Since 1742 an ancient device called the ballistic pendulum has been used to find the recoil level. This shoot-from type of ballistic pendulum involves free hanging the gun from wires and firing it in mid-air. The distance the gun raises is a measure of what is called free recoil energy. The shoot-at type of ballistic pendulum is used to determine the energy of a projectile. With some minor variations and the addition of modern instrumentation, we’ve been using these methods for the last three centuries.

Controllability evaluation is more challenging. In cases where everyone fires the same weapon and ammunition and tries to evaluate controllability, a great inconsistency between shooters becomes evident. Even the same shooter does not repeat the same controllability performance. Most controllability evaluations involve little more than asking shooters how quickly and accurately they felt they could get off that second or third shot. Inconsistent results are a huge frustration to the military as controllability is important to keeping a burst of full automatic fire on target.

A few years ago, the U.S. Army’s Program Manager for Small Arms saw the need for advancement in technology and awarded a study contract to Knight’s Armament Company, Titusville, Florida. Project goals included the improvement of recoil measurement techniques and a better metric for controllability.

The engineers at Knight’s began their study with a thorough review of every recoil study report available. They found that almost all the reports had the same theme. A gun follows Newton’s 3rd law of physics: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” The force that pushes the bullet and gun gas through the barrel and out the muzzle is equal to the recoil force of the gun. The rearward velocity of the firearm and its weight are multiplied together in a formula that gives the recoil energy. It’s hard to figure out how fast the firearm is recoiling especially if there is any device on the muzzle that diverts the gun gas from going straight ahead. Muzzle brakes and even flash suppressors turn the gas to give a forward force on the weapon that slows its recoil velocity. This is why researchers generally take the easy way out and find the energy with the
ballistic pendulum.

Knight’s engineers noted that recoil studies for the military almost always focused on the shooter. Repeated input of high levels of energy into the shoulder causes bruising and very high recoil energy can cause damage to the eye. The U.S. military measures the free recoil energy of every shoulder fired weapon it fields; classifying each into categories that limit how many rounds per day can be fired. Their table shows that if a gun develops less than 15 ft-lbs, (20 Joules) of energy, unlimited firing is permitted. The M4 and M16 fit this category. The highest level on the table is 60 ft-lbs (81 Joules), above which no shoulder firing is permitted. Knight’s testing found that a typical 3½ inch 12 gauge magnum shotgun develops 59 ft-lbs of energy which is alarmingly close to the military’s maximum.

While the energy method might be useful for making decisions about how many rounds per day are appropriate, its value is limited when studying recoil. The level of free recoil energy doesn’t tell anything about how much recoil force goes slamming into the shoulder. Here’s an example with results that may surprise you. Suppose one gun has a constant 300 pound recoil force and pushes against your shoulder for 1 inch of travel. In this case, recoil energy is calculated by a simple multiplication to give 300 inch-pounds of energy. Now take a second gun that pushes with a constant load of 100 pounds over 4 inches of rearward travel. The second gun has 400 inch-pounds of energy. It’s hard to appreciate that the gun with the lower force has significantly higher free recoil energy, but it’s true. This is what is so perplexing about the study of recoil. The energy method only tells part of the recoil story and that’s why the Army supported Knight’s investigation.

At the beginning of their study, Knight’s engineers instrumented both guns and shooters with the latest accelerometers, force gages and other measurement devices. Data recovered from the tests with the new instrumentation was good and certainly usable, but not remarkably better than what had been found previously with older test equipment. Their worst surprise came when they had shooters fire at full auto and filmed the target using high speed video looking for a pattern to shot placement. They were frustrated by the inconsistencies between shooters. The project results to that point were very disappointing, showing no promise to advance the technology in recoil measurement and controllability.

One of the engineers found an old Government report that talked about replacing the human shooter with a mechanical device that mimicked the shooter’s motion during firing. The metal body parts were to be connected with springs and dampers (shock absorbers) having the same characteristics of muscle and bones. Army researchers inserted a sketch of the concept in the report, but never built it. Knight’s engineers liked the idea and took it to a higher level. They also modeled the human vibrational characteristics in order to pick the right springs and dampers and then built a mechanical device with the same characteristics. This required the use of a sophisticated analytical method called modal analysis.

To understand modal analysis, you must first accept that all bodies vibrate at their natural frequency. For example, a guitar string vibrates at a natural frequency when plucked. It is also true that most bodies – guitar strings included – have more than one natural frequency, and these can occur simultaneously. The lowest natural frequency is called the first mode of vibration, followed by the second mode, etc. Each mode is at a higher frequency than the preceding one, and each has its own shape. For all bodies, there is also a natural tendency to stop the vibration called damping. Some bodies, like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge built in 1940, didn’t have enough damping and destructed when excited at its natural frequency (YouTube shows a fascinating video of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge failure.) In contrast, there is so much damping in the human body that vibration dies out quickly. To find the natural frequencies and mode shapes, engineers input different levels of vibration into a mock up weapon being held by a shooter. Each shooter was fitted with instrumentation to study the body’s response to each level of vibration. In this way, they found the vibrational modes of what the military describes as their smallest, average, and largest size shooter. Using this information, the WRSS was built to have the same characteristics.

To be able to measure controllability, Knight’s put angular measurement devices on the WRSS in order to determine the up and down movement of the end of the barrel (pitch) as well as the side-to-side motion (yaw). The WRSS precisely tracks the point of aim during and after the firing event. For hunters this information is critical for the follow-on shot. For the military this is important for controlling bursts of automatic firing, and essential to the design of muzzle devices. A precise measurement system is invaluable in the development of devices designed to reduce muzzle motion during shooting. Why? Simply because unless there are huge performance differences in these devices, even an expert shooter can’t detect changes in performance.

Besides controllability measurements, the new shooting fixture records the force on the shooter’s shoulder, the acceleration levels (g-loads) at the buttstock and on the barrel. The new WRSS has other benefits as well. Using the acceleration data, the WRSS has already been useful in solving problems with failures in gun mounted optics and other electromechanical devices. A data plot called a Shock Response Spectrum (SRS) has been used to study how many g’s the shooter, gun, and mounted accessories must endure at various frequencies. (Remember that at 1 “g” a 10 pound body weighs 10 pounds, but when subjected to 10 g’s, that same body weighs 100 pounds.) These g-levels are important to shooter reaction and more important in the development of relatively fragile accessories like scopes, laser pointers, and night vision.

Using the WRSS fixture and SRS data plots, Knight’s engineers determined the cause of a puzzling failure of a night vision scope. The scope was tested on one gun and determined to be capable of withstanding the high shock environment, yet failed when fired from a differently designed weapon of the same caliber and weight. Why the night vision scopes failed on the second gun, but held up well on the first gun, became immediately evident on the SRS data. The SRS curve of the two guns was almost a perfect match at low frequencies, but at high frequencies where electrical equipment is susceptible to failures, the second gun showed that much higher forces were being experienced.

The US Army intends to use the WRSS in its testing laboratories, and the design has been turned over to a not-for-profit organization called the Institute of Military Technology (IMT). IMT will offer the WRSS to weapons manufacturers, government laboratories and testing facilities worldwide. Commercial firearms manufacturers may also procure the WRSS from IMT for their use.

In 1982 I had just accepted a job to run the engineering department at FN Manufacturing, Inc. where the M240 machine gun would be produced for the first time in the U.S. My first job was to hire some engineers to assist me, and my very first interview was with Sal Fanelli, a young engineer out of Remington. It didn’t take me long to figure out Sal really understood firearms and that I wanted him on my team. I hired him on the spot. Through the years we enjoyed many successes together, getting new machine guns, systems, and accessories type classified in the military. In 2000, Sal was awarded the George M. Chinn Award for his contributions to the small arms industry. Presently, Sal is a supervisory engineer for Infantry Weapons Systems at the Marine Corps Systems Command. I recently learned the Marines had awarded Sal the Donald Roebling Award for acquisition. Sal led the charge in acquiring a new 5.56mm combat round for the USMC. I caught up with Sal recently to find out more about the new round and his role in the acquisition.

Why did the USMC decide they needed a new round of 5.56mm ammunition?

USMC determined that the performance of the M855 was inconsistent. Firing into a block of ballistic gelatin, we determined the M855 had yaw dependency. What we mean by that is from high speed videos of one round from an M4 we observed the path of the projectile doing exactly what we expected. It provided adequate terminal effects, but this didn’t happen every time. Other rounds went straight into the block and straight out of the block – no yaw, no enhanced terminal effects. We considered this inconsistent performance and confirmed that the M855 was impact yaw dependent.

We needed a round that gave consistent terminal effects from round to round, ammo lot to ammo lot and gave the exact terminal effects every time. We needed this performance at ranges from 0 to 400m.

You mentioned that the bullet went straight through. Was there a cause you could determine or was it just pure inconsistency?

From one round to the next, the terminal effects were not consistent. We determined it wasn’t due to being the first shot out of the gun, a cold barrel or a hot barrel, or anything else. It was so random it had to be the ammo.

It was through extensive testing that we saw these inconsistent effects and we couldn’t live with them. We wanted a term to describe this inconsistent phenomenon. That’s when the Marine Corps accepted the term “blind to barriers” suggested by Supervisory Special Agent Buford Boone, Supervisor of the FBI’s Ballistics Research facility and Hays Parks, a senior lawyer in the Office of General Counsel, DOD. Our new round would be blind to impact yaw and blind to barriers. That means it would not matter at what angle the projectile entered the gelatin block. It would give the same performance every time. At the same time we needed a round that went through intermediate barriers, like car glass, or a door, or clothing and did not ricochet or deviate from the shot line. The new round was to defeat the barriers and continue to do what it was supposed to do as far as terminal effects.

Gelatin Block Tests compare lethality of M855A1 to Mk318Mod 0.

While you were looking for a new round, was the Army’s M855A1 improved 5.56mm ammunition in consideration?

No, it wasn’t around – at least as far as we knew. Later we found out the Army was quietly developing a new 5.56mm round but was so quiet about it the other services were not aware. So, we put a “sources sought” announcement out to industry to let ammunition manufacturers know we were in the market for a new 5.56mm round. The new round had to be designed so it would give us consistent results.

We did have an ulterior motive. There was a pending requirement for a new intermediate caliber. If we could improve the consistency of the terminal effects of our current 5.56mm round and use it as a temporary solution, it would bridge the gap until we could get the requirement going for an intermediate caliber. The intermediate caliber requirement remains in the discussion phase. Instead, our development resulted in a round that equaled the performance of the current 6.8mm round. Remember the Belgian SS-109 ammunition? It was selected as the NATO standard in the U.S., and was designated the M855? Well, that ammunition outperformed the Vietnam era M193. In a similar way, our improvements have now given us a 5.56mm round that gives us the performance of the current 6.8mm round. Of course, with the same technology approach, we know today that we can get a better performing 6.8mm round and 7.62mm round than the NATO standard 7.62x51mm M80 Ball.

When we put our solicitation out on the street, we didn’t know about the Army activity to improve the M855 round nor did we know that SOCOM was developing an improved round through the Navy’s ammunition development group at Crane, Indiana. The Navy liked the wording in our solicitation and asked if the USMC wanted to join forces with them in developing a new round. We formed a joint Navy/SOCOM/USMC team and used the USMC wording to establish the requirements for the new round.

U.S. Army-designed M855A1.

Tell us what makes this round different from what is being used now.

It basically comes down to the design of the projectile. Look on line and you can see the cross section. It’s an open tip match determined by DOD and military services lawyers to be consistent with U.S. law of war obligations. By using this type projectile, we gained the flexibility to select the design of the overall projectile configuration. The design work was done by Federal Cartridge Company. They came up with a combination of a reverse draw projectile with a lead core that is crimped down into an open tip match.

With Federal building the round, now you have to check compatibility with both the M4 and the M16A4.

USMC requirement was that it had to work in the M16A4 because, at that time, that is the rifle that all USMC infantry was using. M4’s were only for special applications, officers, etc. The new round was initially designed to work in a short barreled rifle so we had to confirm that it would work in the longer-barreled M16A4. We’ve gone through three iterations of testing that have used a total of 30 guns firing anywhere from 9,000 to 15,000 rounds per weapon. We tested for function, reliability, corrosion, accuracy, you name it.

What about environmental testing, like hot, cold, sand and dust?

Yes, it was full up testing in all environments.

Sectioned projectile from Open Tip Match Mk318 Mod0.

How did you evaluate terminal effectiveness?

You know, you can’t do it well because it’s so hard to get volunteers (just kidding!) so we shoot into ordnance gelatin as adopted by government agencies. A few years back there was a joint wound ballistics Integrated Product Team (IPT). It had Army, Navy, USAF, Coast Guard and virtually every DoD organization – it was really joint, and that meant everybody. What they determined was that each agency used a different methodology for testing terminal effects, so they decided to write a charter, a test plan and gelatin block procedures. Those procedures even included how the gelatin was made, verified, and validated. With a standard gelatin block that everybody could use, terminal effects could be studied and data could be shared. Next, the IPT established criteria for how the projectile should perform in gelatin. We compared our results to the specification and also compared it to M855. Again, you can’t confirm this is what it will do in the human body, but it’s the best we can come up with. Buford can give you all the details, but essentially his eight points are:

Is Blind to Impact Yaw
Limits penetration – 12-18”
Resists yaw in tissue – no earlier than 12” is desired
Continues on shot line after penetrating tissue
Is barrier blind
Limits fragmentation
Performs consistently from 0 – 300 meters
Is accurate enough to engage human targets to 600 meters

Sal, this all sounds too easy. Surely you came up against some problems along the way.

Oh, sure there were problems. Field trials showed that the Mk318 Mod 0 did not exactly match the ballistics with the reticle pattern of the sight being used. The original ammunition’s exterior ballistics differed from the sight’s reticle pattern because it was originally designed for a 14.5-inch barrel. Since the Marine Corps’ primary service rifle is the M16A4 with a 20-inch barrel, we went back to Federal to adjust the ballistic coefficient. About this time the issue about environmentally friendly green ammo came up and we had to take a look to see if it was possible to replace the lead and still meet the specification. We found that we could replace the lead with copper, stretching the jacket around ever so slightly so it allowed us to crimp the nose even more. With that, the ballistic coefficient went up allowing the round to fly more efficiently through air with a better trajectory. Now it’s a ballistic match to the stock off-the-shelf reticle patterns that the Marine Corps uses, like the Trijicon ACOG sights. We named the improved round the Mk318 Mod1.

So, how do you avoid confusion with the new round to others that are already fielded?

There are two different configurations. The original round was adopted as Mk318 Mod 0. This is a copper jacketed, open tip match, 62 grain projectile. If you don’t know ammunition well enough you might confuse it with the Mk262 which is a 77 grain projectile. The Mk262 is an open tipped match round used by the Special Ops community. Since we were worried about confusion with the Mk262, we had to take another look at the color of the tip. Every color was taken except for solid silver so we decided to nickel plate the entire projectile. As we now jokingly say, “All Marines will have silver bullets.” That round hasn’t been fielded yet, and a potential production contract is in the future. I can just see the Marines out there polishing bullets.

Who will produce the new ammunition?

The government owns the drawings in the Technical Data Package (TDP) so Crane will procure it through open competition. There are a lot of top-notch ammo manufacturers out there.

Mk318 Mod1 with the Silver Bullet.

What about the legal wickets that had to be passed? Years ago, we used to pass any new ammunition by the legal department at the Pentagon. Hays Parks was in charge in those days, but I’ve learned he’s retired.

When I first was given this project, I spent many hours talking about the legal aspects of a new round with Supervisory Special Agent Buford Boone (ret.) at the FBI, BRF and others, including Hays Parks. Hays retired about a year ago and is currently working under a support contractor for another Government agency. Fortunately, we still have access to him. I needed his input for all of our written documents. Anything put into writing that becomes public information is subject to intense scrutiny. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) watches the development of every new round very carefully and is quick to point out what they perceive as any violation of the “Law of War” declarations. Even though other ammunition very similar to this has passed the legal review, we could not afford any misinterpretation. We don’t want to give any reason for the ICRC to file a complaint that would delay the fielding. Hays has a lot of experience as the U.S. negotiator on proposed law of war treaties related to military small arms ammunition. I requested his assistance in developing a round that would meet the capabilities we needed and be consistent with our law of war obligations. For the data Hays needed, the FBI served as the independent laboratory.

What about compatibility with other service rifles in NATO?

The testing we did was M16A4, M4, M4A1, M27 and we also tested it in the SCAR. We have not tested other country’s guns, but there are some that are currently evaluating it. It’s public knowledge that Canada has adopted it.

Is there a tracer version?

No, there is no tracer planned for this round.

So that means it’s strictly as a rifle cartridge.

On our last test, we took 16,000 rounds, linked it, and successfully fired it through the M249 to confirm compatibility for emergency use; but yes, the round is strictly meant for our rifles.

What about accuracy of the round?

The performance is phenomenal. The way the specification is written, we focus on dispersion, not accuracy. The reason is that we define accuracy as a combination of the gun, the optic, and the shooter. Whereas, the dispersion of the ammunition is set at 2 Minutes Of Angle (MOA) at 100 meters.

If you ever get a chance to read the spec, the Mk318 MOD 0, it shows the MOA no greater than 2 at 100 meters. If you read the spec of the M855, the average standard deviation is not to be more than 2MOA. There is a big difference. We’ve proven that you can have a very large group and still meet the specification.

When you were managing this program you faced a lot of challenges. What was the biggest?

In order to get buy-in from Marine Corps senior leadership, I had to prove to them that this was a technically superior round of ammunition. I had to present the results of extensive testing.

What is next? You just now going to field this round, is the USMC working on another round?

Well, I’m still putting this one to bed. There is some additional testing that needs to be done. The USMC has type classified, adopted, and issued the Mk318 Mod 0 as an interim solution until formal testing has been completed on the Army’s M855A1. The decision on which round (Mk 318 Mod 1 or M855A1) will be fielded will be made within a year.

We’ve been working on improved sniper grade ammunition. A joint Navy, SOCOM, USMC requirement yielded the AB 39, 7.62mm round. The projectile is the same as the AA11 but it uses a different primer, propellant, and amount of propellant. Now we have an off-the-shelf round that gives consistent performance lot-to-lot, shot-to-shot. Lower dispersion is achieved through 1,000 meters.

Now we are looking at the barrel geometry. A twist of 1:12 is not ideal for this projectile so we developed computer models and simulated firing with faster twist rates. We’ve had test barrels built for us, and just finished firing them using ballistic radar. ArrowTech, who developed PRODAS simulation software, has been tasked to determine the optimum twist for the barrel configuration based on this radar data. Eventually, the USMC may be going to a different twist rate that may include changes to land and groove configuration.

Finally, the Army is looking at improving the machine gun ammo and we’re just keeping track of what they’re doing.

Thank you, Sal for taking the time to provide this excellent information for our readers. We truly appreciate it.

You’re more than welcome. It has been my pleasure.

Getting a product in front of the military customer not only involves visits to military installations, but also attending shows, exhibitions, and symposiums.  It’s surprising how few companies are good at this.  The first mistake is that they neglect to define their purpose.  There should always be a goal or a mission.  One goal could be to target specific products to customers.  It may also be as simple as making a presence so that the industry realizes a company is still alive.  Sometimes military shows and commercial shows are one and the same, allowing companies to take orders at the show.  One company I worked for set sales goals for these shows and expected their sales team to meet them.  The company almost always returned from the show in the black even after expenses.

The second most important decision about shows is who should attend.  The size of the booth staff should be sized for the show, and ideally the booth should be almost entirely staffed by the Sales department.  Booth personnel should be totally conversant in the technical details of the product line to a level beyond what is written in the brochures.  It is tempting to send members of the engineering staff, but there should be a huge caution here.  Engineers are closely associated with the good and bad of the product line as well as what new products are under development.  Too many engineers enjoy showing how much they know about these projects and their conversations can easily slip into company proprietary or competition sensitive information.  Companies should avoid using engineers as show staff, or at least coach them before every show.

Sales promotion with the ArmaLite Toaster is unique in the industry. (Courtesy ArmaLite, Inc.)

The next big decision to be made is the furniture, and more importantly, the number of chairs.  The ideal number is zero.  Nothing turns off customers more than to see a group of company representatives sitting behind a table engaged in a conversation amongst themselves or checking their emails while ignoring show participants.  From her village in southern Europe, my grandmother brought back an old saying which loosely translates: “the butt is not designed to do work.”  A sales team needs to be off of theirs at all times; buzzing from one potential customer to the next, answering questions and engaging anyone who stops by – even if it’s just someone with a puzzled look on their face.  Alternatively, the staff might be refilling the brochure bins or even just tidying up the booth.  As long as they’re busy, the booth assumes the right atmosphere.

Some shows offer opportunities for potential customers to fire weapons, and these are always excellent opportunities for exposure to new products.  In these venues, smaller companies can have a place at the table with the big boys, giving them an equal opportunity to have military customers try their designs.  At firing demos, there is one thing that every company must keep forefront in their minds, and that is safety.  Shows generally require hold harmless agreements for any accident that might happen, but there is always a liability that goes beyond these agreements.  It is essential that companies pay close attention to show safety rules and heed every warning of the Range Safety Officer (RSO).  I once attended an international symposium that offered a firing demo for all exhibiting companies.  A safety briefing by the RSO preceded the demos and clearly outlined range rules.  The RSO asked for a description of anything out of the ordinary that would be part of the demo, and mandated strict adherence to range safety rules.  One of the foreign exhibitors, the designer of a very famous automatic weapon, was to be the demonstrator of his own rifle.  He attended the safety briefing, but did not reveal his plan for demonstrating the security of the weapon’s sear.  When his turn came, he fired a few rounds in semi-auto, a few in full auto and stopped with a live round chambered and the hammer cocked – held only by sear engagement.  Without even putting the safety on, he grabbed the rifle by the buttstock and with a mighty heave, slung it out in the direction of the impact area.  The gun flew through the air, spinning end over end; at times pointing at the onlookers.  It struck the ground hard, bouncing several times before it stopped.  The designer ran forward, picked it up, and began firing again.  Lucky for all of us the sear held during the impact with the ground, elsewise the results could have been fatal.  The RSO went ballistic and headed over to the company representatives for a serious discussion, taking the show director with him.  Not surprisingly, the company was told that in spite of his fame, the designer would not be welcomed back.  Sure enough, that was the last time we ever saw him.

Hind-D disappears with hot coffee in ‘Sight of Success.’

Private industry has realized that it is too costly to have sales teams on the road all the time and there are only a limited number of customer visits and shows that can be afforded.  This makes promotion through advertising a necessity.  Magazine advertisements send a company’s message far and wide giving exposure to potential customers.  The question is often asked, “How many advertisements are enough”?  One ad is good, many are better, and having none is not a good idea.  A company must strike a balance between what is needed to showcase new products or simply to keep the name of the company visible in the marketplace.  In any event, the magazine ad campaign needs to be carefully planned with clear goals and purpose that fit well into the Sales Department budget.

An example of a well-conceived campaign was the one developed by George Coutoumanos, Director of U.S. Government Programs at BEI systems.  BEI produced 2.75” rockets and was promoting them in the air-to-air role.  George decided on a three pronged approach that capitalized on three of the senses.  He began with a simple coffee mug that showed a U.S. Helicopter firing a rocket at a Russian Hind-D.  When a hot liquid was poured into the mug the Russian copter disappeared.  George called this “The sight of victory.”  Mugs with disappearing images are commonplace now, but back in the late 1980’s they were a novelty and a big hit with all potential customers.  George claimed that his next venture was based on his frustration from lack of feedback on the effectiveness of his ads.  He hired an advertisement firm to prepare an ad and took out a full page advertisement in the Armed Forces Journal magazine.  The subject was the same as the mug; a Hind-D under attack from one of their rockets.  The reader was asked to scratch in an area near the rocket launcher and was treated to a sniff of that smell we shooters call “cordite,” indicating the rocket had left the launch tube and was on its way to the target.  The ad accomplished George’s next goal producing “The smell of victory!”  The advertisement was reported in newspapers and media across the country and gave BEI far more notoriety that they anticipated from a one-time advertisement.  For the last part of the campaign, George had his sights set on the “sound of victory.”  He planned to use the same technology in a magazine advertisement that is currently being used in singing greeting cards.  The reader would be treated to the “whoosh” sound of the rocket leaving the launch tube.  For reasons unknown, BEI never did release the third of the series.

One of the best promotional items is the brochure.  Brochures can be simple, yet unappealing, black and white copies at one extreme or completely overdone at the other.  Glossy, full color, multi-page brochures are costly.  Sometimes they are so expensive that they are not given out freely, which begs the question: “What is the point”?

One of the most cost effective brochures in the industry was one used by the General Electric (GE) Company Armament Systems Department.  GE made Gatling guns and ammunition handling systems for all of the U.S. services.  GE found that a simple one page, front and back sheet, was an effective tool for providing potential customers with just enough technical description, specifications, photos, and illustrations to adequately describe the product.  The two-color “green sheets,” as they were called, were inexpensive, easy to produce and not at all unattractive.  GE never went to shows without a huge bundle of them, and since they were only one page, a large assortment could be carried with ease.

Helicopters attack Russian Hind-D with 2.75” rockets in BEI mug.

Promotional material and “giveaways” are often overdone by companies.  Sure, it’s a good idea to have something worthwhile to offer potential customers and distinguished guests, but these items can get expensive and have questionable worth as an effective sales tool.  Besides that, the Government employees may only accept items worth $20 or less, presenting the challenge that the item be both low cost and desirable.

Possibly the best promotional item in the industry is the poster.  Even the highest quality glossy full color poster is relatively inexpensive and its power as a sales tool is often underappreciated.  A really good poster showcasing warfighters or law enforcement performing a mission with the latest guns and accessories can be so eye-catching that few can resist the urge to display them.  Posters are found on the walls in soldier’s rooms, in gun shops, and adorn the walls of the arms rooms at military installation.  All of these places are choice spots for any advertisement.

Posters can illustrate a product or product line in use, or they can also be used to make a point.  Take for example the case of the M240G machine gun.  In the mid 1990s, the U.S. Marine Corps decided to pull their money from the M60 machine gun product improvement program, and terminate their contract with Saco Defense Systems.  From the funds recouped from the cancellation, they awarded FN Manufacturing, Inc. a contract to procure components that would allow them to convert M240 Coax tank machine guns into M240G ground weapons.  This was a major victory for the FN Sales North America team.  I led that team, and those results inspired us to pursue the same with the Army and Navy.

Following the sale, the FN sales team made preparations to exhibit at the USMC show held in Washington, DC.  We decided to come with something that said “thank you” to the Marines for having confidence in us and our products.  Not only did they adopt the M240G, but also stood up to the Secretary of Defense who, not surprisingly, was against the sale.  Before he became the Defense Secretary, William Cohen had been the Senator from Maine – the home state of Saco Defense.  Posters of the Marine’s new machine gun were also intended as a polite poke in the eye to the other services.  Everywhere those posters were displayed sent the message: “The Marines have a new reliable medium machine gun and you don’t!”

I ordered two different posters.  The first one was a tribute to the USMC motto, Semper Fi, and with a little play on words, highlighted the reliability and firepower of the M240.  The second one was the action shot that showed the M240G in the hands of a real Marine.  We needed a model for the shoot, and the Marines at Quantico Ground Weapons assured me they would supply one.  The FN Sales team went to Quantico armed with an M240G accompanied by Peter Kokalis who was at that time with Soldier of Fortune magazine.  Peter was interested in the story and agreed to be our photographer.  We were pleased when they introduced us to a 2nd Lieutenant from the Naval Academy, fully dressed out for the photo shoot.  He was clean cut, rugged, and handsome, with all the qualities of an ideal Marine.  He had one other notable attribute, the importance of which we did not recognize at the time.  He was huge – not at all disproportionate, just a very big guy.  When the Lieutenant cradled the M240G, it looked like a little toy.  How fortuitous this turned out, since the only criticism of the M240G was that it was too big and too heavy.  Kokalis liked the results of our shoot so much, our Marine ended up on the cover of the same issue of Soldier of Fortune magazine with his feature article on the M240G.

General Electric used ‘Green Sheets’ as a cost effective brochure option.

Meanwhile back at the Ft. Benning Army base, news of the Marine Corp adoption of the M240G was noted but with little apparent reaction.  In fact, the Major in charge of the Infantry Weapons Branch at Ft. Benning told me the Army was absolutely not interested in a new medium machine gun and very politely suggested our time was better spent marketing elsewhere.  The other member of the FN sales team, Sal Fanelli, and I got the message and made the most of our time in the area, traveling a few short miles down the road to the 3rd Battalion Ranger Regimental Headquarters where we promptly sold them M240Gs.  It wasn’t a huge sale in terms of quantity, but it was the first foothold into the Army market.

One year after the sale to the Rangers, I again met with the Infantry Weapons Major again.  He told me that a new medium machine gun had become the number one priority in the Army.  Having those posters everywhere certainly didn’t hurt our cause.   Following a Defense Secretary Cohen-mandated shoot-off with the M60, the Army adopted their version, called the M240B.  To capitalize on this sale and to pick up the remaining service holdouts, the Navy and Air Force, we needed a poster for the M240B.  When asked for support from FN headquarters in Belgium, they arranged for the photo session to take place at Browning, their commercial subsidiary in the U.S.  Professional photographers on staff at the Browning headquarters in Ogden, Utah were assigned to work with us in creating the photo.  Sal Fanelli, arranged for some Utah National Guardsmen to meet us there to be our models.  On the day before the shoot, I rode around with Sal and the photographer looking for ideal settings for the photo.  Most of Utah is brown, not green, so the green camo uniforms of that day were not the best for the shot I had in mind.  We spent over an hour riding around the creek beds – where more things are green, and then rode back up behind Browning’s compound bow factory, with me still unhappy about the sites we’d seen.  Finally, I yelled out, “Stop the car, this is the spot.”  Everyone in the car spun around to look at me trying to figure out what I was looking at.  They saw me staring at a crater in the ground.  The crater bottom was covered in ashes and a partially burned log spanned its breadth.  The Browning photographer looked at me like I was crazy. “You can’t mean here!  This is where we have our bonfires and cookouts.”  “No,” I said, “This is the spot.  This is the perfect spot.”

With the troops and the M240B behind the charred log, the air filled with smoke from Browning’s smoke generator, my idea of a perfect poster picture was achieved.  We passed the new poster out at the Association of the United States Army annual exhibition in October, and everywhere else we exhibited.  The M240B was eventually adopted by the two remaining services.

There are other items besides posters that the customer will wear or keep in prominent places where others may see them.  Tie pins and tie tacks used to be very popular giveaways back when almost all businessmen wore a tie.  They were a great advertisement tool since there was a connotation that the wearer endorsed your product.  If you think about it, few would wear something from a company or product they didn’t like.  Nowadays, the casual dress code makes tie tacks less practical and with more women active in the industry, even less of a good idea.

SHOT show attendees flocked to Knight’s booth for ‘Reliable Followers.’

At one of the SHOT shows, Knight’s Armament Company was searching for the right giveaway that would meet the following criteria: 1. The customer will keep it and use or display it, 2. The item will meet Government giveaway cost guidelines, and 3. The giveaway will be inexpensive enough so that a lot of them can be given out.  In the months prior to the SHOT show, Knight’s conducted an independent research program and had developed a new follower for the 5.56mm magazine.  High speed video and extensive testing showed this new follower to be far superior to the one issued with the M16/M4 magazine.  For a SHOT show giveaway, these were packaged up with a nice little note to let the user know they were for “reliable Knight’s followers”.  The little followers were very popular at the show and proved to be an inexpensive, yet effective means in getting an extra boost of traffic at the Knight’s booth.

Coffee mugs are also a great advertisement for firearms and accessories.  They are inexpensive and meet the Government’s price level guidelines.  While they are an enduring reminder of the product and company, they can also have a unique role in military circles – particularly at the Pentagon.  When the sales team from FN Manufacturing, Inc. was trying to sell the spade-grip equipped M240D to replace the M60D as a helicopter door gun, we spent plenty of time up in Washington D.C. at the Pentagon and at the nearby Navy Annex.  Our Navy and Marine friends there told us the secret of the mug.  At the Pentagon and at other places where military and DoD personnel work and congregate, the sudden appearance of a coffee mug illustrating a new product is taken as evidence that a program to procure the item has been funded.  Our M240D program didn’t have any funds designated but they advised us to show up next time with some M240D coffee mugs.  Sometimes, they explained, more money seems to find its way into funded programs – or ones that appear to be funded.  We passed mugs around in Washington, down at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, and everywhere else we found helicopters and helicopter programs with M60Ds.  Of course, the high reliability and effectiveness of the M240D was the reason it became adopted, but the mug proved to be an effective marketing tool along the way.

Sometimes a promotional item seems to make no sense at all, questioning the wisdom of the promoter.  Take for example the unique promotion offered by ArmaLite.  Early in the history of ArmaLite, its owner, Mark Westrom, struggled to make ends meet.  Mark was making plans for exhibiting at the SHOT show at a time when the market for his AR-10 was weak.  He was in a competitive market where show specials, like a free gun case, cleaning kit, or other accessories were used to sway buyers.  Mark wanted to do something, but it had to be something he could afford.  Those of you who know Mark will probably agree that of all of the people in the firearms industry, he has far and above, the greatest sense of humor.  This meant that ArmaLite’s SHOT show special also had to be funny.  “Why not give away a toaster?”  Mark thought.  Mark went over to Wal-Mart, made a deal for a bulk purchase of white toasters, had them silkscreened with the ArmaLite logo and took them to SHOT packed in the same Wal-Mart box they came in.  Buy a gun, get a free toaster!  His outlandish offer became an immediate hit.  Calls started coming in to find out if the toaster could be purchased without a gun order.  Mark reported to me that he recently saw an ad on the Gunlist website with an AR-10 for sale.  The seller made it clear he would be keeping the toaster.

Mark points out that the toaster really had two purposes.  One to be funny and the other because it’s an appliance, it sits out where people can see it.  The toaster continues to be a sales promotional item to this day.  When I called Mark to fact check this story, he half-jokingly told me he wondered if there existed some sort of “item manager at Wal-Mart for toasters” who can’t understand why a tiny town in eastern Illinois has such a huge demand for a certain white toaster.  Another one of Mark’s promotions is a very attractive, well-made, yet reasonably priced ArmaLite wall clock.  Every time someone checks the time, they can’t help but think: ArmaLite.  This action is precisely what reminded me of the story.

When I answered the phone, I could sense the frustration in his voice. The caller was a friend of mine who head up small arms procurement in a Scandinavian country. His quick greeting was followed by the description of a small machine screw. As he gave me the dimensions in millimeters, I banged out a few numbers on my calculator, and realized he was describing a 6-40 screw – common in our inch-system. He told me it was for a U.S.-made gun sight. He had checked all of his sources in Scandinavia and even some in Europe, but none of these suppliers had any on hand. He asked if I would buy him some of these screws so he could pick them up when he visited me in Florida during the following week.

This episode started me to thinking about U.S. small arms. Is it time we consider going metric? I know we’ve been at this crossroads before, but it has never happened. Maybe there are good reasons now to reconsider. If you’ll allow me to present some facts, I’ll let you be the judge.
One of the first facts to consider, is that a “decimal-based measurement system” (the metric system) was proposed by Thomas Jefferson in 1790 and the U.S. mint was formed to produce the world’s first decimal currency with the U.S. dollar equal to 100 cents. Our system of measure did not go that way. As I’m sure you know, our inch-system is a carryover from our days as an English colony. The last major holdouts for the inch system were one-time fellow colonies: New Zealand, Australia, and Canada who switched over to metric more than 40 years ago.

Flirtation with a Metric Small Arm — the FN FAL
In 1953, the U.S. military had to decide what they would do if the 7.62mm Belgian FN FAL (U.S. designation T48) were to win the competition against the U.S. T44 (M14.) After beating out the M14 in several trials, the FAL was on the fast track to become the official U.S. service rifle, but the FAL did have one detractor: the design was metric. To assure there would be no U.S. production problems, Harrington and Richardson was awarded a contract to convert the design over to the inch system. H&R built a quantity of 500 inch-system FAL’s of exceptional quality. As this production was ongoing, engineers under the direction of Springfield Arsenal’s Roy Rayle, worked around the clock to correct deficiencies in the M14 design. In 1954 testing, the two rifles – T44 (M14) and the U.S.-made T48 (FAL) tested to a draw, and in subsequent trials the T44 went on to win.

Why the big exercise to make an inch-system rifle? To enable U.S. production of the T48-FAL in the 1953 timeframe, there was almost no choice but to convert the design and the drawings to the inch-system. Factories across America had manual lathes and milling machines that could produce weapon components, but these were all set up with inch-system controls. Screws, roll pins, solid pins, spring wire, and sheet metal stock were readily available in U.S. markets, but only in inch-system sizes. Similarly, measurement tools, like vernier calipers, micrometers, and gage blocks were configured for inch-system only measurements. Producing metric components in the U.S. without converting to the inch system was simply not a reasonable option. Success of the T44-M14 made the issue temporarily go away, with no need for further consideration of the metric system in small arms for a long time afterwards.

U.S. Government Mandates Metric
By 1968, most of the world had become metric so a Federal law authorized a 3-year study to determine the impact of increasing metric use in the U.S. Many of the major companies in the U.S. passed out conversion manuals for the International System of Units (SI) that was being adopted throughout the world and trained their workers to use the metric system. By this time, the newer Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) lathes and milling machines were capable of easily converting back and forth from inch to metric so there would be no major trauma when metric drawings reached the production floor.

U.S. made M240 Coax with “Spirit” button for meeting the first year production goal.

The U.S. Metric Study was completed in 1971 and their published report recommended we should “go metric” on a carefully coordinated national program. Congress passed the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 and established a U.S. Metric Board, but a timeline was never established for metric conversion. U.S. arms producers like the General Electric Armament Systems Department, followed a government directive mandating that new guns should be metric. They complied in the next product they released, making the drawings for the newest Gatling gun totally metric. And what about the ammunition feed system that connected to it? It was produced using inch system dimensions. Why? Because the government directive said the guns had to be metric, but made no mention of the feed system, so it was a half measure at best. This was typical of the resistive mood of the country towards the metric system. After years of public apathy, spending money, and achieving only marginal results, the U.S. Metric Board was disbanded by President Reagan in 1982.

European Small Arm is adopted: It’s a Sweet Baby but it’s Metric.
In the mid 1970s an international shoot-off resulted in the adoption of the first metric weapon in modern U.S. military history, the 7.62mm FN Herstal Belgian MAG-58. The machine gun, U.S. designation M240, was designed totally in metric. The Army bought the manufacturing rights and the drawings with the intent to competitively procure the weapon and spare parts from manufacturers in the U.S. This required that the Army bring these 1950s era drawings up to current standards, meaning the ones outlined in a specification known as ANSI-Y-14.5 managed by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The Army converted the drawings themselves but left the metric system in place. They also left the drawings in first angle projection – the European standard – but more about that later.

It is important to note that by the late 1970s, the manufacturing scene in the United States changed dramatically. CNC machine tools were everywhere, with most of them easily capable of switching from inch to metric. Many conventional lathes and milling machines had digital readouts added to them, making them capable of inch/metric conversion with the push of a button.
FN Herstal won the 1979 production contract to make the M240 in the U.S, and built a factory in South Carolina. FN knew they would be faced with a challenge in finding qualified machinists and other factory help, but they had experience in setting up small arms factories in third world counties and reckoned South Carolina would be easy by comparison. They brought in their own manufacturing team to train the workers, hired manufacturing managers who had prior experience setting up manufacturing plants outside the U.S., and went totally metric on the manufacturing process. During the first full production year, a quantity of 4,509 M240’s was the production goal set by the Army. Guns from every production lot that year had to pass an interchangeability test with other M240s made on the same line. At specified intervals, U.S. made M240s were interchanged with FN Herstal-made guns and were required to pass the same acceptance test. In every case, the weapons functioned flawlessly and the production goals were achieved.

Five years later, the FN South Carolina plant submitted the lowest bid and won the manufacturing contract for the M16A4. If there was to be a metric/inch production challenge, this was it. There was no plan to change the M16 drawings to metric. In fact, it was never discussed. Rather, buttons were pushed on the CNC machines and machines that were formerly making metric M240 parts were now making M16 components. Not only were both inch and metric drawings on the shop floor at the same time but the U.S. drawings were in third angle projection and ones of European origin were in first angle projection.

First Angle – Third Angle: What is it and Who Cares?
The “projection of a drawing—first or third angle” relates to engineering drawings, or “blueprints” if you prefer that term. Since we must use a two dimensional drawing to define a three dimensional component, rules have been set up for where different views are positioned on the drawing – this is called the “projection.” Europeans set their drawings up in first angle projection while in the U.S. we prefer third angle projection. First angle and third angle drawings have one view in common but the rest of the views are in opposite locations. The differences between these conventions are explained in the illustration, and it all makes more sense if you consider the logic behind them. In the third angle system, the user moves his/her eye around the part 90° at a time to “see” another side of the part and the view is positioned accordingly. In the first angle projection system the part is “rotated” 90° each time for a new view. If you are familiar with one system and not the other, you’ll find the left side view where you expect the right side to be, the top where the bottom should be, and so on.

Textbooks describing these systems make the case that Americans find first angle projection illogical. To avoid confusion, drawing standards specify that a figure with two views of a truncated cone be placed in the title block of every drawing to show the part is depicted in first or third angle projection. There is little danger in confusing metric dimensions for inch dimensions; like making a firing pin 400 inches long instead of 400 millimeters. Not paying attention to whether the part to be made is described in first or third angle projection, however, can easily result in parts being made backwards.

By now you may be wondering how FN Manufacturing made out manufacturing with drawings in first and third angle projection as well as metric and inch. Surprisingly it didn’t cause them any problems. The U.S. Army eventually did convert the M240 drawings to third angle projection, fearing that small businesses making spare parts without understanding the application could mistakenly make the parts backwards.

Where Are We Now?
He we are today, 30 years after the metric M240 was put into U.S. production and where is our manufacturing technology? Essentially with the flip of a switch, practically every modern machine tool will operate in metric or inch. Electronic digital readouts on manual milling machines and lathes give even those machines dual capability and the opportunity for even the smallest machine shop to produce in either system. Even inspection equipment from Coordinate Measuring Machines to hand held vernier calipers and micrometers swap metric units for inch units at the push of a button. And what about first and third angle projection? Most good Computer Aided Design (CAD) systems that we now use to make our drawings can switch from either system by the mere selection of a “radio” button. Our military continues to procure metric weapons including the Beretta M9 pistol and the Heckler & Koch M320 grenade launcher and at the same time inch-system weapons like the M4 and M110.

It is the job of U.S. arsenals and military directorates to specify what small arms will be bought along with the drawing packages that define them. There is a directive in the Federal Acquisition Regulations that specifies metric dimensions should be used. Officially, the metric system is preferred, but there are open ended exceptions to the Metric Conversion Act. This means the military doesn’t really care if your drawings are inch or metric or if your hammer rotates on a 1/8-inch pin or one 3 millimeters in diameter. One of the newest small arms under consideration by the military is the LSAT designed by AAI. This light machine gun, firing cased telescoped ammunition, is designed in inch system and is likely to stay that way unless the military directs otherwise.

Pro – Let’s Do It
Just how difficult would it be to specify totally metric weapons from here on out? There would be changes to threaded fasteners, pins, nuts, spring wire, rollers, ball or roller bearings and other hardware. For the most part, the standard metric sizes are close enough to the standard inch sizes so that nothing is sacrificed in strength or durability. Sheet metal comes in standard metric sizes but this is one where direct substitution that could cause a problem causing the substituted part to be too thick or too thin. This change does require careful study and potentially some dimensional changes to mating parts.

Our NATO and other allies are all using the metric system and sometimes our weapons systems. If our small arms were designed with metric, components like pins, screws, and other hardware, would be available to them in their normal supply chains avoiding situations like the one my Scandinavian friend encountered. In short, metrification would make all U.S. small arms more attractive to the rest of the world.

Likely the best reason is that the metric system is incredibly simple. U.S. schools are teaching the metric system and students are finding it easier than our inch system. One high school teacher told me that when her students are required to make measurements, she gives them metric rulers. She switched from inch rulers because students became so bogged down with fractional inch conversions; they were missing the point of the exercise.

Con – Let’s Don’t
We’ve been making parts in inch system dimensions for a long time, now, and have a ready supply of inch system hardware and components. In many cases, metric components are more expensive. The easiest path forward is to continue to let small arms manufacturers produce weapons using any system they want.

Any change, no matter how small, always has an associated price. Not every machine shop is equipped with the latest machine tools and measuring equipment, and even those that do, will still find a certain percentage of their equipment will become obsolete.

The manufacturing success at FN aside, it cannot be denied, there is always the possibility of making manufacturing mistakes when using both inch and metric drawings in the same factory. Introducing metric drawings in first angle projection will only compound the problem.

Conclusion
It’s decision time. Do we make the change to metric in small arms now, or do we kick the can down the road and hope for the best? After all, we still have some allies who, like us, have not adopted the metric system – Liberia and Myanmar. If we hurry, we might at least say we’re not the last country to “Go Metric.”

On April 11, 2010, I traveled to Harrodsburg, KY where I met with my good friend, Howard “Buddy” Howells.  Buddy is the only grandson of the famous Col. George M. Chinn, author of the five-volume series entitled The Machine Gun.  The last time I was in Harrodsburg was in 1985 when I met with Col. Chinn and Buddy at their office.  I was working for FN and went there to discuss the Mk19 and to get Chinn’s opinion on the maturity of the design and the producibility of the weapon using the drawing package developed by the Navy.

George Chinn had accumulated a wealth of firearm information through the years and was inspiration to many of us in firearm design.  The Colonel made great contributions to firearm design and usage, and his historical reference book series is a classic of the last century.  Buddy worked with his grandfather on some firearm designs and has an amazing memory of historical facts.

Buddy suggests we begin our meeting in the office used by George M. Chinn.  Upon entering I can’t believe what I’m seeing.  Chinn’s favorite pictures, letters, commendations, and other memorabilia still adorn the walls.  Pencils, Rolodex, pads of paper and reference material are out on his desk.  It was if the old master would return at any moment.  Unable to resist the urge, I sit in the Colonel’s chair.  Now was a good time to begin the interview.

George: Before we talk about George M. Chinn, could you give me a little insight into the Chinn family history.  

Buddy: The Chinn’s are an old pioneer family with roots in Mercer county Kentucky.  I know you remember my grandfather joking about being Chinese, but our ancestry is French.  George’s Grandfather Jack was into horse racing and even owned a Kentucky Derby winner.  Politics, farming, and Calcite mining were also family businesses.

George: So, as pioneers and frontiersmen, the Chinn family must have been around guns all the time. 

Buddy: Actually, they were familiar with both ends of a gun.  Back in 1900 Kentucky elected William Goebel as Governor.  Just one day before his inauguration, Goebel was standing on the capitol steps between his two bodyguards, one of them Chinn’s Grandfather Jack, when a shot rang out.  A sniper shot Goebel, fatally wounding him.  Following his passing and true to the Kentucky sense of fairness, for the first time in U.S. history, a dead man was sworn into office.

Col. Chinn shows off his favorite Browning trophy to FN’s Skip Kitchen.

George: What about George Chinn?  Did he have an interest in firearms when he was a youngster? 

Buddy: Chinn’s father was the warden of the prison in Frankfort, Kentucky.  This gave George many opportunities to disassemble guns from prison assets.  Chinn had access to explosives too, from the family’s calcite mine.  He led a charmed childhood and like most kids of that era, he enjoyed target shooting and plinking.

George: Tell me about George Chinn’s early education and his career plans.

Buddy: George went to a Millersburg Military Institute, a boarding high school where he was a member of the “Saturday Afternoon Tea Club.”  That’s what they jokingly called the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) program.  He graduated in 1920 in a class of nine.   Since he was in ROTC at the close of WWI, he received a WWI victory medal even though he was never in theater.

George: I read where Chinn graduated from Centre College where he claimed to have majored in “football and penmanship.”  What can you tell me about his football career? 

Buddy: As a freshman George played lineman on the Centre team that won what would today be recognized as the national championship in 1921 after beating Harvard 6-0.  It was a huge upset.  The Centre team was coached by two of the greats in football history, Charlie Moran and Robert Myers.  These men greatly influenced George.  Their coaching style and football experience itself made a huge impact on his life.  Also significant was the relationship he developed with Albert. B. “Happy” Chandler, a guy who was a kind of team “groupy.”  Happy rode along on the football trips and in later life became Governor of Kentucky – twice.  He also served as a U.S. Senator, giving George an important political connection during much of his adult life.

George: What did Chinn do after college? 

Buddy: He coached football; assistant coach at Bucknell and head coach at Catawba.  His coaching experience was very valuable throughout his career.  He refined his coach’s instinct and he knew how to prepare a team for an “operation” by making sure his players knew what to do, how to do it, and had the right equipment and training to get the job done right.  This mentality served him well in later years when he helped Naval aviators and Marines with the operation, repair, and maintenance of automatic weapons.

George: But he didn’t stay in coaching – what happened? 

Buddy: While he was vacationing in North Carolina he had an opportunity to visit a tourist attraction there called the Bat Cave.   The sight of all those tourists buying food, drinks, and souvenirs got him thinking.  He owned a piece of property alongside the road near the Brooklyn Bridge that crossed the Kentucky River.  So near this scenic river, George knew it would be a good place for a tourist stop except that the property was a sheer cliff: almost all rock, and nearly 150 feet high.  Chinn had the perfect spot and all he needed was a cave.  That part wasn’t any problem at all as he knew an explosives expert named “Tunnel” Smith and had him blast a hole at the base of the cliff.  The tunnel went straight in about 20 feet and then veered to the left about 100 feet.  At the front entrance he built a grill with a snack bar counter on the left and directly across from it was the bar.  Chinn designed the bar in a particular way that discouraged people from hanging around it.  George wanted customers to buy drinks, but he didn’t want to make a hangout for potential troublemakers.  Out in front were tables for people to sit after they’d gotten their food and drink.  Through the years there were several modifications, including a pair of columns that were made from the same stone as Chinn’s house.

George: This had to be during the depression.  There couldn’t have been the same level of tourist traffic that Bat Cave had in those years, did he make any money?  

Buddy: He did very well.  My grandmother made delicious sandwiches for what could be called a “giveaway” price.  These were prohibition years; the real money was made from liquor and slot machines.

George: Slot machines? 

Buddy: He had penny and nickel slots in the back part of the cave.  Chinn was doing great until the law caught up with him.  He was charged with running “a game of chance” at Chinn’s Cave House.  In typical self-assured Chinn fashion, he defended himself and was able to convince the court that “you didn’t have a chance” when you gambled at Chinn’s.

George: It sounds like George has led a charmed life.  Did this magic continue?

Buddy:  Well, no.  A life-changing event happened at The Cave House near the end of its operation.  George got into an argument with the owner of the business across the road.  Somehow it escalated to the point of violence when the neighbor entered the Cave House and shot George in the leg.  George was wearing his .38 revolver at the time but he didn’t want this thing to escalate so he didn’t go for his gun.  George’s wife, Cotton, however, tried to get Chinn’s gun away from him.  It was all George could do to keep his wife away from that revolver.  My grandmother was a crack shot and George was certain she would have killed the guy.  Accompanied by his wife and daughter, Ann, Chinn went immediately to the hospital to get his wound cared for.  My mother Ann, who was quite young at the time, recalled she had never seen so much blood in her life.  Chinn got patched up and carried that slug in his leg for the rest of his life.

Who Are These People?
Most small arms manufacturers cannot afford to keep a full time sales staff in each country.  Every friendly country is a potential customer and sales to them can represent a significant portion of any company’s yearly revenue.  The solution that makes the most sense is to hire a sales agent who operates in the target country.  Familiar with all aspects of military and government procurement, these agents can be effective in leading the charge to find business opportunities.  A good agent can be the life blood of an organization while a bad one is your competitor and maybe even your lawyer’s best friend.  A careful selection of these agents must be made for a vast number of reasons.

The first is connections.  Most agents have prior military experience, generally at a high level, and are well-connected in the current government.  They have access to the military decision makers and buying commands for all branches of the military and law enforcement.  They visit the customer frequently, gathering intel and pushing your product.

Many agents are true professionals with substantial technical expertise.  Agents with technical acumen take the company’s armorers and other product maintenance courses.  They often keep a set of special maintenance or armorer’s tools handy.  This offers a huge advantage to the small arms manufacturer since the agent gets a close up, hands on experience that is invaluable when he is in the field troubleshooting problems.  Addressing minor problems on a rapid basis is a boon to the customer and can eliminate unnecessary travel outside the U.S.  In cases where the problem is beyond their capability, the agent can act as the first responder and intermediary who can get you a clear concise definition of the problem.  This keeps the company in good standing with the customer while preventing costly and time-consuming travel.

It is not unusual to find sales agents attending trade expositions such as the S.H.O.T. show or the annual meeting of the Association of the United States Army (AUSA.)  They have a presence in your booth, ready to talk anyone from their sales territory who may show up.

Traits of a Good Agent
A good agent will be willing to prepare a monthly business report.  This report lets you know where things stand and what’s been done that month to promote your product.  It alerts you to any problems with your fielded product and advises you of meetings, tenders, funded research studies, and other opportunities upcoming which may be of interest.  A good agent will give you this information in time to prepare a good response.  The most honest of the sales agents will let you know if they have taken on any new clients, and who they are.  They keep up with current activities of your potential customers and are fully aware of what your competitors have accomplished in that country.

It can’t be that hard to write 12 reports a year.  If nothing gets reported for a couple of months, maybe you need to start looking for a new agent.  This is particularly true when you suddenly get offers from new sources to be your agent while yours remains oddly silent.  It’s probably time to put them on notice for termination.

A good agent is familiar with your complete product line and visits your company regularly to stay abreast of new developments.  When this occurs, companies need to keep in mind that divulging too much information is in violation of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), so only cleared information may be passed to these agents.  In their home country, agents will keep a good stock of your product literature, available for strategic placement at a moment’s notice.

Considering current events at S.H.O.T., agents must be willing to become fully familiar with the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and know how to get the documents required for arms transactions in their country.  Import certificates are absolutely essential and good agents will secure them for you without question.

Many agents will represent large numbers of companies.  These agents won’t always put a high priority on selling your products.  Rather, they spend time working on projects that will give them the best or quickest payback.  Some agents even represent two gun companies with competing products, yet claim they can stay objective.  This always ends in disaster.

An excellent example of the best agent I ever worked with was an agent covering military sales in Canada.  He had a special knack for uncovering valuable information about the market, customers, clients, and potential business partners.  Before you would enter any meeting with them he would insist on scheduling a private session with you for a briefing.  He would give you a complete rundown on the personalities, the business climate, and the motivations of all the players.  When you walked into the meeting the next day, you were well prepared and with great confidence you knew exactly how and when to state your message.

The Tricky, Slippery and Dangerous Side of Being an Agent
One of the challenges facing agents in countries with unstable governments is the regime change.  Your agent may be the king’s first cousin but when the king is deposed, your agent is likely to be out of favor, incarcerated, or worse.  Association with the ousted government may be dangerous, even for sales managers of your company.  In countries with stable governments it’s a pretty straight forward bet – your agent either is well connected or is not.

Successful agents must learn to adapt to the wishes of their potential customers.  This can become dangerous in countries with internal problems and particularly when dealing with aggressive military commanders.  It has happened that when an agent shows up with a new product to demonstrate, the “test” might include participating in an operation against the local rebels.  The agent is usually expected to go along, indicating if nothing else, confidence in the product.

Having an agent that truly understands local customs can guide you when interfacing with potential customers and locals.  No matter how cosmopolitan you or your marketing department may think they are, there is no way they or you can understand every important custom in every country.  Take for example, an agent I knew who represented Thailand.  The agent was not a native Thai but was married to a Thai woman who managed a hotel in Bangkok.  When delegations from our company visited Thailand, everyone found it convenient to stay at his wife’s hotel so she could look out for them.  On their first day of arrival the agent recommended that our group rest from the plane trip for a few hours during the afternoon.  His wife had the day off and he’d be spending some time with her at home.  He would return later that evening to meet them for dinner at the hotel restaurant.  Arriving at the restaurant, he found his colleagues standing in the hallway in front of a sign that announced the restaurant was closed.  The agent called his wife who investigated and called back with the explanation.  It seems the restaurant had run out of chicken, and rather than lose face by admitting they had run out, the staff found it more logical to close the restaurant.

Enduring the long dry spells between paychecks is another obstacle to be faced by agents.  Unless the agent represents a lot of companies with active transactions through the year, the agent may pursue what are called “parallel business” ventures.  This business is usually outside the law and involves supplying weapons to a rival political group or to local criminals.  Such parallel business was explained as the probable motive for the demise of a fellow sales manager at another company.  One Monday morning as he drove in to work, he was murdered, execution style.  I had taken the same route from Brussels only one day earlier.  Investigation into his murder uncovered some shady ventures, but the mystery of his murder has never been solved.

Agent Agreements – Write the Exit Plan First
For any small arms manufacturer it is wise to investigate every company thoroughly before signing up with them.  Far too many agents have a legitimate looking business front that is backed by underworld or undesirable characters.  The U.S. Treasury can be a help with your due diligence for agents.  Their website allows you to check what they term as “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons” and it is essential your agent’s name does not appear on this list.

You need to find out what other companies these agents represent.  If they are in the military business, and the best ones usually are, it’s important to find out if the companies they represent have any products that conflict with yours.  Before you write the agent’s agreement, you are smart to write the terms of termination first.  There are several reasons for this:  The first is that many agents are only interested in their sales commission.  They talk a good talk, yet do nothing to earn their pay.  Just about the time you think they’ve gone subterranean for good, you do all the work to orchestrate a sale within their territory, and up they pop like a prairie dog – looking for their commission.  Other reasons might include: regime changes, conflicts of interest, and the most important – an unwillingness to work within the FCPA guidelines.

What works best for most companies, and even the agent, is a short term (e.g. 30-60 day) no-questions-asked notice of termination.

Bribery and the Federal Corrupt Practices Act
As we all learned from the message conveyed at the S.H.O.T show, your agent must be familiar with the FCPA and needs to know what is allowed and what is not allowed.  They are not to be passing out bribes under any circumstances.  They should be aware of other important U.S. laws such as the ITAR regulations and mail and wire fraud statutes.  Finding an honest, informed agent can be crucial to your business; but knowing what to look for in an agent is half the battle.

I sat quietly taking notes as the Purchase Description was being reviewed, making sure I would capture the important points.  The development of a new rifle for the U.S. Military is not an everyday occurrence and I wanted to make sure I understood all of the requirements clearly.  The Government speaker went quickly over the next point.  He knew that this one rarely enlisted any questions: “The rifle shall be compatible with the multi-purpose Bayonet and attach securely at the bayonet mounting points.”  No eyebrows were raised, no questions asked.  And why should there be?  It was a foregone conclusion that every service rifle would be configured to accept the standard bayonet.

What does this mean to a designer of weapons?  For one thing, whatever had been envisioned or planned for the muzzle area of the weapon was now complicated by design constraints.  Any muzzle device, no matter how effective in its current configuration, would now have a 0.86 diameter so that the bayonet ring could pass over and ride securely.  The fit would have to be loose enough for a quick deployment yet tight enough so there was no rattle.  At a prescribed position aft of the muzzle, the gas block or other appendage would need the special T-configuration for securing the bayonet.  This would require chamfered corners for a smooth and rapid connection.  The rifle would have to be rugged in the muzzle area as well.  When the M14 was in development, testing showed that thrusts with the bayonet resulted in damage to the weapon prompting a redesign.  There were but few words in the Purchase Description where the bayonet was mandated, yet in an instant, the freedom of design was greatly restricted.

SA80 bayonet locked onto the sheath end for wire cutting action. The upper surface of the bayonet is canted to add shear angle. (Photo by Dan Shea courtesy LMO Working Reference Collection)

Why in the world do we need a bayonet anyway, I asked myself?  During the break I considered other devices that might be better suited to the end of the barrel.  How about a stun gun or a Taser?  Maybe a pyrotechnic wire cutter or a laser would be better; something, anything that was more “21st Century.”  Surely there must exist some new technology that might carry us beyond these design constraints from which we seem to be forever encumbered?  I needed to give this more thought and also made a mental note to check how we got to the point of a never-ending bayonet requirement.

Weeks later, while searching my files and other reference sources, I learned that the first bayonet use was recorded in the 17th century.  Riflemen wielding a matchlock rifle were protected by a soldier carrying a pike, whose job it was to keep the enemy at bay long enough for the rifleman to reload.  When they closed in on the enemy, the rifleman jammed a special “plug bayonet” in the end of the barrel so he could join the pikesmen in combat when there simply wasn’t time to reload.

Two other jobs taken on by the combat sheath are blade sharpening on the replaceable sharpening stone on the upper right surface, and cutting with the saw blade. It’s a good thing the stone is replaceable, while it is a good sharpener, the adhesive on many stones has not held up to service and needed replacing- which is easy to do with the proper hex wrench. The sawblade itself is also replaceable, and if used for minor tasks is quite handy. It is important to remember that this is not intended to replace a chainsaw, it is a convenience and if used too hard will quickly break. (Photo by Dan Shea courtesy LMO Working Reference Collection)

In the years that followed, bayonet designs were never very innovative but there was one that is remembered for out of the box thinking.  Early rifles needed a ramrod and later ones a cleaning rod, so one designer sold the U.S. on a ramrod bayonet combination design.  In 1905 this bayonet received some high level attention when president, Theodore Roosevelt wrote a letter to the Secretary of War telling him, “I must say that I think that ramrod bayonet is about as poor an invention as I ever saw.  As you observed, it broke short off as soon as hit with even moderate violence.  It would have no moral effect and mighty little physical effect.”  He questioned the need for a bayonet and went on to ask that further studies be undertaken by officers seeing combat in the Philippines and from military attachés who were sent as observers to the Russo-Japanese war.  Two American Colonels from the office of the Surgeon General were assigned to accompany the Russian Army in combat in order to study the wounds caused by weapons of modern warfare.  Observations on the use of the bayonet would be part of their mission.

The Russian and Japanese armies faced off on three different fronts in battle lines that extended 10 miles, 60 miles, and 80 miles.  Nocturnal engagements were frequent and much use of the bayonet was made on both sides, yet the actual number of casualties attributed to the bayonet was a mere 0.3%.  In their report, the Colonels concluded: “The experience of the Boer War and that of the present Russo-Japanese war has shown that the bayonet is not yet an obsolete weapon and that we still must reckon with it.”

For the collectors out there: L-R: British SA80 Bayonet, Combat Sheath, Green nylon combat frog, L3A1 white buff leather parade sheath, White buff leather parade sheath with brass, Black patent leather sheath for Regiment Parade. SA80 bayonets have a somewhat brittle tip and many examples will be seen broken off from hard use. This is not a problem limited to SA80 bayonets, hard use will cause failure in many bayonet tips. (Photo by Dan Shea courtesy LMO Working Reference Collection)

Reckon with it we did, from the First and Second World Wars and the Korean War right up until the 1950s when the M14 rifle was being developed to replace the M1 rifle, Browning Automatic Rifle, M2 Carbine and M3 Grease Gun.  The bayonet used with the M1 rifle did not fit the M14, which got the Army thinking about the requirement for a bayonet.  Mr. Amos Bonkemeyer, who was then head of the Light Weapons Section of the Army’s Infantry and Aircraft weapons section, stated the Army “… is considering not using a bayonet with the M14.”  This came as a result of a recommendation from Fort Monroe where they reported, “The bayonet is rarely used in combat.”  These observations led to seriously consider arming the soldier and Marine with a K-bar knife with no means of attachment to the rifle.  This concept met resistance from the troops and eventually the bayonet was accommodated on the M14.  The front end of the weapon was redesigned and the stock reinforced to a point where the M14 was tested and determined to be as good as the M1 for bayonet fighting.  The M16 that followed met the same requirement.

Resigned to be forever burdened with a bayonet, the Army funded a project to make the bayonet more useful.  The soldier needed a saw, a wire cutter, or an all purpose knife far more frequently than those combat situations that required him to affix a bayonet to the end of his rifle.  In 1973 a project was funded to develop a multi-purpose Knife-Cutter Bayonet that would perform multiple tasks and also be effective as a fighting tool.  A contract was awarded, designs were conceived, and a number of prototypes were built for field trials.  Just as the multi-purpose M14 rifle that preceded it, the Knife-Cutter Bayonet proved once again that a product that makes design compromises in order to do multiple jobs ends up doing none of them very well.  Their overweight designs were not able to cut double strand barbed wire and were too cumbersome for most practical uses.  At the time these studies were undertaken, men had already been sent to the moon, yet these developers were overwhelmed by the challenge to develop a multi-functional bayonet, their final report stating: “Development was terminated when it was concluded that it was beyond the state of the art to develop a single item encompassing all the features stated as essential.”

Design #4 Knife-Cutter Bayonet. (U.S Army Land Warfare Laboratory, Report LWL-CR-06S72)

Only one year after the first “new rifle for the military” meeting, I found myself in a carbon copy of the first meeting.  It was another new requirement, this time for a carbine that would also require the accommodation of a bayonet at the muzzle.  When they reached the point in the purchase description that would cover the bayonet I thought once again about Teddy Roosevelt, the Russo-Japanese War, Stun guns, Tasers, and Lasers.  I turned to a combat veteran next to me and whispered, “Why are we doing this again?  Do you guys really need a bayonet?”  The answer was short and profound.  “George, when the soldier’s weapon no longer works for whatever reason, the bayonet is his last remaining means of defense.”  Gee, I never thought about it like that.  I don’t feel so bad though.  Teddy Roosevelt didn’t get it the first time either.

By the summer of 1918 he was nearing his 65th birthday and might have been thinking about retirement, or at least slowing down.  John had enjoyed an illustrious and profitable career in designing and building of firearms, and now faced a request that would be difficult to turn down.  Fighter pilot and son of ex-president Theodore Roosevelt had just been shot down over France in a dogfight with an armored German aircraft.  This tragedy further proved we were being outgunned in the air war.  General Pershing, commander of the American Forces, had sent a message from England asking for a new .50 caliber round and two new machine guns; one for aircraft and the other for ground application.  This was a time of war and American patriot, John M. Browning, would answer the call with his best effort.

For the operating system, Browning selected his famous short recoil cycle, deriving drive power from a recoiling barrel rather than porting the barrel for gun gas.  This was a logical choice as the test gun from his earlier design, the .30 caliber Model 1917, fired over 39,000 rounds without a stoppage in acceptance testing.  These new designs would be essentially scale-ups of the Model 1917.

Browning met most of his design objectives but there were two design challenges that he could not achieve.  With the machine tools available at that time, the dimensions that established the location of the bolt face and the depth of the chamber could not be held tightly enough to control the fit of the cartridge in the chamber.  This important dimension, known as headspace, can cause problems when out of specification.  Depending on tolerances, the round could be too tight in the chamber, and the gun wouldn’t shoot at all.  At the other extreme, the round was too loose in the chamber which resulted in a stoppage at best; or a ruptured cartridge at worst.  The ruptured cartridge presented a serious danger to the shooter, spewing brass shards at high velocity out the bottom of the receiver.  Another dimension that couldn’t be held close enough governed when the firing pin would fall – a dimension that later became known as timing.

Since these weapons had to be made on existing machinery, Browning made an easy adjustment that required the operator to screw the barrel into the barrel extension, moving the barrel toward the bolt face to reach the proper headspace.  He developed a couple of simple gages that allowed the operator to adjust to the proper dimensions.

Weapon development proceeded rapidly, and then slowed after the Armistice was signed on November 11, 1918, bringing World War I to an end.  Between 1923 and the ten years that followed, both aircraft and antiaircraft models were further refined with the new designation as the M2 for the aircraft model standardized in October of 1933 and the ground gun one month later.  John M. Browning did not live to see this day, having passed away in 1926.

Only three years after standardization, the Spanish Civil War offered the M2 its first challenge.  It was the ammunition, not the gun that was in question.  The socialist Spanish Republicans supported by the Soviets and Mexico were in a civil war with the Nationalists who were supplied armament by Hitler and Mussolini.  The war was heavily covered by the press and a proving ground for new armament.  The Russian 20mm was quite effective as an aircraft weapon inspiring a reevaluation test against the M2.  With its lighter, but still quite effective ammunition, testing in 1937 determined the M2 would be retained as an aircraft weapon.  Military tacticians preferred the increased ammunition capacity of .50 caliber, even at the expense of a lightweight cartridge.  Additionally, the high rate of fire of the aircraft M2 increased hit probability over slower firing larger caliber weapons.

T176 machine gun. (Springfield Armory National Historical Site Archives)

When the U.S. entered World War II, the M2 air and ground variants were quick to demonstrate their effectiveness.  In anti-tank applications gunners would attack the tank treads whenever they encountered heavy tanks.  The aircraft model was found on almost every aircraft in both fixed and flex applications.  The Mitchell bomber, for example, carried fourteen.  Ironically, even the Japanese were using the Browning, having purchased the design before declaring war, chambering the weapon for the 12.7 Breda cartridge.

As World War II ended, the military decided to look at some other gun designs.  By now, modern manufacturing methods allowed most weapons to have fixed headspace and timing, yet there was one other major design drawback.  The M2 wasn’t well suited to use in tank turrets.  In designing a tank turret, it is important to keep access to the gun feeder from inside the turret so the gunner can load and unload from within.  The M2 has a very long receiver, particularly the distance from the front of the feed location to the aft of the weapon.

At the war’s end, tanks had proven their battlefield effectiveness, evolving from vehicles that adapted existing weapons to a point where tank designs dictated dimensional constraints for new weapons.  With a new main battle tank program on the horizon, the military had to get serious about finding a more suitable tank weapon.  In the early 1950s they funded three different gun development projects to find a replacement.  The days of the M2 appeared to be numbered.

The first of these was inspired by a large caliber German aircraft revolver cannon that looked like a promising approach so it was redesigned as a .50 caliber.  Low reliability and an excessive amount of toxic gun gas introduced into the tank turret caused the design to be dropped.  No matter.  Two other designs were in the works.  One was the T176, developed by Frigidaire and the other was the T175 by Aircraft Armament Incorporated (AAI.)  Both had short receivers, fixed headspace and timing.  Each had a new ammunition link that allowed the designers to shorten the receivers.

The receiver of the T175 was a full 7.5 inches shorter than the M2’s and that of the T176 was comparable.  The M9 rearward stripping link, used with the M2, was a metallic link that had evolved from the cloth link belts used at the beginning of the century.  Ammunition could only be drawn rearward for removal and was the principal cause for the M2’s long receiver.  Frigidaire and AAI opted to develop a link as well as a weapon in order to meet the size constraints.  Neither the T175 nor the T176 were developed in time for the Korean War so the M2HB and its aircraft variants, ANM2 and M3, was the heavy machine gun of choice, and performed admirably.

In 1958 it was time to end the dynasty of the M2.  The new M60 tank was beginning development and its designers were promised a machine gun with a short receiver.  Since the new weapon would require a new link and offer fixed headspace and timing, there would be no place for an old weapon with a World War I link?  Besides, having the same ammunition on the same battlefield with two different and incompatible ammunition links was an unthinkable logistics nightmare.

The T175 AAI machine gun was further developed, designated the M85 and put into series production at Springfield Armory.  It offered two rates of fire to meet both air and ground applications.  The M85 was used on the M60 tank, but was not popular with tankers due to its unreliability.  The M85 lacked control of the feeding rounds and problems with the rate reducer confined its use to the M60 and a few other vehicles.

Both the M2 and M85 were found in Vietnam though the tank of choice there, the old M48, still used the M2.  After Vietnam, the General Electric Armament Systems Department, developers of the modern Gatling guns, proposed a unique approach to solve the tank gun problem.  In 1978 they were awarded a design study contract for a .50 caliber externally powered weapon.  Their GE-150 could use either link interchangeably and the gun fit in both the M60 tank and the new M1 tank, then in development.  A cycling model was successfully built but a lack of funding killed the program.

Early versions of the M2 machine gun. (Springfield Armory National Historical Site Archives)

In 1979 the U.S. Army launched its own design of a .50 caliber machine gun.  The intent was to develop a .60 caliber weapon, but Picatinny Arsenal in Dover, NJ, decided they would make the first prototype in .50 caliber due to ammunition availability.  The Dover Devil, as they called it, was lightweight, gas operated, and could feed from either of two incoming ammunition belts, giving the operator a choice between ammunition types.

The design was built and tested but the U.S. military decided against funding further development since by now the M2 had proven itself and there was plenty of ammunition in the field linked with the old M9 link.  To keep the receiver short, the Dover Devil used the same link as the M85 but by now there was no longer much ammunition around that was linked that way.  The Dover Devil may not have interested the U.S. Military, but a Singapore company was interested and by its own admission copied the design and completed development.  It is now standard in the Singapore Army.

Without customer support, neither the GE-150 nor the Dover Devil proceeded past the prototype stage.  For the new M1 tank, Chrysler would be obliged to make the commander’s cupola large enough to fit the M2.

As the 20th century came to a close, the M2 was now the only adjustable headspace weapon in the inventory.  Reports of injuries from improperly headspaced weapons were on the rise.  Three companies, Saco Defense, Ramo, and FN Herstal, all produced Quick Change Barrel (QCB) conversion kits that offered fixed headspace and timing for the M2.  In 1997 the U.S. military held a QCB competition which was won by Saco Defense.  Unfortunately, funding was lost before the design could be fully evaluated and the program ended.

Even though it required headspace and timing adjustments after barrel changes, the M2HB served in Desert Storm and performed with distinction, receiving huge accolades from the troops for its accuracy, reliability, and devastating firepower.  Today in Iraq and Afghanistan the M2HB is one of, if not the top rated, machine gun in theater, yet, as expected, reports of field injuries from improper headspace adjustment continue.  Frequent troop rotation has once again brought to light that setting headspace and timing is a perishable skill.

In 2007, the military found the money required for a Quick Change Barrel Kit and held a new competition.  Saco Defense no longer existed, but won the competition again under the name of its new owner, General Dynamics (GD).  The M2 with the QCB kit will be type classified early next year as the M2A1.  The contract required that 30 kits be built and these are currently undergoing evaluation, with fielding expected for late 2010.  As it nears its 100th birthday, the M2 will finally join the ranks of modern weapons with fixed headspace and timing.  The M2 will be ready to last through another century.  But will it survive?

For a number of years, GD has had another .50 caliber weapon in development.  Borrowing design concepts from earlier work in developing a grenade machine gun, GD decided to adapt the concept to .50 caliber.  The XM806 uses new lightweight materials and a unique impulse averaging operating cycle keeping its weight to a trim 40 pounds – less than half the weight of the M2.  GD is also offering a new 14 pound tripod to accompany the XM806 that is half the weight of the standard M3 tripod.

At the end of 2009, GD will deliver twelve XM806 systems to the U.S. Government in support of a 450,000 round endurance and environmental test.  Approval to enter production is expected in September, 2010 with low rate initial production expected to begin shortly thereafter.

Soon our old M2s will be upgraded so that the headspace and timing will be fixed, thereby resolving both safety and tactical issues.  Next year, a new lightweight.50 caliber weapon, the XM806, will also be available to augment and perhaps one day replace the M2.  Both of these weapons use the same M9 ammunition link, so there will not be a battlefield logistics issue.

All the moving parts seem to work together except that the M2 receiver is still too long to fit in compact vehicle turrets and the XM806 receiver is just as long. What about the tanks?

Last August, the Office of the Secretary of the Army announced a 2009 project to assess the current state of the art in small arms.  They are interested in providing a better service weapon to the soldier.  In addition to the improved reliability, durability, modularity and compatibility with accessories, the Army is seeking better accuracy and dispersion out to 600 meters, as compared with the current service weapon, the M4 Carbine.  Companies interested in competing were invited to a meeting in November to present their candidates to Army representatives.

This is not the first time the Army has sought weapons to meet these same or very similar requirements.  The perception of the SALVO program in 1951 was that a weapon firing multiple projectiles would increase hit probability.  Inaccuracies of the rifles in that era were understood to combine with further inaccuracy when a shooter entered the loop.  Combat stress made the system even more inaccurate.  SALVO investigators had numbers to back up their assertions.  In World War II, they determined that Infantrymen were inherently inaccurate with aiming errors accounting for the expenditure of 10,000 rounds for each hit on the battlefield.

Battlefield engagement ranges in those years were defined to be less than 300 yards three fourths of the time – much the same as it is today.  The weight of the ammunition and rifle was a concern so testing with lighter weight ammunition was conducted.  Their studies showed that tactically, a rifle/grenade launcher combination would offer significant advantages on the battlefield so obtaining such a system became a principal objective of the military.

They found that multiple fléchette rounds, used by some of the contenders, were quite inaccurate – only being useful at very close ranges.  Sabots used for the sub caliber fléchettes were unpopular with the evaluators, when fragments of the fiberglass were expelled into the air with each round fired.

During SALVO it was determined that high velocity projectiles smaller than 7.62mm, the size of the then current service round, could have equal or better lethality at a substantial savings in weight.  The use of fléchettes was not successful but got the concept rolling for a single conventional small bullet to be used in their place.  Another determination proved that a fully automatic rifle offered no advantage in increased hit probability.

Project SALVO was more about studying weapon, ammunition, and soldier performance than in developing a new service rifle.  Eugene Stoner’s 5.56mm M16 rifle offered some of the size, weight, and performance improvements determined in SALVO and was adopted just a few years after the SALVO project ended.

Research and development in small arms continued with the new Special Purpose Individual Weapon (SPIW) program in 1963.  The SPIW project objective was the development of a fieldable rifle using the other concepts developed on the SALVO program.  Candidate weapons came forth from H&R, AAI, Springfield Arsenal and Winchester; the latter three downselected and invited to Ft. Benning for trials.

The lightweight Winchester candidate was particularly innovative in that it was able to reduce recoil by allowing the action to reciprocate within the fiberglass stock as multiple rounds were fired.  The design turned out to be too complicated and couldn’t complete testing.

Dick Colby, the Chief Designer of Springfield Arsenal’s candidate, had the perception that his rifle would feed ammunition smoothly from a 60 round ammunition container.  Unfortunately, at 1,700 shots per minute, real-world vibration, dynamics, and other variables took over.  The Springfield SPIW could not be made to feed reliably, and was eliminated from the test.

The AAI entry gained the inside track, in spite of the fact that it was 10 pounds overweight.  The fin stabilized fléchettes launched in 3-round bursts with each trigger pull were impressive and accuracy was surprisingly good.  Bringing the weight down and solving the other technical problems proved too big a task for both the AAI and Springfield design teams.  Subsequently, program funding was lost and by 1974 the SPIW project was over.  Five years before SPIW ended, the AAI-developed M203 grenade launcher was adopted for use on the M16 rifle.  At last, a major objective of the SALVO/SPIW programs had been successfully achieved and fielded.

In 1986, the Army announced a new initiative to find a rifle to replace the M16A2.  The objective of the Advanced Combat Rifle (ACR) Program was to double the hit probability with two assumptions made: 1. The soldier would be stressed to further increase aiming errors.  2. These errors would be compensated with multiple projectiles launched with each squeeze of the trigger.

The conclusion from the study was that the aiming error introduced by the stressed soldier generated accuracy errors too large to be compensated by improved rifle technologies.  Not even multiple projectiles were found to be an acceptable solution.  The significance of this determination cannot be overstated.

With the ACR conclusion in mind, the use of airbursting munitions became an alternative to the single or multi-projectile firing rifle that was well worth consideration.  It would not only offer a better solution to the aiming error, but also have the potential to defeat targets in defilade.

On the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) Program that followed, the grenade launcher now became the primary weapon with a backup rifle underneath.  It was the perception of many, and in particular the competitors, that the backup rifle could be a small, pistol size caliber without detriment to the overall system effectiveness.  Reality set in when the U.S. Marine Corps insisted the caliber of the backup be 5.56mm NATO.  This introduced a substantial size and weight penalty to the detriment of the program.

On the new Enhanced Carbine program, potential competitors may today be envisioning their weapon systems functioning smoothly with rounds feeding properly and component parts rotating and sliding just as they should.  The real rifle world is a much uglier place where the Laws of Physics are greatly amplified by the whims of Mother Nature.  Military small arms live in a hostile environment that is full of mud, snow, rain, cold, sand, dust and extreme heat.  This is a world where it is often realized that nothing should ever be powered by gunpowder.

The reality is that small arms designers are engine designers where the engine is driven by a wretched substance called gunpowder.  Gunpowder is a substance that burns at high temperature and extreme pressure, emits toxic fumes and leaves behind a dirty, corrosive residue that defies removal.  Many say it burns with a grudge.  Small arms designers are, at the same time, rocket scientists who figure out how to propel missiles accurately from low-cost launch tubes without the benefit of onboard computers.

To all of the design challenges of the small arm, the soldier adds another variable that must be taken into consideration.  The small arm and the ammunition must be as light as possible, yet durable enough to stand the rigors of harsh environments and rough handling.  And yes, we have the technology and we have people who sent men to the moon, but Mission Control was not under mortar attack at the time.

Talented engineers, scientists, and technicians the world over have been trying to develop better and better small arms for centuries, but for all their efforts they are only ever able to nudge the technology forward.  Time to time great innovators as Browning, Stoner, and Kalashnikov come along, but in spite of their huge talents, are only able to give the technology a slightly bigger nudge.

On the Enhanced Carbine Program, it will be incumbent upon the Army to conduct testing that will prove beyond a doubt that the winner of the competition offers significant improvements in combat performance.  The new enhanced carbine has to run the real world gauntlet better than the carbine we already have.  Otherwise, it will sit in the gun rack while users beg for their old carbines to return.