days of officially licensed merchandizing, toy companies such as Marx’s began to market gangland toys to youngsters. The first toy machine gun is believed to be the Marx’s Sparkling “G-Man Tommy Gun,” which featured a tin assembly and real wood stock. It included a drum machine and when “fired” a spark was produced on a flint located under the front sight. 

The G-Man/gangster theme continued with Marx after World War II, as the fight to bring down the bad guys moved to the living rooms of America with TV’s The Untouchables. Marx released the hard plastic “Untouchables Tommy Gun”—a 23-inch long toy that was originally only available as a Sears or Montgomery Ward exclusive. It retailed for $2.79 when it was released in 1959, and this may have been the first official toy machine gun tie-in with a TV show. The packaging featured an image of Elliot Ness played by Robert Stack! 

These early toy machine guns were loud and colorful with designs that were a bit “art deco,” and it is safe to say that Marx took wide latitude with the designs. While labeled “Tommy Gun,” the generic go-to word for the day (probably like how to anti-gun politicians every black gun is an AR today), these barely resembled an actual Thompson. However, it has been suggested that this was in keeping with the themes from comic strips and comic books of the day where the guns on the printed page also rarely resembled any gun from our reality. 

The other factor may have been that Marx as a toy maker didn’t want the toy guns to closely resemble actual firearms—especially after the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was the first serious legislation of firearms in the United States. The toy maker may have feared there would be a backlash and sought to go with a more “artistic” or “stylized” take on the toy guns.

Cold War Toys

Marx wasn’t the only company to produce little weapons for kids in the post-World War II era; beginning in the 1960s there was some serious competition from Mattel, Inc.—the company that would go on to create Barbie! 

The Mattel “Tommy-Burst” machine gun was introduced in the 1960s, and it far more closely resembled the actual weapon. The stand-alone “Tommy Gun” was marketed for around $3.95, while the Guerilla Model, which featured a camouflaged version complete with soldier strap, was marketed with kiddie binoculars, a case and a toy hand grenade. That deluxe version sold for $7.95.

The toy gun was released to coincide with the popularity of the World War II TV series Combat, starring Vic Marrow as Sgt. “Chip” Saunders, who happened to carry the M1928A1 version. Interestingly, the Mattel version was a mix of the M1928A1 with its Cutts Compensator but featured the Thompson M1A1 side charging handle. The “Tommy-Burst” was designed for use with caps, but most accounts were that it performed middling at best. The visuals were clearly what made this such a desired toy in the mid-1960s. 

In addition to the Guerilla Model, Mattel also introduced the Tommy-Burst Detective Set in 1961, which featured the 24.5-inch “Official Mattel Tommy-Burst Automatic Cap-Firing Gun,” the 6.5-inch “Official Detective Snub-Nose .38” revolver, a “Private-Eye Snap-Drawn Shoulder Holster,” and a “Detective Squad Badge, Personal I.D. Card and Wallet.” The fictional Dick Tracy™ had been a mainstay in the comics for decades, and Mattel rebranded its Thompson toy accordingly. About the only difference from the other models was the official “Dick Tracy” sticker on the stock. Interestingly Tops Plastic Company also produced a water gun version that was solid red plastic, but for collectors, the Mattel version is the more desirable today.

The detective toys of the 1950s and early 1960s eventually gave way to spy toys, influenced by the arrival of James Bond and similarly themed suave secret agents. While real-world intelligence agencies dealt with issues such as the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis, kids were able to play with Bond-styled gizmos and gadgets.

Multiple Toymakers/Multiple Plastics Corporation (MPC) started this trend in 1962 with a James Bond attaché case based on the one that 007 carried in “From Russia with Love,” while Topper Toys responded with “Secret Sam,” an attaché case that fired plastic bullets and had a working camera. MPC then upped the spy-vs.-spy ante with “B.A.R.K.,”—the “Bond Assault and Raider Kit,” which featured a mortar and rocket pistol.

Topper Toys came out with a real topper in the form of 1964’s Johnny Seven OMA (One Man Army), which became the best-selling boys’ toy of 1964. Marketed heavily on TV, it was unique in that it would transform into seven different modes including grenade launcher, anti-tank rocket, anti-bunker missile, repeating rifle, Tommy Gun and automatic pistol. As many of these “rounds” fired from the gun, Topper marketed additional spare ammunition and also introduced “accessories” that included a Johnny Seven helmet and walkie-talkies!

While Johnny Seven OMA was a huge hit with kids, and has been a staple in popular culture over the past 5 decades, it is notable that Bob Keeshan of Captain Kangaroo refused to allow the TV ads to appear on the show. Apparently the Captain wasn’t of the military-themed variety in the least. However, the toy was actually satirized in an episode of the spy farce Get Smart.

Mattel also joined the Cold War fray with Agent Zero—a character not quite as iconic as Bond but still notable for the fact that he was played in a series of commercials by a young Kurt Russell. The product line included the “Zero M Radio Rifle,” which was a working AM-FM radio, because apparently spies wanted to catch some tunes while on a mission; but the “must-have toy” was the “Zero M Night Fighter”. Essentially another Thompson, it was marketed as being designed for “night action” and featured a camouflaged design and scope. 

By the end of the 1960s, Mattel had marketed its scaled down Thompson submachine guns under a number of monikers, and the “Zero M Night Fighter” was marketed as the Mattel Marauder Division Tommy-Burst Automatic Cap Rifle, which was the same as the above model but with a faux wood stock and a special division insignia! Another standout from Mattel was the strangely named “Tommy Burp Mattel-o-Matic Cap Gun,” which was similar to the early “Burst” model but in new packaging.

Marx also introduced its own version of the Tommy Gun, which was released in the U.K. and later the United States. Unlike its early models, the “Trigger Action Tommy Gun” actually did resemble the actual Thompson—and the designers likely copied the Mattel version as it is a similar hybrid of the Thompson M1928A1 and M1A1 models.

Most of the toy guns of the era were certainly in the submachine gun category—but a few companies did produce some “heavy” weapons. One rare example was Maco Toys’ “U.S.A. Machine Gun,” a fairly accurate version of the M1917A1 water-cooled machine gun complete with tripod. It even shot “harmless pellets!” 

The Toy AR

Mattel would use the Marauder name on another toy—its 1966 Mattel “M-16 Marauder”, a pint-size assault rifle that was marketed for not needing caps, never needing to be reloaded and didn’t need batteries. Instead, it featured an internal mechanism that created the sound of automatic fire, no doubt annoying parents nationwide.

The “M-16 Marauder” is somewhat infamous today among the less informed who insist Mattel manufactured parts for the actual Eugene Stoner-designed Armalite AR-15/M16. According to some sources dating back to the 1980s, “the handgrip of the M16 rifle was made by Mattel.” This is a complete myth, but apparently some soldiers joked about the synthetic parts on the real M16; a running joke was, “You can tell it’s Mattel.” The fact that the M16 arrived in Vietnam as the toy “M-16 Marauder” hit the market likely only confused the issue. 

Mattel wasn’t the only company either to market a toy version of the battlefield weapon, and in 1967 Marx introduced its own “Sound-O-Power” line that included its M16 Military Rifle, a battery powered toy that featured a speaker in the stock to project the sound of gun fire. 

Toy Gun Control

The Vietnam War was not surprisingly hard to market, and by the 1970s, war toys weren’t exactly in vogue as much as they had been. The 12-inch G.I. Joe figure transformed from soldier to adventurer, and due to the energy crisis and oil embargo of the late 1970s, he was retired. When Joe returned in the 1980s he was reduced in size—but that just presented an opportunity for vehicles and other playsets!

Toy guns faced other issues, including calls for bans. In fact, New York City had banned black, blue and silver toy guns since the 1950s—but for the record, pinball and early video games were also banned. By the 1980s—due in part to a few tragic cases of mistaken identity where children and teens were shot by police—toy guns were the subject of federal legislation.

U.S. Code §5001, included in 1986, states that “each toy, look-alike, or imitation firearms shall have as an integral part, permanently affixed, a blaze orange plug inserted in the barrel of such toy, look-alike, or imitation firearm. Such plug shall be recessed no more than 6 millimeters from the muzzle end of the barrel of such firearm.” 

Today, all toy guns transported or imported in the country must have this blaze orange tip, or the whole toy must be of transparent construction. 

Remembering the Toys

While many of the animated TV series of the 1980s—from G.I. Joe to The Transformers—were little more than half hour commercials designed to sell action figures, in the 1960s the toy commercials were like short movies designed to build interest in the toys. As noted, a young Kurt Russell hawked products, and selling toy guns to kids wasn’t seen as wrong in the least.

“These toy guns were marketed on TV and in catalogs, as well as the daily newspapers,” said Jeff Owenby, who collected the toys as a child and has documented the toys online. “The toys were marketed as singles and in sets, with the sets being very popular around Christmas time.”

While many of these toys retailed for just a few dollars in the 1960s and early 1970s, today collectors have to shell out big dollars—a Mattel “M-16 Marauder” in good condition can sell for more than $500 on eBay, while the really early toys from the 1930s can exceed $1,000 with original packaging. 

One irony is that back in the day, even if the toy versions weren’t quite accurate, most kids didn’t know the difference—but thanks to movies and video games what kid doesn’t know an AR from AK. However, Owenby said he has fond memories of the “Tommy-Burst” and added, “It was a close replica down to the smallest detail.”

In the 1960s when Owenby was growing up he said the sight of a kid with a Tommy Gun wouldn’t even turn heads. “Back then, these had red tips but all the kids took them out of them. But you could walk down the street with a toy gun, and the neighbors wouldn’t think anything about it!”