“Excluding dueling (since it is forbidden in most countries and appears to be declining in favor even in those countries in which it is permitted tacitly or otherwise), there seem to be two primary and quite distinct uses for the pistol. The first of those uses is for target shooting (i.e. deliberate shooting with a view to getting all shots in the ten-ring on a stationary target). Its second use is as a weapon of combat.” – Shooting to Live, Captain William Ewart Fairbairn & Captain Eric Anthony Sykes, 1942

Yes, that Fairbairn & Sykes. The book originated out of their experiences in the Shanghai Municipal Police where Captain Fairbairn was Assistant Commissioner and Captain Sykes was the Officer in Charge of the Snipers Unit. Fascinating book, very down to earth and a good read if you can find a copy. Not really a coffee table book, however, depending on your houseguests. I couldn’t resist bringing their dueling comments to the readers; it is always interesting to see the context of different times. “Declining in favor” indeed. One of my lawyer friends thinks dueling should be brought back for many small claims court cases. I suspect dueling might be beneficial in resolving some of the differences of opinion in the firearms press. We could of course require that the duelers had to use whatever weapon they thought was the best…. This might make for some good field testing and future articles – by the winners.

Onward to the questions

Q – I was reading “Raffica”(Volume 9, Number 1) and saw your mention of the Beretta M57 magazine – where you talked about people converting the San Cristobal magazine to .50 caliber. I don’t have any idea of what either magazine is, but the .50 caliber conversion sounds interesting. I would like more information on this.

A- First of all, there wasn’t a .50 caliber Browning conversion done on these magazines. That would defy the laws of physics. There were a few people who wanted the San Cristobal magazines for .30 caliber carbine conversion mags, as these are very robust and reliable compared to M1 magazines. However, they do not fit into the M1/M2 carbine magazine well. I am not aware of what firearm they were working on. One discussion was using these magazines to convert M16s to .30 carbine, but I never heard any more on that project. The most intriguing discussion was using the San Cristobal magazines for a .50 Action Express conversion of the AR15 rifle. That one caught my attention. I believe 10-12 rounds of .50 AE will fit in the San Cristobal magazine and single stack present the rounds quite nicely.

The San Cristobal carbine is a select fire weapon utilizing two triggers. The influence of the Beretta engineers who worked on the project is evident in that part of the weapon, but the rest is pure Hungarian due to the designer’s background who was Hungarian. The Cristobal M2, as it is correctly called, predated the Beretta M57 by a few years. It appears that the Beretta engineers who worked in the Dominican Republic on the project took some ideas back to Beretta and cross bred the M1 carbine, the Cristobal M2, and the previous Beretta submachine guns and ended up with the Beretta M57.

We had a few thousand of these San Cristobal magazines at LMO in the late 1980s and early 90s. We might even have some left though I didn’t have time to look. I know that Bob Landies at Ohio Ordnance Works had some on the tables at Knob Creek, and Gun Parts Corporation was selling these at one time. John Bush had some as well. These were usually about $25 each.

Model: San Cristobal Carbine
Manufacturer: Dominican Republic
Notes: The marking on floorplate, 896-57, is an individual number, not a lot number. Interestingly, most San Cristobal magazines have unique numbers on them that are unrelated to the weapon serial numbers.

Category: RDS2B (Rifle caliber, Double column, Straight, presents 2 Rounds, Box Magazine)

Caliber: .30 Carbine (7.62x33mm)
Capacity: 30 rounds
OA Length: 7 15/16 inches
Backstrap: 7 15/16 inches
Max. Width: 1.040 inches
Body Width: 0.842 inches
Max. Depth: 1.870 inches
Body Depth: 1.870 inches
Construction: steel

Q –I have read a number of descriptions of the De Lisle carbine, and saw the phrase “Bolt Deadener” written there. However, I have not been able to find any information on this. Is it a new bolt face, or something in the barrel?

A – The integrally suppressed, heavily modified Enfield bolt action rifles known as the “De Lisle Carbines” are the subject of much speculation and interest. Very few were made for World War II Special Operations. Estimates run from the factory-recorded amount of production guns of 130 made, to several hundred total due to much higher serial numbers having been observed. This was, after all, a clandestine weapon and it would make sense for there to be unrecorded numbers produced, which adds to the intrigue. For such a small quantity made, there are certainly enough stories and associated lore. This is a subject deserving much more than just a Raffica question, and SAR will be returning to this with more in-depth articles in the future.

To your precise question, the “Bolt Deadener” is not a new bolt or bolt face, it is simply a wedge of softer material strategically placed in the bolt handle so that when the bolt is closed, there is no noticeable “Click” as the bolt handle contacts the receiver.

Most of the modern replicas have chosen not to do this, in fact I have not seen US replicas with this feature. When someone is operational in the theatre that the De Lisle was designed for, that little “Click” could give away a position and cost the mission as well as the life of the operator.

Q –The subject of the YAK-B that was mentioned in Raffica has me very interested. Your comments that the bolt has rollers and the receiver is a straight tube are interesting. Can you elaborate?

A – Yes, I think we can satisfy your interest with a couple of pictures. For new readers, the YAK-B series is the Russian model that is often mistaken for an M134 Minigun from a distance, or from someone unfamiliar with the M134. It is a very different mechanism.

The receiver is a straight tube, and the cam tracks are not cast and milled in like the ones in the complex US gun’s receiver. The cam tracks are bolted into place and are removable for replacement. The bolts have rollers that enable the smooth operation of the gun.

Send questions to:
Raffica
sareview@aol.com
Or mail to Small Arms Review
Attn Raffica
631 N. Stephanie St #562
Henderson, NV 89014

By Dan Shea

Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of imagination – John Dewey “The Quest for Certainty” Ch. 11

We at SAR applaud the renegade thinker, the person who perhaps doesn’t play well with others and is designing in their garage machine shop, or the small business that has a better idea – or thinks they do. Of course, the marketplace decides that. Timing to market can be off, the right idea at the wrong time, or a product that just doesn’t get its message out to the marketplace. With that spirit in mind, I would like to remind our readers that we are always looking for new products and ideas to bring to the rest of the readers; so please contact us with your new products for review. Not to ignore the larger companies and R&D shops, but it is frequently out in the private sector that innovation is seen and sometimes the controls in place in larger companies don’t allow for experimentation that is on the edge. While a large company may have a hefty cash supply for R&D, frequently it is very focused. It is in that unfocused area that we sometimes find a stroke of genius as well. All design is hard work, sweat, with a small part of inspiration, and sometimes an off the wall idea is what puts it all together.

Gene Stoner started on the path to the M16 series of rifles in his home workshop in 1952, making receivers for his hunting rifles out of the new wonder metal, aluminum (aluminium for our British readers). Not a bad place to start taking a power of example from for budding inventors.

I am presently on the long haul to the October Knob Creek Machine Gun Show & Shoot in Shepherdsville, Kentucky. Last week was the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) show in Washington, DC. At AUSA, there were an amazing amount of items being presented for our military to use. SAR will of course be filing a feature for our readers in upcoming issues, but suffice it to say that a lot of time and money has been spent by the contractors to answer the questions being asked by our brave service members in combat at the moment. I mention Knob Creek, because frequently I get to see items there that have been started by small companies that will answer many of the same or other questions that are being asked by the military. There is a major crossover in the Class 3 community – the enthusiasts of military small arms – and the current users. This crossover is generally ignored by Big Media, and it is our job at SAR to bring you insights in regard to the small shop innovators as well as the larger corporate offerings.

Speaking of great inventions that spring from humble beginnings, I would like to make a slight correction:

In the last issue of SAR, I mentioned that General M.T. Kalashnikov, the former Soviet Sergeant who invented the AK-47 among many other things, was the recipient of two “Hero of the People” awards from the Soviet government. Those are the common terms used by many regarding the two stars the General wears. Before anyone thinks we are leaving out the real names of his honoraria and awards, which previously have been covered in SAR, I would like to present a short list of these. General Kalashnikov was honored with many government awards for his service to the country, including: orders of the “Red Star” (1949) and “Red Banner of Labor” (1957), three orders of Lenin (1958, 1969, 1976), the orders of the “October Revolution” (1974), “People’s Friendship” (1982), “Patriotic War” First class (1985), “For Distinguished Services for the Motherland” Second class (1994), the order of “Saint Apostle Andrey Pervozvanniy” (1998) and the “Pashany” (Honour), Republic of Belarus (1999). He was honored with two “Hammer and Sickle” gold medals (1958, 1976). General Kalashnikov was twice honored as “Hero of Socialist Labor” (1958 and 1976) for modernization of the AKM assault rifle and development of the RPK light machine gun. – Dan

ATF Grants Extension for Importation of Certain Gun Parts

Bowing to industry concerns, extra time (until the end of the year) has been granted to importers by ATF to effect the importation of frames, receiver and/or barrels of otherwise ‘un-importable’ firearms covered by Title 18 U.S.C. §925(d)(3).

As noted in this column previously, ATF had announced, in a July 13th open letter to the industry, that it had determined that section 925(d) provides “in any case where the Attorney General had not authorized the importation of the firearm pursuant to this paragraph, it shall be unlawful to import any frame, receiver, or barrel of such firearm which would be prohibited if assembled.”

ATF concluded that this language permits no exceptions that would allow frames, receivers or barrels for otherwise non-importable firearms to be imported into the U.S. Accordingly, ATF announced (in-mid July) that it would no longer approve ATF Form 6 applications for importation of any frames, receivers, or barrels for firearms that would be prohibited from importation if assembled. This announcement prompted a showing of great concern from importers, many of whom had already purchased such parts abroad and were then facing the prospect of not being able to import the parts.

ATF also interpreted the language of the regulation to mean that no exceptions, for example for “repair or replacement” of existing firearms, would be allowed. The industry took particular exception to this stance, as since 2001, ATF had allowed importation of such parts for reasons of “repair or replacement.”

Further, in the July 13, 2005 Open Letter, ATF recognized that importers relying upon ATF’s prior policy would suffer economic harm, particularly those who held approved permits. To mitigate the impact of the new policy, ATF provided that it would forego enforcement of section of section 925(d)(3) for 60 calendar days from the date of the Open Letter for those importers who had already obtained import permits for barrels and receivers for non-importable firearms for “repair or replacement.”

Following consultations with the industry and further examination of the number and types of barrels and receivers authorized for importation on approved permits, ATF, by way of an August 12, 2005 Open Letter to industry, decided to extend the period of time for importers to act upon previously approved import permits. ATF says it believes this extended period affords ample time for importers who have entered into binding contracts in reliance upon approved permits to bring their shipments into the U.S. for entry into commerce.

Thus, importers holding ATF approved permits to import frames, receivers, or barrels for otherwise non-importable firearms for repair or replacement may continue to use such permits through December 31, 2005. Effective January 1, 2006, these permits will be suspended. Importers holding unexpired approved permits will be receiving a letter notifying them that their permits will be suspended effective January 1, 2006. ATF will advise Customs and Border Protection that in no event should these permits be accepted to release these items for entry into the U.S. on or after Jan. 1, 2006.

Importers are further reminded by ATF that no new permits for these items will be issued, including the issuance of permits that would be necessary to remove frames, receivers or barrels that are currently held or may be placed in a Customs Bonded Warehouse or Foreign Trade Zone.

Importers are also advised that ATF previously approved permits for non-importable barrels and receivers are for repair or replacement only, and this restriction was stamped on the face of the permit. ATF is taking the position that importers who import such components for any purpose other than repair or replacement of existing firearms, e.g. for assembly into new firearms, will be exceeding the scope of the import authorization in violation of law. If ATF determines, through inspection or otherwise, that an importer willfully has violated the import provision of the Gun Control Act, the importer’s license is subject to revocation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 923(e).

The Aug. 12 Open Letter noting the time extension was signed by Walfred A. Nelson, ATF deputy assistant director, enforcement programs and services for Lewis P. Raden, assistant director, enforcement programs and services.

ATF to Open New Office in Toronto

ATF is increasing its world-wide presence as ATF’s Director, Carl J. Truscott, has announced that ATF will increase the assistance, information and intelligence sharing it offers Canadian law enforcement by opening a new office in Toronto.

ATF now has three special agents and an inspector serving in Canada, at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, in Toronto and in Vancouver. Their mission is to enhance cooperation between U.S. and Canadian law enforcement, and to help neutralize the illicit movement of U.S.-sourced firearms, ammunition, explosives, alcohol and tobacco.

“ATF’s presence in Canada’s largest city will provide us with the opportunity to offer expertise, assistance and cooperation to our law enforcement partners in the critical Greater Toronto Area,” Truscott said.

ATF’s Canada Country Office is one of four venues – the others are in Colombia, Mexico and with Interpol in Lyon, France – where the bureau maintains a permanent international presence.

The activities of the Canada Country Office, opened in 1994, include providing tracing for thousands of U.S.-sourced crime guns recovered in Canada, and coordinating activities relating to firearms and explosives enforcement, international trafficking activities, enforcement strategies, operational practices and specialized firearms and explosives investigative training.

ATF, Ontario’s Provincial Weapons Enforcement Unit (PWEU) and the National Weapons Enforcement Support Team (NWEST) collaborate closely on firearms tracing, and have cosponsored workshops and training programs on weapons trafficking, smuggling and investigative techniques and methods. ATF also works with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada Border Services Agency and Canada Revenue Agency to reduce the flow of contraband cigarette trafficking.

ATF is one of several U.S. law enforcement agencies that participate in the Cross-Border Crime Forum, a partnership between the United States and Canada to target cross-border criminal activity and promote information and intelligence sharing.

Native American ID’s No Good for Gun Buys

ATF advises retailers that Native American Identification Cards, which usually include the holder’s photograph, address and birth date, do not meet the identification requirements for purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer.

ATF has determined that because such documents are not made or issued by or under the authority of the U.S. or a state or local government (within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 10238(d)(3)), a Native American ID card cannot be utilized as identification to purchase a firearm. Since Native Americans are eligible to receive state-issued driver’s licenses or other federal, state, or local government-issued photo identification documents, this restriction does not prevent Native Americans from acquiring firearms from FFLs.

State Dept. Takes Nearly 11 Years to Notify ATF of Policy Change

The issue of lack of communication between federal agencies enforcing firearms regulations has reached a critical state. No where is this better illustrated then in the following which details two State Department policy changes which took eleven years to be communicated to the Bureau of ATF.

On August 17, 1994 the U.S. Department of State rescinded the sanctions on trade in defense articles and services from South Africa. However, State did not inform ATF of its policy change until March 17, 2005 – nearly 11 years later!

Since it was finally informed of State’s action, ATF has issued an Open Letter to industry dated July 11, 2005 detailing the policy changes.

In addition to rescinding the sanctions on trade in defense articles from South Africa, State also rescinded the ban on technical data relating to defense articles from South Africa as set forth in Category XXII of the U.S. Munitions Import List, 27 CFR Section 447.21. Accordingly, the State Dept. requested that the Attorney General approve import applications for such items that otherwise meet the importation requirements. As a result, ATF will now approve such applications. ATF will also start the process of amending 27 CFR 447.21 to remove Category XXII.

Also on March 17, 2005, the Dept. of State informed ATF that effective July 14, 1994, again nearly 11 years prior, it had fully rescinded the statutory debarment against the Armaments Corporation of South Africa Ltd. (Armscor), the Denel Group (Pty) Ltd. (Denel), and Fuchs Electronics (Fuchs), and their divisions, subsidiaries, associated companies and affiliated persons and successor entities. Accordingly, the Dept. of State requested that the Attorney General approve import applications for such items that otherwise meet the importation requirements. Thus, ATF will now approve such applications.

Philip Warren 73

Philip Warren, president of Century International Arms since September 1996, died Monday, July 25, at the age of 73 from lung cancer.

A board member of the F.A.I.R. Trade Group, Warren was credited with keeping that organization steered on a path of professionalism in dealing with the government and representing the import/export community fairly.

Born October 21, 1929, Warren served his country as a jet fighter pilot during the Korean conflict. Warren was active in the international community for many years and in 1975 King Baudouin of Belgium awarded him the “Chevalier de L’Orde de la Couronne.” Warren spent part of his career in the banking industry. In 1958 he founded Paragon Steel Corp. in Detroit, Michigan. In 1989, he was named chairman of Future Metals Corp. of Ft. Lauderdale, FL. In the early 1970’s he was a partner in the Detroit Pistons basketball team.

The F.A.I.R. Trade Group will name an award after Warren which will be presented on an infrequent basis to recipients who show particular merit, integrity and business acumen

New Gun Travel Rules in the Netherlands

Members of industry who might be traveling with firearms through the Netherlands should be aware that new regulations are in effect.

The new rules require all passengers transiting through the Netherlands with firearms to obtain a special consent form issued by the Customs office in Groningen (in advance of travel) or face having their guns confiscated.

The Royal Netherlands Embassy in Washington, DC, has confirmed that this new form is required to avoid denied transportation at check-in and/or confiscation of the arms in Amsterdam. Check-in agents for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and their American partner, Northwest Airlines, have been advised of the new ruling and will be requesting the approval form at check-in. This consent form is required even if you are not flying aboard Northwest or KLM but are merely transiting through the Netherlands. Thus, those traveling with firearms are well-advised to book their itineraries to avoid making a stop in the Netherlands.

Bush Names Bolton to U.N. Post

President Bush has sidestepped the Senate and installed embattled nominee John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, ending a five-month impasse with Democrats who accused Bolton of abusing subordinates and twisting intelligence to fit his conservative ideology.

“This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about UN reform,’’ Bush said. He added Bolton had his complete confidence.

Bush put Bolton on the job in a recess appointment – an avenue available to the president when the Congress is in recess. Under the Constitution, a recess appointment during the lawmakers’ August break would last until the next session of Congress, which begins in January 2007.

Bolton joined Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the announcement ceremony and said he was honored and humbled by the president’s appointment. “It will be a distinct privilege to be an advocate for America’s values and interests at the U.N. and, in the words of the U.N. charter, to help maintain international peace and security,’’ he said.

Bush said that Bolton’s nomination had been supported by a majority of the Senate but that ‘’partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators’’ had denied the nominee the job. Bush had refused to give up on Bolton even though the Senate had voted twice to sustain a filibuster against his nominee. Democrats and some Republicans had raised questions about Bolton’s fitness for the job, particularly in view of his criticism of the United Nations.

The Bolton appointment is particularly important to firearms importers and exporters, as Bolton has been a strong advocate of protecting American’s firearms rights.

Addressing the UN Conference on Small Arms, on July 9, 2001, Bolton said, “The United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures contrary to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms…We do not support measures that would constrain legal trade and legal manufacturing of small arms and light weapons. The vast majority of arms transfers in the world are routine and not problematic.”

Small Gunsmiths Are Excise Tax Exempt

Small gunsmiths (defined as those who produce fewer than 50 firearms) are now exempt from excise taxes in the U.S.

During the same week that the U.S. Senate passed S.397 (the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act), the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action helped win an important but less-publicized victory for small custom gunsmiths.

A massive highway construction bill (that President Bush promptly signed into law) contained an amendment that exempts manufacturers of fewer than 50 firearms from “manufacturing” excise taxes.

For nearly 30 years, under a baffling web of Internal Revenue Service regulations, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives collected these “manufacturing” taxes from gunsmiths (including years’ worth of back taxes, in some cases), even if they were only modifying firearms that had been made elsewhere in a large gun factory where the excises taxes had already been paid at the original time of manufacture.

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) is credited with championing this issue for many years. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) gave critical support to this measure to help its ultimate passage into law.

The author publishes two of the small arms industry’s most widely read trade newsletters, The International Firearms Trade, which covers the world firearms scene, and The New Firearms Business which covers the domestic market. He also offers FFL-mailing lists to firms interested in direct marketing efforts to the industry. He may be reached at: FirearmsB@aol.com

KEL-TEC ANNOUNCES THE SU-16D PERSONAL SECURITY RIFLE

The SU-16D is a gas operated, semi-automatic rifle in 5.56mm NATO caliber. The barrel and chamber are chrome lined. These new “Delta” model rifles are intended as a personal weapon for non-infantry military personnel, special operations, SWAT law enforcement, and civilians in high risk environments. The SU-16D is especially suited for low intensity urban combat such as ambush response from inside a vehicle or fighting in confined spaces. The concept of replacing the pistol with a carbine in military units is not new. The intermediate power 5.56mm round and modern polymer materials make it possible to achieve a weapon of a size and weight only marginally larger than a service pistol. The SU-16D has a conventional gas piston operation and utilizes the proven “16” breech locking system. The reciprocating bolt handle also functions as a case deflector. The rear sight is zeroed at 250 meters and is adjustable for windage. The front sight is of the 16 type. Two integrated Picatinny rails will accept a multitude of standard accessories. Except for barrel, bolt, sights and mechanism, the SU-16 is made entirely of high impact, glass fiber reinforced polymer. The SU-16D can be disassembled for cleaning and inspection with only a cartridge as a tool. The SU-16D accepts any magazine that will fit the AR-15/M16 and weighs only 4.7 pounds loaded with 30 rounds. Folded length is less than 20 inches. The SU-16D is currently available in two models; the D9 and the D12. The SU-16D12 has a longer barrel for higher velocity and can also accept a standard “9” bayonet, or more appropriately, Kel-Tec’s light weight, folding bayonet. For more information contact Kel-Tec CNC Industries, Inc., Dept. SAR, 1475 Cox Road, Cocoa, FL 32926. Phone: (321) 631-0068. Fax: (321) 631-1169. They can be located in cyberspace at www.kel-tec.com.

FOBUS USA/FIRST SAMCO NOW OFFERS AK 47/74 RAIL HANDGUARDS

Fobus USA, a division of First Samco, is now offering a new rail system handguard for the AK 47/74 style rifle and variants. The new handguard features upper and lower halves. The upper handguard is designed to provide a rigid ultra-light platform on which to mount virtually any mission specific accessory. The lower handguard has two mini forward Picatinny side rails and a hull length lower rail. The new handguards will mount any Weaver or Picatinny accessories. They are manufactured from reinforced plastic composite. The new handguards are available in your choice of three colors: black, OD green or tan. No gunsmithing is required to mount the handguards but some minor fitting might be necessary as there are many variations in the weapons themselves. The new handguards are super light and, as all the Fobus products, they carry a full Lifetime Warranty. This is the latest addition to an extensive line of holsters, handguards, rail systems and other fine firearm accessories. For more information contact Fobus USA/First Samco Inc., Dept. SAR, 1300 B-3 Industrial Hwy., Southampton, PA 18966. Phone: (215) 355-2621. Fax: (215) 322-9223. They can be found on the web at www.fobusholster.com.

NORTHERN LIGHTS TACTICAL INTRODUCES TRACS REMOTE TARGET SYSTEM

Northern Lights Tactical announces the TRACS remotely operated vehicle system. TRACS is the most flexible target platform and tactics training tool ever created for police, S.W.A.T, civilian, and the military. Designed to emulate the unpredictable actions of live targets, TRACS has everything you would want in a moving target platform. Instructors operate the system by radio control. Fully armor-plated with four-wheel drive, TRACS is capable of traveling as fast as a running man over a wide variety of terrain. Rugged, powerful, and portable with an operating range that exceeds 500 yards. Completely variable movements make TRACS far superior to any wire-based, track-based or pneumatic target system. Various accessories can be added to allow for tactical applications at a significantly lower cost than high-end bomb robots. Camera systems, payload delivery, remote triggers, paintball guns, and remote sensing modules can be added to the base unit. Developed as a base ROV platform, TRACS can be adapted to customer’s specific mission requirements. For more information, please contact Northern Lights Tactical, Dept. SAR, 210 The Village, Suite 203, Redondo Beach, CA 90277. Phone: (310) 376-4266. Their website is www.northernlightstactical.com.

FALCON INDUSTRIES INTRODUCES FULL-COVER RAIL COVERS

Falcon Industries now offers a comprehensive line of full size rail covers for AR-15/M16 rifles with rail system forearms. The new rail covers are designed to clip directly onto any Picatinny rail configurations and will be marketed under the Ergo Grip trademark. They form a full cover handguard and rail protector that protects the unmounted rail areas from damage as well as the shooters hands from the uncovered rails. Falcon makes these rail covers available in 16 different configurations. The rail covers come in three sizes. The small size covers 5 slots, the medium covers 10 slots and the large covers 15 slots. The large size is also available in a diamond pattern. All these covers are manufactured in four standard colors: black, coyote brown, dark earth and OD green. Falcon will also make the rail covers in special custom colors for OEMs. Falcon Industries manufactures an extensive line of precision ergonomically designed grips and accessories for tactical rifles which include AR-15/M16, AK, FAL, HK and also 1911 pistols. For more information, please contact them at Falcon Industries, Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 1690, Edgewood, NM 87015. Phone: (505) 281-3783. Fax: (505) 281-3991. Their website is www.ergogrips.net.

SIGARMS INTRODUCES THEIR NEW CONCEALED CARRY COAT

SigTac, the SIGARMS Tactical Apparel Company, uncovers their Black Concealed Carry Coat. With the help of law enforcement, military officers and Special Ops, SigTac has tailored this garment to offer high performance and their professional standards, on and off duty. The new SigTac Black Conceal Carry Coat is a strategic addition to the SigTac tactical line. Made of 100% heavyweight cotton canvas and set off with a smooth nubuck leather collar, this coat is sturdy and stylish – a perfect fit for everyday wear. Lined with warm 300-gram anti-pil fleece, and lightly garment washed, comfort and easy movement will never be an issue. For added protection, the SigTac Concealed Carry Coat features ambidextrous internal pistol pockets for concealed carry of even large framed pistols such as the P220 or the GSR 1911. The SigTac Concealed Carry Coat is available through local firearms dealers or online at www.SIGARMS.com and comes in Black (and also Tobacco Brown) in sizes Small to XXXL. For more information, please contact SIGARMS, Inc., Dept. SAR, 18 Industrial Drive, Exeter NH 03833 or the SIGARMS Hunting Division, 22 Marin Way, Suite 2A, Stratham, NH 03885. Phone: (603) 772-2302. Fax: (603) 772-9082. http://www.sigarms.com.

Editor’s Note: Subsequent to this article being written, it should be noted that Colt Defense LLC has purchased the Logistics & Defense Division of Heroux-Devtek, Inc., which includes Diemaco. Diemaco will be operated as Colt Canada Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Colt Defense. – Robert G. Segel

As production of standard C7 and C8 weapons went on, it was decided by the Canadian Forces that they wanted to have a platform to enable them to mount optics on the weapons. Traditionally, it has been very uncomfortable to mount a scope on an M16 rifle due to the height of the scope on top of the carrying handle. Not only was it an unnatural way to shoot, it exposed more of the shooter’s head than was desirable. This upgrade was not to be just for specialized units, but for the entire fleet. The Canadian Forces were about to equip every weapon with an optical sight.

Diemaco went to work on the development of an integrated flat top upper receiver. The Canadians decided on a modified Weaver rail that does not conform with the American Mil-Std-1913 rail for one clear reason, it did not exist yet. Their research and development pre-dated the adoption of the mil-std-1913 rail. Numerous methods to attach the rail were tested including (vacuum bonding) gluing it to a modified upper receiver – but for obvious reasons the preferred way would be to have it machined out of a single forging. It took a couple years to finalize their design. Richard Swan, of ARMS, Inc. was called in to assist with the design of the dovetail. ARMS has had many years of experience in the design of dovetails and many were in use by American Forces.

The C7A1 and C8A1

The new weapons would be type-classified as the A1 variations of the C7 rifle and C8 carbine. Canada did not convert C8’s to C8A1 until quite recently. Diemaco used the term A1 to identify carbines with flat top receivers used in other countries such as Holland. The Danes call their C8A1 the M96 Karbine. These weapons would enter service before the Colt release of the Mil-Std-1913 rail. This was a conversion process to existing C7 rifles and mandated for all future small arms production. The standard rifle and carbine barrel assembly would be used without modification. This enabled current C7 and C8’s to be converted to the new configuration by just replacing the receiver itself.

Diemaco also designed two different iron sight capabilities. The first is a primary iron sight, which is a removable carrying handle similar to the Colt designed removable carrying handle on their M16A2 Enhanced rifle and their ACR candidate. This carrying handle would maintain the standard adjustable for windage only rear sight. Additionally, an emergency back-up sight was developed that would serve as a back-up if the optic was to become damaged and inoperable. The final design was made of nylon ST super tough plastic and would mount in front of the optic.

The optic chosen by the Canadian Forces was manufactured by another Canadian firm, Armament Technologies who had also designed an optic for Colt during the Advanced Combat Rifle program. These sights were first designed by Ernst Leitz Canada, which made Leica Cameras, heavy gun and tank sights, and other equipment that required quality precision optics. The company was purchased by Texas Instruments and renamed ELCAN Optical Technologies. It is now owned by Raytheon. The C79 optical sight was an extension of a program for a sight intended for the old C1A1 FAL rifle, updated for the C7A1. The United States forces now uses this optical tube assembly in the M149 sight that they now use. ELCAN also makes all IMAX and PANAVISION camera and projector lenses, inertial guidance muti-facetted mirrors for Maverick missiles and many other military optics. This firm employs about 600 people grinding and coating optics and manufacturing mounts making every kind of optical, night vision and thermal equipment imaginable for military and civilian applications.

The C7A2

In 2003, the Canadian Forces implemented a mid-life upgrade to the C7A1 and C8A1 weapons that included being more compact, versatile and ambidextrous as well as better suitability to accept new attachments such as laser sights, flash lights, etc.

The C7A2 would omit the fixed stock. All weapons would utilize a telescopic dark green stock with 4 adjustable positions and an anti-slip butt pad enabling the rifle to be more compact to carry. With this switch, a new buffer was used which is identical to Colt’s “H” buffer that replaced one of the standard steel weights with a tungsten weight. This additional mass eliminated light strikes caused by the bolt carrier bouncing back off the barrel extension during automatic fire. A dark green pistol grip replaced the black one.

The upper receiver is the standard flat top upper with the 20-inch barrel. This was left in the 20 inch length for a simple reason; to maintain the ballistic capability of the NATO standard 5.56mm ammunition it was expected to employ. By maintaining the long barrel, the cyclic rate is reduced from the carbine variations and increases reliability due to a lower cyclic rate. This also extends the life of the bolt and other trigger components. If the weapon was to be reconfigured from the C7A1, the upper receiver would be left alone but would have new dark green handguards installed with a Triad 1 attached to the front sight assembly. The Triad 1 offered left, right and bottom rails that enabled the attachment of laser, flash lights and other equipment.

The other main improvement was making the weapon as ambidextrous as possible. The ambidextrous magazine catch was designed by another firm (NORGON) and Diemaco obtained a licensing right to produce the catch assembly in the factory. Other improvement features included an ambidextrous charging handle release lever and selector lever.

The LSW (Light Support Weapon)

The LSW began life as a Colt design of a light support weapon based on the M16 weapon system. This open bolt firing version was designed by Colt’s engineer Henry Tatro. The Colt design was never able to leave the development stages due to a labor strike and inability to free up resources to get a new project off the ground. Diemaco was called in to see if it was a project they were interested in and if they would have the resources to complete the project and get it ready to sell. Diemaco was a perfect company to take on this project due to their engineering capability and relatively small size.

Diemaco made some improvements to the open bolt fire mechanism and updated the design with some of the new M16A2 features including the new stock, pistol grip and lower receiver as well as new fully adjustable rear sights. Diemaco would also make major improvements to the barrel assembly utilizing an extra heavy hammer forged barrel, redesigned interchangeable handguards, a large foregrip that can be used as a monopod, a QD bipod, and a redesigned carrying handle. Diemaco additionally redesigned the gas tube to a larger diameter to deal with the heat of an extended firing weapon. Diemaco also put the finishing touches on a Colt designed hydraulic buffer which slowed the rate of fire down to less than 700 rounds per minute. Diemaco has sold this weapon to customers including Denmark and Holland. This weapon is made in both fixed carrying handle and flat top variations. Diemaco has also produced this weapon in a closed bolt selective fire configuration as requested by the Royal Dutch Marines and Denmark.

The SFW (Special Forces Weapon) Diemaco’s Crown Jewel

The British Special Forces began a search for a weapon that would replace their problematic SA80 assault rifles, holding trials for a potential replacement. Three of the finalists were the Heckler & Koch G36, SIG 500 series rifle and the Diemaco produced SFW (Special Forces Weapon). Because the British Army would not accept contractors who had been in bankruptcy within 10 years, Colt was disqualified from the trials. The winner was the Diemaco SFW. This was only the starting point. The weapon that would be supplied to the British Special Forces would be a highly customized and refined carbine.

Based on the accuracy requirement, it could not be made with a 14-1/2 inch barrel. In order to maintain accuracy, Diemaco produced a 15.8 inch heavy barrel. The barrel was heavy only between the chamber and front sight to provide a rigid mounting platform for add-ons and a greater heat sink for sustained firing. Furthermore, the heavy section and addition of a front barrel sleeve changed the vibration modes of the barrel when firing. Part of the requirement was light weight; however there was a trade off for accuracy that enabled the required accuracy to be met. There was another benefit: an increase in terminal performance over the 14-1/2 inch barrel. By increasing the velocity from 865m/s of the shorter barrel to the 895m/s of the SFW barrel there was an increase in penetration, range and terminal performance. The SFW were also equipped with a KAC RAS system.

Another modification was made based on the type of grenade launcher used. The British Special Forces use a Heckler & Koch grenade launcher that attaches to the bayonet lug. It was found that with use, the taper pins would either fall out or snap. When the front sight assembly was replaced, it would crack. Diemaco redesigned the front sight assembly to be made of a solid forging to increase the strength to deal with the grenade launcher.

This version has been sold in other configurations as well to other military and law enforcement customers. They may be found with standard handguards and standard front sight assemblies as well. An additional model is the SFSW (Special Forces Support Weapon) which has an even heavier barrel designed for the increased firing schedule. These come equipped with a RAS, vertical pistol grip, FAL-style carrying handle, bipod as well as a hydraulic rate reducing buffer (similar to that used in the LSW).

The C8CQB (Close Quarters Battle)

Many special operations units, both military and police, spend a lot of time in urban environments in close quarters scenarios. These include entries into buildings and caves which make longer barreled weapons clumsy and hard to move under cover and around corners. To answer this demand, Diemaco added another member to their C8 family of weapons, the C8CQB. This utilizes a 10 inch barrel with a Vortex flash suppressor. Other than the shorter barrel, it is identical to the rest of the C8 family of weapons. This is the only weapon that Diemaco puts in the rubber “D” ring extractor insert to increase extractor force to aid in reliability and may be equipped with a silencer (suppressor) as well. On these small entry guns the optic of choice is the reflex-type sights such as the Eotech holographic sight or the Trijicon ACOG reflex sight.

The C7 and C8 CT (Custom Tactical)

Many accurized versions of the AR-15/M16 weapon system are available at this time. The most notable being the Mk12 MOD 0/1 rifle in use by the United States Special Operations Command. Due to the inherent accuracy of this weapon system, it is possible with little effort to get a match grade barrel and have it shooting sub-moa at 100 meters. This degree of accuracy has both military and law enforcement applications. Diemaco produces two basic versions of accurized rifles/carbines.

The C7CT (Custom Tactical) is a highly modified C7A1. This rifle has a 20-inch heavy non-chrome lined, hammer forged barrel with an aluminum free floated barrel handguard. The barrel is designed to take a removable noise/flash suppressor very similar to that of the Mk12 MOD 0/1. To enhance accuracy, the rifle has a two stage trigger and titanium firing pin. The upper receiver has a flat top upper receiver with either a mil-std-1913 rail or the Canadian Weaver rail. Often the scope is attached to a Triad scope base to allow other devices to be attached. The buttstock is fitted with a removable weight to counter balance the additional weight of the heavy barrel. A bipod and sling swivels are also standard equipment. Additionally, a modified pistol grip is used to enhance performance. The maximum effective range with Canadian C77 ball ammunition is approximately 600 meters.

The C8CT is the carbine version which offers the same benefits but with a 16 inch barrel and a telescopic stock. The stock is modified with an adjustable butt pad. Due to the shorter barrel the maximum effective range is 400 meters.

Conclusions

Although not available in the United States, Diemaco produces one of the finest M16-type weapons in the world. What truly sets Diemaco aside from the rest of the manufacturers of this weapon is their diversity and ability to customize to the customers’ specifications. The weapons covered in these pages are but a small sample of what Diemaco produces. Many variations have been made at the request of their customers. Diemaco has taken the standard M16A2 and moved ahead with refinements and modifications of their own design.

Due to the Canadian Governments licensing agreement with Colt, the market place for Diemaco is limited. However, this is a company to be taken very seriously and if available to a customer, should be looked at very closely.

The author would like to thank Matt Kirkpatrick, Kelly Stumpf and Ian Anderson of Diemaco for their assistance with this series. Additionally, Mr. Andrew Weber of Armament Technology.

During the Second World War, Germany fielded a number of new weapons produced from simple sheet metal stampings. The German 9mm MP40 machine pistol was the first successful sheet metal weapon to be made in large numbers followed by the German MG42 machine gun, and the Sturmgewehr. The MP40 weapon started a world revolution in small arms design. The methods and materials used allowed weapons to be manufactured cheaply and very quickly in large numbers – very advantageous during a large scale war. Weapons manufactured by these methods proved as durable as their labor-intensive counterparts made primarily of milled steel. One of the first designs fielded by the Allies was the 9mm British Sten Mark I in 1941. This was soon followed by the even more utilitarian Mark II and III Sten models.

Seeing the benefits of such a design, the United States Ordnance Department began to develop a similar submachine gun that was to be fabricated from mild steel sheet metal. After an in-depth study of the German MP40 and the British Sten by the Ordnance Department engineers, the requirements for a similar U.S. weapon were established on 6 February 1941. Development began by the Small Arms Development Branch of the Ordnance Department with assistance from the Inland Division of the General Motors Corporation. One of the first new submachine gun models to be designed was the T15 submachine gun. The T15 was a .45 caliber weapon that featured a straight open-bolt blow back operation commonly used in most submachine gun designs. The T15 quickly evolved into the simplified T20 model after several requirements were revised. One of the design changes was the elimination of semiautomatic function, and a requirement for the weapon to be easily converted to fire 9mm Parabellum ammunition. Because of the slow cyclic rate of the weapon it was decided that there was no need for a semiautomatic feature thus allowing the design to be further simplified.

The T20 had one very unique design feature that separated it from all other submachine guns of the day. On virtually all previous submachine gun designs, the bearing surfaces of the bolt would move forward and rearward supported by the inside surfaces of the receiver. On the T20 weapon, the bolt was designed with two horizontal holes that ran through the entire length of the bolt. The bolt then rode on two steel rods that were inserted into the holes, and were held in place by a steel plate oriented by two holes located in the rear of the receiver. Each guide rod had its own separate recoil spring. The steel guide rods were supported at the front by a steel guide plate that was indexed in the receiver by two integral tabs on the plate. A spring steel circular clip kept the bolt, guide rods and recoil spring assembly together until the barrel could be screwed onto the receiver. The front guide plate was secured to the receiver by the tightening of the barrel nut assembly. The primary advantage to the design was that the bolt never contacted the inside surfaces of the receiver. The unique arrangement made the T20 submachine gun nearly impervious to stoppages from dust, mud water or even sand. The T20 was one of the few weapons that was able to successfully pass the Ordnance Department’s rigorous mud and dust tests.

The receiver design of the U.S. T20 prototypes also differed radically from other submachine guns that used a simple circular tube for the basic receiver. When a tube receiver was used, a separate housing for containing the trigger and sear assembly needed to be designed and attached to the main tube. This would complicate manufacture somewhat as the two pieces would need to be accurately oriented to each other. In the design of the T20, the receiver was constructed by joining two separate stamped sheet metal pieces by welding. The receiver, the housing for the trigger and sear assembly, and pistol grip were all an integral part of the single assembly. The only other separate parts required were a dust cover/ejector housing for the trigger mechanism and a simple spring steel trigger guard that also held the cover in place. Other parts like the barrel bushing, sights and ejection port cover were attached to the receiver assembly by rivets or welding, no threaded fasteners were used.

The method of manufacturing barrels was borrowed from the British, who produced their Sten machine carbine barrels by the cold swaging method. The M3 barrel was also manufactured by cold swaging, a process that saved a significant amount of production hours. The steel tubing for the barrel would first be reamed to the correct inside diameter. The rifling would then be pressed into the barrel by inserting a mandrel and compressing the tube as it was forced through the die. The 40-inch piece of tubing would then be cut in sections to produce five M3 barrels. This barrel making process was much faster and less expensive than broaching or other methods. Accuracy of fire remained well within the requirements established by the U.S. Ordnance Department for submachine guns.

The T20 was recommended for adoption as the Caliber .45 Submachine Gun, M3 on December 24, 1942. The contract for manufacture of the M3 was awarded to the Guide Lamp Division of General Motors who were experts in sheet steel fabrication for the automobile industry. However, there were several problems encountered during initial manufacture of the M3. One of the problems was being able to accurately join the two receiver halves together by welding. A second problem was the thin sheet metal receiver halves were warping from the heat generated by the welding process. While Company and Ordnance engineers were engaged in resolving these problems, the Ordnance Department ordered the resumption of M1A1 Thompson Submachine Gun production.

The original M3 submachine gun production schedule had planned for 20,000 units to be produced by July 1943, but only 900 acceptable units had been completed. Before long the welding problems of the receiver were solved and the M3 was in full production. At the height of production in 1944 one-thousand M3 submachine guns were being produced every twenty-four hours.

The Guide Lamp initial contract price for the manufacture of the U.S. M3 was $18.36 per unit after being adjusted to cover the cost of minor production changes, and the packing of the completed units. There were a large number of subcontractors involved that supplied various small parts to Guide Lamp. The only major part that was subcontracted out was the bolt assembly, which was manufactured by the Buffalo Arms Company of New York. The manufacture of the M3 submachine gun was further simplified with the introduction of the M3A1 model in 1945.

While the unique design of the M3-M3A1 receiver made the weapons extraordinarily reliable, the design of the magazine proved problematic. It remains a mystery as to why the U.S. M3-M3A1 submachine gun was not configured to use the existing and excellent double stack-double feed magazine from the Thompson. The Thompson magazine was a proven design and already in production. Instead, the 30-cartridge M3-M3A1 magazine was a double stack, single feed design that contributed to stoppages when exposed to dust and mud. The single feed configuration had previously proved troublesome when used in both the British Sten and the German MP40 weapons. While the M3 was undergoing Ordnance testing, virtually all jams and stoppages were attributed to the weapon’s magazine. During testing of the M3 by the Infantry Board, they had suggested a few ways to improve the magazine’s reliability, but the problems were never addressed. The only fix was a rubber and eventually a plastic cap to keep dirt and debris out of the magazine. The cap was to be kept on the magazine until it was ready to be placed into the weapon.

Although many martial arms collectors of today are put off by the U.S. M3 and M3A1 submachine gun’s appearance and slow cyclic rate, the weapons were very cleverly designed. The M3-M3A1 has often unjustly received criticism based solely on its utilitarian toy-like appearance. The M3 and M3A1 submachine gun remained in U.S. service many years after most foreign and domestic World War II era weapons were declared obsolete.

Editor’s Note: This wraps up Robert Bruce’s three part series on military robots with a quick look at some current systems and then some crystal ball gazing. For those who are wondering why a “gun magazine” is devoting so much space to electromechanical gizmos and gadgets, we offer the observation that men with guns on the battlefield have always dreamed of ways to be more lethal and survivable. For American and allied forces directly engaged in the Global War on Terror, this dream is an immediate practical concern as a matter of life or death. Most all of the technologies in use and in the pipeline to make robots work better also make the common soldier’s weapons better. From all-weather sights to seeker projectiles, from stabilized mounts to directed energy beams, robotic research profoundly influences manportable weaponry. So, consider these articles a preview of what you’ll probably be reading about in SAR a dozen years from now. – Robert G. Segel

They have no fear, they feel no pain. They need no sleep and they don’t complain. They’re dead shots with a variety of weapons in any kind of weather day or night. And – if killed in action – nobody has to write a letter to their families or pay out life insurance benefits. They’re “weaponized robots” and more of them are on the way to the battlefield.

Nothing New

Unmanned war machines have been around for more than a hundred years. It is said that bomb equipped balloons were launched by both sides in the American Civil War with the object of causing destruction behind enemy lines. Land and sea mines are primitive autonomous weapons, waiting with infinite patience until bumped into.

The “Kettering Bug,” a bomb-carrying biplane with pre-set robotic controls, was flight tested by Americans late in WWI. German scientists picked up the idea and two decades later were sending robot ramjets against London in the form of V-1 “Buzz Bombs.”

In the 1950’s the US Air Force began arming jet fighters with Sparrow AIM-7 rockets, the first “fire and forget” weapons for air-to-air combat. In the Vietnam War “Firebee” AQM-34L recon drones saved countless numbers of American airmen by flying photo and electronic recon missions over Hanoi and Haiphong. It proved particularly useful at pinpointing both conventional anti-aircraft weapons and the increasingly deadly surface-to-air missiles supplied by the Soviet Union.

The Tomahawk Cruise Missile, initially fielded in 1983, is still flying extraordinary distances over hostile terrain to deliver high explosive payloads with pinpoint accuracy.

Building on the work of Israeli forces in the use of very small recon aircraft, America adopted the Pioneer UAV in time for the 1990-91 Gulf War. There, the 416 pound drone earned the distinction of being the first robot to accept the surrender of enemy combatants.

“The USS Wisconsin deliberately flew its Pioneer low over Faylaka Island. When the Iraqi defenders heard the sound of the UAV’s two-cycle engine, they knew they were targeted for more naval shelling. The Iraqis signaled surrender by waving handkerchiefs, undershirts and bed sheets.” American Forces Press Service

Why Robots?

The United States Armed Forces enjoy significant technological superiority over current and near future adversaries. This, serving highly trained and motivated warfighters, enables Americans to dominate almost any battlespace day or night and in any weather. But too many of the tasks that must be performed involve putting humans at unnecessary risk. Of course, combat has always involved degrees of risk and resulting casualties, but there is no excuse for sending men into a meat grinder when machines will do as well or better.

Robots in their many current and emerging forms offer a lot to human counterparts in the combat zone. Just about any tactical task – from hauling supplies, to reconnaissance, to the application of lethal force – is now or will soon be done in part or in whole by machines.

A tremendous variety of robots are working right now for American land, sea and air forces. Some of these include crawlers like MATILDA and TALON (recently equipped with weapons), rollers like DRAGON RUNNER, flyers like PREDATOR, and swimmers like RMS. But, as they say, “we ain’t seen nothin’ yet….”

The Science of War

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is central to the application of existing and emerging scientific knowledge to every aspect of human conflict. Its mission is to maintain the technological superiority of the U.S. military and prevent technological surprise from harming our national security. This is done by sponsoring “high payoff research” that bridges the gap between fundamental discoveries and their military use.

A quick glance at some recent programs launched by DARPA, just in the area of Urban Warfighting, shows how cutting-edge science is being applied to some very practical military uses. Contractors have been given six to twelve months to present “feasibility demonstrations” for 36 highly intriguing concepts, including these with distinctly robotic overtones:

• Firefight Aerial Sensor and Mapper
• Air-Dropped Vertically Traversable Unmanned Ground Vehicles
• Electroadhesive Wall-Climbing Robot for Three Dimensional Mobility in Urban Environments

“Potential applications for such robots… include surveillance, reconnaissance, pathfinding, deception, weapon delivery, transporting artifacts, and small scale actuation. Applications may include minefield detection wherein small sensors are mounted on hopping robots or robots with multi-task capabilities, intelligence gathering in city pipelines, robots in large numbers for decoy applications, or extremely small robots that might be injected and pick a door lock.” DARPA Distributed Robotics Overview

DARPA’s Distributed Robotics Program is looking for revolutionary approaches to extremely small robots, reconfigurable robots, systems of robots, biologically-inspired designs, innovative methods of robot controlling including innovative interfaces, and methods of implementing pooled capabilities and/or layered intelligence. We can get a better idea about what all that means by looking at some specific projects funded by DARPA and actually being worked on right now by various groups in industry, academia and high-speed science labs.

• Robot Sentries. “Sandia’s Intelligent Systems & Robotics Center is developing and testing a robotic perimeter detection system for Small Unit Operations. The objective is to demonstrate the viability of using a cooperative team of robotic sentry vehicles to investigate alarms from intrusion detection sensors. This cooperative team concept can significantly reduce the workload and increase the effectiveness of a single warfighter in the battlefield. ”Sandia National Laboratories
• Autonomous Army Ants. SWARM (Smart Warfighter Array of Reconfigurable Modules) “DARPA Software for Distributed Robotics (SDR) program is developing robot behavior and software to enable very large groups of very small, very inexpensive robots to perform useful tasks. SDR will allow human operators to control robot ‘swarms’ without having to consider what each individual robot is doing. ”DARPA Strategic Plan
• Combat Crabs. “Modeled after a crab, Aerial II ALUV (Autonomous Legged Underwater Vehicle) is designed to remove mines and obstacles on land and underwater in the surf zone. Its unique brand of legged locomotion capitalizes on a crab’s agility, stability, and efficiency and will allow Aerial to scramble over obstacles and crevices that traditional wheeled vehicles would find insurmountable.” iRobot Corporation

Future Combat Systems

The US Army is going through the agonizing process of “Transformation” from heavy forces structured for large scale conflict against conventional adversaries to those that are light, fast, flexible, and far more lethal. All types of robots are a big part of that transformation.

“Future Combat Systems (FCS) is catalyzing the Army’s transformation to the Objective Force. It will be a networked system-of-systems that includes manned and unmanned ground vehicles, along with various unmanned air vehicles. The goal is to develop Units of Action that have the lethality and survivability of an M1-based (Abrams tank) heavy force, but with the agility of today’s light forces.” DARPA Strategic Plan

In addition to a family of manned vehicles, FCS, as currently envisioned, will include four distinct types of ground robot platforms.

• NLOS-LS (Non-Line-of-Sight – Launch System) is a roving robotic mortar carrier.
• ARV (Armed Robotic Vehicle) is a hunter-killer heavy armored car with sophisticated sensors, guided missiles and a high velocity main gun.
• MULE (Multifunction Utility/Logistics and Equipment) is actually several types of vehicles built on a common chassis. Depending on equipment and configuration, it can be a supply carrier, air assault weapons platform, countermine system, and even a autonomous ambulance named “Valkyrie” after the mythical Nordic creatures that flew fallen warriors straight to Valhalla.
• SUGV (Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle) is the only one actually in service now, typified by MATILDA and TALON EOD robots that have been recently upgraded with remote teleoperated weapons platforms.

FCS also includes four classes of unmanned air vehicles ranging from small model plane style recon flyers used at the platoon and company level, through larger fixed wing and rotary wing recon, to the potential for flying an Apache-type robot helicopter with air-to-ground and air-to-air attack capabilities

Lethality Components

With directed energy weaponry including lasers and focused microwaves developing at a high speed, it is now fashionable in future combat circles to talk about “lethality components” as opposed to the old term “guns” used by men and machines. Some other interesting new concepts include:

• Electrothermal. “An electrothermal gun uses electrical energy to heat a propellant that is allowed to expand rapidly to create a force on the ordnance. The force is capable of accelerating a projectile to high speeds thermodynamically.” Federation of American Scientists
• Magnetic. “It’s the fastest gun in the world,” says physicist Marcus Knudson, lead scientist on Sandia’s magnetic propulsion project. “At 20 kilometers per second… would send material from New York to Boston in half a minute.” Sandia National Laboratories News Release
• Metal Storm. “Our electronic ballistics system (demonstrating a 40mm multi-tube array on the TALON robot) has no mechanical parts and provides a lightweight, compact weapon which carries a payload of sixteen shots, ten more than the existing alternative. The system is capable of variable rates of fire, selected and fired by remote control. We intend to undertake further development of the Metal Storm system with a view to increasing the payload to 48 shots.” Mike O’Dwyer, Director of Scientific Innovation, Metal Storm
• Smart Munitions. These are already being widely used in the form of artillery shells and “smart bombs” like JDAM that ride beams from laser designators to impact with uncanny precision. So, why not more, smarter and smaller versions that don’t need a designator? “These smart munitions could be defensive or offensive, be vehicle-mounted on the various Future Combat Systems manned and unmanned vehicles, and/or be carried by the Objective Force Warrior or future warriors. Quick-reaction fire-and-forget miniature smart munitions would improve lethality against enemy vehicles and personnel….” US Army Space and Missile Defense Command

Death From Above

“DARPA is conducting three unmanned air combatant programs: the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) with the Air Force, UCAV-N with the Navy, and the Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft with the Army. These aircraft will be teamed with manned systems on the ground and in the air….” DARPA Strategic Plan

The Navy and Air Force UCAVs are basically unmanned fighter jets with most of the same characteristics and capabilities as the ones that human pilots are flying in now. The program is progressing quickly and early versions are taking off without human aid, navigating on their own, doing high-value recon, and releasing “smart” ordnance in flight.

As for the Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft, this will be “an all-weather, highly autonomous and survivable unmanned rotorcraft fully integrated into the Army’s Objective Force combat maneuver force structure. Capable of autonomous mission planning while in flight, the UCAR will request guidance from a human operator only for tasking and final weapons authorization.” Boeing News Release

Man-in-the-Loop

DARPA recognizes that, as hard as it is oftentimes for people to work together, a lot of sober thought and hard work needs to go into optimizing man-machine teams of the near future. Studies are underway to analyze how humans act, think and communicate and how robots might be equipped to handle our very different levels of physical and mental competence.

Increasingly smart robots will be working with humans whose baseline intelligence has not measurably improved in the last thousand years. Undaunted, DARPA is pressing forward with some spooky initiatives that just may have a payoff in helping scared, exhausted and information-overloaded soldiers work smarter and hit harder on future battlefields.

• Brain Boosters. “Our Augmented Cognition program looks to directly (but non-invasively) measure human cognitive load so that information may be presented to the warfighter or commander in a way that does not overload human cognition when mental processes are pressed to the limit, and that takes advantage of spare ‘processing power.’ This will make those working under high-pressure circumstances much more effective, and will fundamentally change the nature of the human-machine interface, finally creating interfaces that adapt to the user rather than the other way around.”DARPA Strategic Plan
• Brain Machine Interface. Kicking augmented cognition up several notches, we find DARPA eagerly pursuing the eerie goal of making something happen just by thinking about it. “This program is finding ways to detect and directly decode signals in the brain so that thoughts can be turned into acts performed by a machine. The long-term Defense implications… are enormous; imagine U.S. warfighters that only need use the power of their thoughts to do things at great distance.” DARPA Strategic Plan

Command and control aren’t the only areas of human-robot interaction that DARPA is interested in. Improving the soldier’s comfort, stamina, load-lifting, distance-marching, lethality, communications, and survivability are urgent goals so that men can keep pace with their machines.

• Bionic Man. “The overall goal of the Exoskeletons for Human Performance Augmentation (EHPA) Program is to develop devices and machines that will increase the speed, strength, and endurance of soldiers in combat environments. Projects will lead to self-powered, controlled and wearable exoskeletal devices and/or machines and demonstrations of their utility in military applications. Inclusion of exoskeleton technology into land-based operations could potentially increase the capabilities of the ground-based warfighter and radically alter the current military doctrine.”DARPA Defense Sciences Office
• Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN). A nanometer is one billionth of a meter, a length scale where the rules of classical physics don’t readily apply. ISN researchers aim to “…create a 21st century battlesuit that combines high-tech capabilities with light weight and comfort. Imagine a bulletproof jumpsuit, no thicker than ordinary spandex, that monitors health, eases injuries, communicates automatically, and maybe even lends superhuman abilities.” ISN

So, if all goes as planned over the next ten to twenty years the battlefields will swarm with armed robots of all types working for and with super soldiers. With luck this unstoppable team will be on the side of the good guys.

The internet has everything you need to know about Robotic Warriors of all types. Some good places to start are:

• Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International: www.auvsi.org
• Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: www.darpa.mil
• Department of Defense Joint Robotics Program: www.jointrobotics.com
• Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies: http://web.mit.edu/isn/
• MACHINEBRAIN.COM: www.machinebrain.com
• Sandia FIRE ANT in action: www.sandia.gov/isrc/fireant.html

As early as 1889, Imperial Russia ordered for trial purpose 12 Maxim machine guns chambered for the black-powder “4.2-line” 10.6x58R Russian Service Berdan cartridge. These early weapons were imported from the British company Maxim Nordenfelt Gun & Ammunition Company Ltd (MNG&ACL). Following these trials, the first Maxim machine guns adopted for operational service were for the Imperial Russian Navy, and were still chambered for the 10.6x58R cartridges.

According to the other contemporary Maxim belts, the fabric belts for the Russian Navy should have had a total capacity of 334 rounds, although the author has so far not examined any complete specimens. The belt is composed of two strips of webbing fixed together by means of riveted brass spacers, thereafter generating the pockets to accommodate the cartridges. A long spacer is installed after every three pockets to insure maintaining a correct seat of the ammunition when the belt is stacked in its transport crate. Both ends of the belt are fitted with starters composed of two flat brass tabs riveted together and are intended to facilitate the introduction of the belt into the feed mechanism.

The very rare specimen observed is a 13-round sample belt kept for reference purposes by the Vickers Company and, hopefully, still survives today. Markings are “RUS V” suspected to mean “Russian Vickers” as well as an inspection mark of the Crayford facility (C/8).

The early Model 1895 machine guns in caliber 7.62x54R.

Immediately following the adoption in 1891 of the “3-line” 7.62x54R Russian cartridge loaded with smokeless powder, the first five Maxim machine guns chambered for that new caliber were tested as early as 1892. In May 1895, the Maxim machine gun chambered for the 7.62x54R cartridge was officially adopted for service as fortress armament bearing the designation of Model 1895. These early machine guns were fitted on a heavy wheeled carriage with large armor shield. In 1896, the Vickers Sons & Maxim Company (VSM) received an order for 174 Model 1895 machine guns chambered for 7.62x54R. This order probably corresponds to the entries in the Vickers Register of Guns for 1897 where 179 guns are referenced with the caliber denoted as “RSB”. Although it has been previously suspected among knowledgeable researchers that this should stand for “Russian Service Berdan” and therefore be in caliber 10.6x58R, Russian sources indicate these were in caliber 7.62x54R. In that case, it is supposed that the “RSB” reference could rather stand for “Russian Service Board.”

According to the size of the early standard wooden ammunition box that can accommodate a 334-round belt with 10.6mm cartridges, the new capacity of the belts for the smaller 7.62x54R rounds was extended to 450 rounds. Unfortunately, the author has never managed, so far, to come across any of these early British-imported 450-round belts of the Russian contract, and accordingly their particularities and markings remain unknown.

In 1897 a first batch of 224 additional machine guns were ordered from the German company Ludwig Loewe, which later became the Deutsches Waffen und Munition Fabrik (DWM). In total, approximately 1,500 weapons were imported from Germany between 1897 and at least 1903. It is supposed that the accompanying ammunition feed belts were probably the standard German capacity of 250 rounds only.

The Russian Model 1905 and 1910 machine guns in caliber 7.62x54R

The first Maxim weapons locally produced in Russia under Vickers (VSM) license are referenced as Model 1905. It is during that year that the first batch of 28 machine guns locally made in Russia came off of the production lines, followed in 1906 by another batch of 73 weapons. In March 1906, a comparative trial was conducted between 3 ammunition belts imported from England and the very first 4 prototype fabric belts assembled in Russia. These first tests showed that the Russian belts were woven too close, which led to misfires. Further investigations finally concluded that the best material suited for the manufacture of the belts was a braid from a Riga textile factory. It is suspected that the early Russian belts had a capacity of 250 rounds only according to that of the belts already imported with the weapons from Germany and also according to the length which became standard among other contemporary Maxim users. In the period 1905-1908, a total of 1,376 machines guns of Model 1905 were produced. While the improved and lightened version of the weapon was adopted under the designation of Model 1910, the accompanying ammunition belts are suspected to have remained unchanged. So far, the earliest belt of local Russian production examined is dated 1910 and the author would be grateful to any reader who might report any earlier date.

The belts of early Russian production are fitted with both starter tags and spacers made of brass. According to the size of the Russian 7.62x54R cartridge, the total length of the long spacers installed every three pockets is 58.5mm. The starter tags are marked with the year of production (expressed with 4 digits) and the Imperial Russian Coat of Arms. The numbering of the cartridge pockets every 10 rounds is printed in tens with usually purple ink (markings ranging from 1 to 25). This cartridge numbering feature is less systematically observed for belts manufactured after the revolution of 1917. The assembly of the two brass plates of the starter tags is made only with a single rivet situated at the end of the tag.

A scarce German DWM belt has been examined bearing most of these Russian unique features and is suspected of having been imported to Russia around 1906-1910 while complying with the official Russian patterns. Both spacers and starter tags are made of brass. The long spacers have a total length of 58.5mm and are assembled by a hollow rivet, which complies with the Russian patterns. This has never been observed on any other DWM production which always relied on solid steel rivets. The assembly of the starter tags fitted at both ends of the belt relies on the German pattern with three hollow rivets; whereas the Russian pattern only involves one rivet. The starter tags are marked with the manufacturer’s initials D.W.M. and are not dated. The cartridge pockets are numbered every 10 rounds, with only the value of the tens (numbers ranging from 1 to 25) being printed with black ink on the fabric. The style of the figures inked does exactly correspond to that found on contemporary DWM belts issued to the German Army. As a matter of summary, for belts with DWM marked starter tags, the total length of the long spacers, the hollow rivet assembling the end of the long spacers and the numbering of the cartridge pockets every 10 rounds are all key features that enable to tell apart these German belts intended for export to Russia. It is suspected that these DWM belts might have been part of an export contract to Russia which also involved the delivery of 7.62x54R Model 1891 round-nosed ammunition from Germany around 1906.

The geometric constitution of these 250-round fabric belts remained unchanged until the latest productions observed up to 1947. Only variants in markings or in the materials used have been examined.

After the revolution of 1917, the first productions of the Soviet era remain fitted with brass spacers and brass starters. The markings are obviously devoid of the Imperial Coat of Arms and only show the year of manufacture expressed with the last 3 digits only. The earliest post Imperial-era belt observed so far is dated 1920 (marking 920).

From the middle of the 1930’s on, the brass starters were replaced by zinc-coated steel ones, which proved mechanically more resilient. The spacers remained, however, usually made of brass. This standard pattern has been observed at least up to 1947 production.

Wartime production belts (1939-1945) are sometimes found with both starters and spacers made of gray phosphated steel. Starters are often undated and bear various small inspection stamps and sometimes a manufacturer’s logo. For example, a belt marked with a “3” in a triangle has been observed, which denotes production at the Tula arsenal. An unusual specimen which seems dated 1944 has been observed with brass spacers and copper plated steel starters, but its origin remains uncertain.

The career of the Model 1910 Maxims continued well after the end of the Second World War. From the end of the 1940’s on, continuous metal belts have been standardized for use with Maxims, SG-43 and RP-46 machine guns. These belts with a capacity of 250 rounds are composed of metallic pockets joined together with coiled steel springs. Each end of the belt is fitted with a long starter tag with curved end to facilitate the gripping. Although similar metallic belts were tested as early as 1940 for use with the DS-39 machine guns, and were also used in some combat with SG-43s since 1944, it seems that large scale production did not begin before the end of WW2. Russian sources indicate that although a modified feed-block for the Maxim Model 1910 was designed during WW2 to cope with both fabric and metal belts, the quantity of fabric belts available in stock was so huge that this modification was finally not made on wartime weapons. World War II dated photographs showing Model 1910 Maxims fed with metallic belts have not been observed so far by the author.

The air cooled Maxim-Tokarev Model 1925 light machine gun.

In the middle of the 1920’s an air cooled light machine gun in caliber 7.62x54R was designed at the Tula arsenal and was adopted as the Maxim-Tokarev machine gun Model 1925. Standard production of the weapon started at Tula in November 1925 and, by 1927, a total of 2,500 weapons had been manufactured. These light machine guns were designed to use the same 250-round fabric belt as those for the heavy water cooled Model 1910 Maxims. However, following the principle used by the German MG 08/15 during the First World War, the Russians also designed a belt drum which accommodates a 100-round belt for these Maxim-Tokarev guns. Only very few photographs depict these belt drums and it remains unclear as to how the drum is fastened to the gun itself. It also seems that these drums are fitted with an internal spool around which the belt is wound up and therefore took example on the design of the German Gurttrommel of MG 08/15. Photographs however state that both drums are externally different. Russian sources indicate that the 100-round belts used with those drums were simply shortened 250-round standard belts. Although very large quantities, if not all, of those Maxim-Tokarev light machine guns were exported to Spain during the Civil War in 1937-1938, it seems that the belt drums were not included in the shipments since no such item has ever been commonly reported from Spain so far.

The air cooled aircraft Maxim PV-1.

An air cooled fast-firing aircraft machine gun was investigated at Tula arsenal since 1923. This weapon was formally adopted by the air force in 1928 as PV-1 and a total of more than 17,800 weapons were produced between 1926 and 1940. This aircraft weapon was primarily designed to be fed with disintegrating metallic links. Although the design of the very first prototype links developed before 1930 is not known, in the later years the disintegrating metallic links used with the Maxim PV-1 were the same as those used with the ShKAS aircraft machine guns. Two major variants are identified: one seldom encountered which is completely smooth, and the most common bearing a set of ribs. Some of these aircraft Maxim PV-1s also found their way into the Spanish Civil War and some photographs show them heavily reworked and reissued for ground use fed either with metal disintegrating links or fabric belts.

Acknowledgements :

Special acknowledgments are due to the late Herb Woodend who spent hours searching through piles of Russian fabric belts to retrieve some of the variants presented in this article. The author is also very grateful to Mr. Kooger and Wanting (the Netherlands) and Bob Faris (USA) for their useful comments.

Editor’s Note:The U.S. Army’s Program Executive Officer Soldier is responsible for virtually everything the soldier wears and carries in a tactical environment, integrating more than 370 programs from thermal underwear to thermobaric munitions. Three Project Managers help carry out this enormous responsibility – Soldier Warrior, Soldier Equipment and Soldier Weapons. PM Soldier Weapons, the focus of this feature, supports soldiers through enhancement of current systems and development of next-generation weapons technology. Among the exciting initiatives at PMSW may be found: • XM8 Modular Assault Weapon System (Now OICW Increment I) • XM25 Airburst Weapon System • XM26 Modular Assault Shotgun System • XM307 Advanced Crew Served Weapon (25mm) • XM312 Advanced Crew Served Weapon (.50 caliber) • XM320 Grenade Launcher Module • XM110 Semiautomatic Sniper System • XM101 Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station. The following interviews were conducted on 17 May 2005 in Atlantic City, New Jersey, where Colonel Smith and his team were key participants in NDIA’s International Infantry and Joint Services Small Arms Symposium. – Robert G. Segel

1. Colonel Michael J. Smith, Project Manager for Soldier Weapons (PMSW). Background: Colonel Michael J. Smith was born in Washington, DC and grew up in Booneville, Mississippi. He received a Regular Army commission in the Ordnance Corps from the ROTC program at Mississippi State University in 1980 where he earned a Bachelor of Science in Nuclear Engineering. He holds a Master of Science in Engineering Science from the Naval Postgraduate School and was also awarded a Masters in Strategic Studies from the Army War College. His present assignment is Project Manager Soldier Weapons at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey.

SAR: When did you start as PMSW?

Smith: August 2nd 2002.

SAR: What do you consider the most significant achievement during your tenure?

Smith: It’s difficult to point to any one program. The bottom line is the most significant achievement is taking care of soldiers. I think we’ve done that, it’s been our focus, both supplying them with current weapons and developing new capabilities for them. I think we’ve done a good job of that. We’ve had the opportunity with the Rapid Fielding Initiative, with all the small arms fielding in the last few years, to reach out and touch going on to four hundred thousand soldiers. That is a significant achievement that is almost unparalleled and I can’t think of a single time when we’ve done that in such a short time since Vietnam.

SAR: How has this come about?

Smith: One way certainly is that we’re driven, like everybody else is, by the happenings in 9/11 where the US started its Global War on Terror and there was a shift. Before, the platforms were things like tanks, helicopters and field artillery pieces. But now the primary platform is the soldier with his rifle, the soldier behind the machine gun. That certainly shifted the emphasis into the small arms arena. That was the thing that has driven us, to why we’ve gotten the increase in funding, why we went out to reach so many soldiers.

Basically we were working on weapons – designs and often the weapons themselves – that were decades old. And so it was time to look at revitalizing the whole small arms industry, revitalizing the Army relative to what we gave our soldiers.

And then you lay on top of that what’s happening now as we “modulize” our units and reformat them to support this Global War on Terror. That modularity has significant increases in small arms requirements, translating into giving them more product.

SAR: What’s your next assignment?

Smith: I will become the Director of the Armaments Engineering Technology Center.

SAR: Parting thoughts?

Smith: I had a great team. There’s no way we could have done this without the team. When we started out we had thirty people. Now we’ve tripled in size and brought the right people on to do the jobs and all their vision and hard work has certainly been the key to our success.

2. Lieutenant Colonel Matthew T. Clarke, Product Manager for Individual Weapons. The PMIW team maintains and improves current individual weapons such as rifles, carbines, pistols, and grenade launchers, providing soldiers with a decisive overmatch by increasing lethality, range and capability. It also develops next generation individual weapons such as the XM29 Integrated Airburst Weapon System as well as fully integrated day and night target acquisition fire controls.

SAR: The 12 gauge XM26 Modular Assault Shotgun System (MASS) was supposed to be out in March (2005) and we’re sure the guys out in the field would like to have that. What’s going on?

Clarke: Our original goal was to award that contract by the end of March and we had a couple of hiccups that precluded us from doing that. Number one – probably the biggest – was availability of ammo to do our bid sample testing. Ammunition arrived a couple weeks late and once you have a delay its kind of additive. We had to regroup our bid sample evaluation program since we did have soldiers in the loop. So we had to reschedule a couple of events. It really caused us a good three or three and a half weeks slip just doing that piece alone.

That was the biggest piece. We also ran into some issues with our bid samples. We informed the contractors and let them come in and modify a little bit so we could continue and finish our testing. So we have not completed the total evaluation yet but I expect that to be done the next couple of days. My expectation now is we will award the contract within the next two weeks.

SAR: That’s a down-select for the particular weapon?

Clarke: That is correct. And from there once we award the contract we’ll initiate a start work meeting with the contractor – the vendor who will provide. We’ll establish what our expected delivery schedule is going to be and we’ll deliver samples – systems – to go into testing. We will do a full DT, Developmental Test, and Operational Test against this.

SAR: A ballpark figure on when the MASS might be type classified and begin fielding?

Clarke: I have to work out the schedule with the test community. Usually I go through what’s called the TSARC (Test Schedule and Review Committee) process, to get soldiers in a test location and to get the operational test locked into schedule. That’s a six month event and – obviously – we’re in jeopardy a little bit because of our slip thus far. But my expectation is that, within a year we’ll be able to start fielding. Twelve months after contract award. (Editor’s Note: The XM26 MASS has been awarded to C-More Competition, Manassas, Virginia, in a contract signed on 20 June 2005)

SAR: Heckler & Koch won the competition for the XM320 Grenade Launcher Module. Any idea when we’ll see the first unit equipped?

Clarke: Depending on their strategy – whether or not we can do a kind of concurrent Operational Test along with our Developmental Test to curtail our schedule by overlapping these – my expectation is probably end of the first or second quarter ’06.

SAR: Does this come under the heading of spiral development?

Clarke: No, spiral development really deals with spiraling out technology, not exactly how you test it. Typically our testing is done in a linear fashion. What I’m going to try to do is overlap the different test events to shorten the overall schedule. And that’s not unheard of, we’ve done that before in the past.

SAR: Because of the urgency?

Clarke: That’s correct. Number one because of the urgency and desire to field. Number two, the system we selected is a relatively mature system. It’s not a new system. It’s been fielded before to different countries, even the United States. We’ve procured some of their systems before, for some of our special operations units. So it’s now a matter of me convincing the test community to accept outside data, to accept data from other government agencies that support SOCOM (Special Operations Command). This will help me go to the milestone decision authority and prove to them we’re ready to move down the road with the program.

SAR: What’s happening with the 25mm XM25 Airburst Weapon System?

Clarke: We’ve built systems, we’ve built fire controls, we’ve built weapons, and we’ve built ammunition. We’re shooting ammunition; our TPs (target practice) – just basic slugs – and our HEABs (high explosive air burst). Now they’re not our full up lethal HEABs, because we didn’t pack ‘em with the full explosive. It’s more of a spotter type round than it is a true lethal round. But we’re doing that to test our capability of programming the round and making it burst exactly where we want it to burst. Filling in the explosive is the easy piece.

We’ve been very successful with this integrated system where fire control rules with respect to capability. Fire control “talks” to the ammunition and of course, the soldier operates the fire control. Can a soldier identify a target, correctly lase to the target to get a good ballistic solution? Can a fire control convert that data to a ballistic solution for the ammunition and then transfer that information to the round and then launch the round and have the round execute the information that it was provided? Thus far we’re finding that we’re very successful. We’re within a meter of burst from the point of aim – our target – so we’ve been very happy with that.

We’ve found that our aim error is much lower than we expected it to be – much lower. This comes from testing at ARL (Army Research Lab) using real soldiers in the loop to do the aim error evaluation and real soldiers moving out on the target field. So they’re lasing against other soldiers – moving as well as stationary – and proving to be very, very accurate with their ability to lase to the target and get an accurate distance to the target and then formulate that ballistic solution inside the fire control itself.

On the flip side to that, once we have a solution – whatever it is just pick one at random – and then we launch the bullet, we’re finding that the bullet is fairly accurate with exploding or going right to where its is supposed to be with respect to the solution it was given. So we’re pretty happy with that so far.

SAR: Any particular challenges that might slow down fielding?

Clarke: Well yes. We’re coming toward the natural end of the current phase and getting ready to transition to SDD, System Development Demonstration. We have to hit a Milestone B to do that – show up to the table with your test data and prove that you’ve matured the system enough to allow it to transition.

The other requirement is documentation. The OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon) program went through a transformation to the different increments; 1, 2 and 3. The Infantry Center has written the Increment 1 requirement document, the CDD (Capability Developments Document) that has gone through the AROC (Army Requirements Oversight Council) and is going through the JROC (Joint Requirements Oversight Council) staffing right now. That is our standard process that we take.

The Infantry Center is now developing – or I should say redeveloping – the requirement document for Increment 2. So it’s not yet an approved document.

SAR: Redeveloping?

Clarke: Infantry Center is rewriting the requirements of the system to match what work we’ve done and the strategy of Increments 1, 2 and 3. They go through a capabilities analysis, they identify gaps, and they cross level that against the missions that are required to execute and through that they develop the capabilities they need in a weapon system to counter those gaps. To bridge the gaps so they can execute all the sub missions within their overall mission.

They already did this once with the OICW which was the combined system, we broke it up with respect to capabilities. Increment 1 is the KE (kinetic energy) capability, Increment 2 is a stand-alone airburst with a fire control and rounds that go with it. Increment 3 will be once again a marriage of capabilities between the two. It may not necessarily be a marriage of the exact hardware, but of the capabilities that those two increments bring to the table. And hopefully we will improve on them as we get better with technology – we get light or get more distance out of what we’re trying to do, get a little more lethal, because we may have better technology on how to produce our rounds to get a more even spread of burst fragments.

That is probably my biggest “check the block” that I have to accomplish is get an approved Requirements Document so I can go before the Milestone Decision Authority. We are completing what we need to do with respect to the programmatic documents – acquisition strategy, acquisition plan, our test and evaluation master plan, environmental studies, human factor studies, cost analysis, and life cycle. So we’re getting very close to being ready to go in front of the MDA (Milestone Decision Authority), but I need a requirement document – a complete menu so to speak – first.

SAR: What would you like to tell today’s soldiers who are using legacy weapons about what’s on the way from PMSW?

Clarke: First of all terminology – we call these weapons our “current family.” “Legacy” to me is something that’s in the past, that’s no longer there. Our current family is very important to us, just like the work we do with our future family to make sure we get it right. We did that with our current family years ago while we were developing them. And I would say number one, the systems we have out there are world class systems, they’re good and if they weren’t good we wouldn’t have given them to our soldiers. But we are of the philosophy that you can always improve. And it’s our obligation to the soldiers to execute continuous improvement, figure out ways to make them function better on the battlefield. To be safer, to be more lethal, more effective and all that. That’s what I would tell them.

On the other hand I don’t tell them a lot of stuff. I listen to them. I listen to what they need. We send teams all the time – PEO Soldier and the Army in general – to go out to the field to listen to what the soldiers have to say, to see what they’re doing, so we get a better understanding of what they’re doing, what their needs are and we try to meet those needs. And we do it a lot of different ways including RFI, Rapid Fielding Initiative. So things we can get – something out there that is an immediate need and they’re buying it themselves – we’ll take that challenge on and we’ll get the system to start procuring it and then make sure soldiers get it.

With respect to weapons systems, we tend to be conservative. We want to be fast but we want to make sure we do it right. Schedule’s key but even more so to me is getting something that is good and not just something that’s fast. And I think we’re definitely on the path to doing that. The systems we’re working on are definitely going to be more reliable in all environments, they’re definitely going to last longer, they’re definitely going to give the soldier capability and system growth because of modularity, because of parts commonality, because of quick attach and detach type of things like we explained on the shotgun and on the grenade launcher.

And growth is key to us because we don’t just want to put a static system out there so “what you have is what you have until it goes away.” We want to put a system out there that truly is an integrated system, from the fire control or the optics that go on it, eventually to the different types of ammunition that we will fire through it. We want to make sure it integrates well with the soldiers and that soldiers are very effective with it.

And it’s not just a point of getting a system out there and giving it to them. You want to link it to the soldier so it becomes part of a soldier and the soldier becomes very adept very quickly at using the system.

The other part of it is we want to try and save money. We want to try to gain efficiency somehow to reduce life cycle cost. A lot of things to balance or juggle out there but that’s always been our focus since I’ve been in this PM. And I can guarantee you that’s the focus of everybody in my chain of command.

3. Lieutenant Colonel Kevin P. Stoddard, Product Manager Crew Served Weapons. The PMCSW team maintains and improves current crew served weapons such as light, medium and heavy machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, sniper systems, and associated fire control and target acquisition products. It also manages research and development of all small arms ammunition.

SAR: Why does development of the new sniper rifle – 7.62mm XM110 Semiautomatic Sniper System (SASS) – fall under crew served weapons?

Stoddard: The sniper mission is a team mission, you have a spotter and then you have a shooter as well. We look at that as a team or crew approach. When we do the system level package it means the spotting scopes as well as the guns and their optics. So it’s not just a gun being handed to a soldier.

SAR: What is the status of this program?

Stoddard: There is a down select ongoing right now from competitors that came in under this solicitation. We expect that evaluation to end in June, and go through the formal evaluation of that material, that data, and go on contract award at the end of July for a single competitor. (Editor’s Note: As this issue goes to press, the XM110 SASS contract has not yet been awarded.)

SAR: Can you crystal ball when the first unit might begin receiving the SASS?

Stoddard: I sure can if we stay with the basic schedule. Comparing it to the M107 which really came out of the M82, the Marine Corps sniper system, when we brought that on it was a non-developmental item but there were improvements we did on it. We went into technical testing in Phase 2 after we selected this weapon and found there were some improvements we needed to make.

But if (SASS) technical testing doesn’t reveal major things that need to be worked on, once we get the requirements, we see how well it’s shooting, how well it fits human factors wise with the soldiers, reliability issues, those types of things, we’re looking at around the 2nd Quarter of 2006 to go into the Operational Testing window. From there we’ll start the Material Release process and then receive the Systems Evaluation Report. By the end of the summer and fall time frame you’re looking for the First Article Testing and go into the hands of the soldier. So it will be in the end of FY (fiscal year) 06.

SAR: A quick update on what is going with the XM307 and XM312 Advanced Crew Served Weapons?

Stoddard: Right now the 307 program (25mm) is in SDD, Systems Development and Demonstration phase, started in April of 2005. Our primary customer is FCS (Future Combat Systems) as the main and secondary armament on eight of their ground vehicles – both manned and unmanned. In terms of SDD, the primary piece of that is reliability work in the ammunition where we’ve selected the fuze, selected the microprocessor that we’re going to use, and we’re going to be working on the warheads themselves.

Additionally, because the gun right now is a mounted requirement, we are working with Stryker and their ORD (Operational Requirement Document) which calls for a “Future Weapon System.” So to specifically answer what FWS is, they have sent a letter up to Department of the Army saying “that is the 307.”

Their future requirement is for mounted and dismounted versions so what I look to do is continue working with FCS and their requirement, plus have the additional requirement of the Stryker – which is the dismounted version as well. This allows us to leverage both organizations and get a lot of the work done with the gun on the FCS requirements. Whatever additional – like the fire control piece of it – can be done on the Stryker requirement. And then I’ll have a mounted/dismounted capability.

SAR: So these are sources of both money and rationale?

Stoddard: No. This morning [panel discussion at NDIA Small Arms Symposium] as I spoke I talked about guns being a system. You’ve got the fire control, the gun, the ammo, and what it’s mounted on. Well that’s different between a ground mounted, dismountable gun and a fixed gun that’s inside a vehicle because you can use the fire control on the vehicle and that’s what they would use on FCS. What it’s a matter of is making sure I have a customer that can round out that whole gun. And as I said, I’m already moving down the road on the gun, on the ammunition, and the dual feed capability. What I’m missing for the dismounted piece is the fire control. I have a real requirement for that. And so I can leverage the Stryker requirement to get the goodness of what we’re doing with FCS and then we have the additional piece with them to make it a dismountable gun.

SAR: The new aviation version of the M240 is an exciting development.

Stoddard: We’re very happy with that gun.

(Editor’s Note: The 7.62mm M240H Aviation Machine Gun is a tremendous success story for PM Soldier Weapons. It is already beginning to replace the aging and unreliable M60D, dramatically improving the self protection capabilities of the Army’s UH-60 and CH-47 helicopters. Based on the combat-proven M240B, key features of this modified door gun include spade grips with butterfly trigger, extended charging handle with return spring, Picatinny rails on the top cover and alongside the gas system, improved flash suppressor, and an emergency egress kit for use as a ground gun. Its special mount with cradle and pintle features safety stops and locking devices, link and case collection system, and ammunition box magazine. Type classified in August 2004, the first systems got to Iraq in less than eight months. FN Manufacturing, Columbia, South Carolina, has a contract for 3,914 gun systems.)

SAR: We were talking with Major Dring at the Picatinny booth about ARDEC’s work on lightweight remote control weapon mounts. Is this the “CROWS Lightening” program?

Stoddard: They’re actually doing that in concert with our efforts. Look at that in terms of trying to make sure the whole process is healthy. I’ve got a CROWS (XM101 Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station) that’s out there now developed to a certain standard, 395 pounds up on the vehicle. It’s only a natural progression to want to improve systems in the future. Lightening the load would be something you’d want to do with the CROWS or any system.

You mentioned the M240. We’re got the 240E with a titanium receiver. It’s only a natural progression that you do that. Well in order to do that you want guys in the tech base world to start to tell you how to do that, to go out and do the market research, to actually do some of the developmental work in that area. So, when we begin to do the CROWS lightening piece of it, for those other applications, I can feed both the CROWS lightening – titanium instead of steel or something of that nature.

The other piece of it is that fire control and the optics. There are some great new optics out there. I’d like them to go out and research that and see what else is out there in industry. Also, you’ve got to make sure that suite of optics can talk to your software, can interface. That’s another important part of what we’re getting from ARDEC.

More information on the work of PEO Soldier may be found on the web at www.peosoldier.army.mil

John’s Machine and Stamp Works Company made the first Type C and L drums including the serial numbered C and L drums from the Colt’s era. The C drum was quoted for additional production several times but seems to never have been produced again until 1990 by Numrich. This first supply of drums lasted until 1927. The tooling was then sent to Stanley Works Co., New Briton, Connecticut. Why was the tooling moved? Probably so as to keep the production of drums closer to Colt’s and the remaining Auto-Ordnance personnel. By this time the Cleveland office had been closed and all work was now done from Colt’s South Armory building, third floor.

Stanley used the existing tooling from John’s and produced only the Type L drum. However, new dies were produced to mark the face plates. The front face plate now showed the winding information for the Model of 1928. The back face plate still had space for the serial number, with no numerical information. Thus, Stanley produced what we today call the “No” number drum magazine.

Unfortunately, the relationship between Auto-Ordnance and Stanley was not a “good” relationship. Evidently, Stanley was a lot of trouble. Stanley was only doing the forming of the individual parts of the drum magazines. Another company by the name of Fenn Manufacturing was doing the assembly of the L drums. This may explain why collectors do not see many of “No” number drums.

Auto-Ordnance hired Oscar Payne to be a consultant (in his spare time) to help out with the production of new drum magazines. Oscar Payne and Auto-Ordnance next approached Wooster Press Steel Co. (WPS), in Wooster, Massachusetts. Wooster was very enthusiastic about the project and by January 3, 1928, all of the tooling was again moved, this time to WPS and was put under the supervision of Mr. Royal Bongantz of WPS.

New dies were made to change the markings on the rear face plate to completely remove the serial number information. It took WPS several months to get production started, which caused a drum shortage. While the production was at WPS, the drum face plates went through at least four sets of tooling.

The tooling was again moved about 1939 to Mitchell Stamping Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which later became a division of United Specialties, Chicago, Illinois. The drums may have been made at either of United Specialties Pennsylvania or Illinois factories.