The Daniel Defense Pistol Caliber Carbine (PCC) is a purpose-designed carbine. Despite bearing design hallmarks of the AR platform, it has many unique features. When we decided to do a SADJ review on it, we chose the 13.6-inch long, short-barreled rifle (SBR) version. It seemed the right choice for a duty-type weapon. It’s available in a select-fire option, though we did not move forward with that option.

The PCC SBR has an 8.3-inch cold hammer forged, ½x28 threaded barrel with a 1:10-inch twist rate and an S2W profile. Most muzzle devices made for 9mm AR carbines will be useable on the DD PCC. It’s recoil-operated (no gas or piston system), uses a hydraulic buffer, weighs only 6.1 pounds (2.77 kg) unloaded, with an overall length of 22.5 to 27 inches, depending on stock setting.

PERFORMANCE

Our live fire evaluation was done at the Boulder City Rifle & Pistol Club in Boulder City, Nevada on a 100-meter range. (BRPclub.org) We chose to fire at 25 meters, at which range the point of aim is roughly the point of impact (regarding elevation) for most 9x19mm duty rounds. Dennis Powell was the shooter, and all record fire included the HUXWRX RAD 9 silencer and Vortex Spitfire optic. Velocity was recorded with the Garmin Xero C1 chronograph. Initial sighting-in was done with basic range ammo – we used Western 9x19mm 124gr FMJ (target not shown).

HUXWRX RAD 9 SUPPRESSOR

Daniel Defense chose to use the HUXWRX RAD 9 silencer for the PCC SBR. HUXWRX says “HUXWRX Safety Company is a human exposure workshop dedicated to building products that are optimized for the safety and health of our customers, without compromising efficiency or performance.”

HUXWRX was at one time OSS Suppressors, a successful and innovative manufacturer with their OSS “Flow-Through” technology. HUXWRX is focused on the “safety” aspect of their product’s effect on end users. With as much damage as frequent firearms use has done to the health of end users, this is pretty refreshing. As toxic gas mitigation has become a popular discussion topic, as many shooters have serious heavy metal issues in their blood, the issue is addressed by HUXWRX “Flow-Baffle” technology which uses a series of helical coils that decrease blowback, and actually blow gasses forward. The Flow-Baffle design directs the expanding propellant gases that escape from behind the projectile uncorking from the muzzle into the suppressor entrance chamber, away from the bore line. Once re-directed, the radial grooves route these gases forward, through the suppressor, and away from the shooter.

Our tests at the range confirmed the claims about the gas-forward operation of this system. It accomplished this without adding any perceived recoil. We’ve previously tested the HUXWRX suppressors on fully automatic M16 rifles and found no increase in their cyclic rate. It was clear that the HUXWRX suppressor tightened the group (as expected) while meeting our expectations for sound suppression performance. Sound pressure levels with the RAD 9 are expected to be in the 133-136 dB range, and to the ear, that sounded right. HUXWRX suggested their new Ca$h 9k would be a good option for the Daniel Defense PCC, but we did not try one.

VORTEX SPITFIRE AR PRISM SCOPE

The Vortex Spitfire AR prism scope is designed specifically for the AR/M16 firearm family. That means 5.56x45mm, and in fact there is a bullet drop compensator (BDC) turret included. So why would we put it on a 9mm carbine? Because it’s designed for an AR, it’s small, very fast for target acquisition, and very accurate. With the range of the 9x19mm cartridge initially being designed for under 50 meters (of course, we shoot it farther), and the typical police AR rifle engagement being less than that (even police sniper engagements average a bit over 50 meters), we decided the Vortex Spitfire and the 9x19mm round complimented each other at these real-world engagement distances.

Most 9x19mm-issue cartridges have no elevation drop from point-of-aim out to 25 meters, and only 1-2 inches of drop at 50 meters. (We should note here that prism scopes are not compatible for use with Vortex’s Micro 6x, Micro 3X, or VMX-3T magnifiers). The illumination controls are two buttons located under the ocular lens; one has an up arrow, the other a down. The ocular is used for reticle focus – it’s rotated right or left when viewing a blank surface to get a sharp focus for the operator’s eye. All of our shooters were very pleased with the Spitfire AR optic, and each had their preferences on reticle color and brightness. At only 4.3 inches long, weighing 11.2 ounces, and yielding a 79-foot field of view at 100 yards, this FFP 1x optic is an unobtrusive enhancement for the Daniel Defense PCC.

The Spitfire AR uses the Vortex “Dual Ring Tactical” (MOA) reticle. This is a glass-etched reticle and is very durable. Shown here, the illumination is at “0” so the DRT reticle was easier to photograph. In real use, there are five brightness levels; the lowest is “ultra-low” and is for use with night vision devices. The operator can choose either red or green illumination by momentarily pressing both the up- and down-arrow buttons at the same time. Color is more a personal choice, of course, but the ultra-low red works well with night vision goggles, perhaps better than green… again, it’s subjective. Reticle subtensions (the reticle markings) are in MOA, which will aid those who use the reticle for range finding.

“On accessible terrain he who occupies the High Ground and ensures lines of supplies will fight to advantage” -Master Sun Tzu

High Ground Defense is a relatively new name to the defense and small arms industry, but not the people involved. The HGD engineers have many decades of experience with small arms, and in specific, successful M134 series designs and manufacturing. They have spent the last several years preparing a pallet of solutions in small arms.

Aside from the M134HGD Gatling Gun system, HGD offers some very innovative, lightweight, belt-fed machine guns that include  evolved variants of the M249/Minimi in 5.56x45mm, 7.62x51mm, and 6.5 Creedmoor. Their company offers other services:

• Weapon System Design
• Land/Sea/Air Mounting Solutions
• Electrical/Avionics System Design/Integration
• Rapid Prototyping

The M134 “Minigun” series of Gatling guns are electrically driven, mechanically operated automatic machine guns. The distinction in description is important. If there is a belt of ammunition and the barrel cluster is rotated, the ammunition will cycle through the mechanism and fire when presented to full lock up to the barrel. This can be a very dangerous situation around persons unfamiliar with this cycle of operation.

The M134 was a downsizing of the M61 20mm Vulcan six-barreled automatic cannon that was made in 7.62x51mm for use on rotary- and fixed-wing aircraft during the Vietnam War. General Electric (Yes, the “GE Brings Good Things to Life” General Electric) was the design and build contractor. GE in Vermont designed and built many weapon systems in that time period in its skunk works in Burlington. See our interview with Bob Chiabrandy, designer of the M134 among others, “The Man Who Designed the World’s Fastest Gun” on smallarmsreview.com. The interview was done by George Kontis, small arms engineer extraordinaire, who worked with Bob at GE before George became FNMI’s chief engineer.

The M134 has gone through a number of upgrades by different manufactures, each trying to deal with some of the idiosyncrasies of the system. HGD’s engineering staff have many decades of experience in this area, and prospective end users should discuss the new delinker-feeder systems, variable rate of fire FCU, lightweight battery packages, caliber changes, and many other seriously functional upgrades.

High Ground Defense’s delinker-feeder loading system (above) is unique and truly easy to use. Sliding the ammunition belt into the delinker-feeder is generally a three-handed job even with some of the newer open-door types. The HGD system allows the belt to quickly be held in position to start feeding, with one hand locking in place, then the doors can be closed. Clearing a link jam is also much easier with the amount of access provided.

HGD’s feed cover (above) replaces the old assembly and safeing sector. The safeing sector’s job is to complete the elliptical path the bolts are traveling in, and when opened, interrupt that path, and keep the bolts from going into battery with a live round. Remember, this is a mechanically operated gun. If the bolt goes into battery on a live round, it will fire. Period. This is where many accidents and several deaths have occurred. The safeing sector must be opened before working on the gun, and it takes several minutes to do. With the HGD cover, the path is interrupted with one hand motion. Once the levers have been activated, no bolt can go into battery.

One of the newest designs that High Ground Defense is presenting is the ADVANTAGE 7.62x51mm Gatling Gun (above). It is a three barreled design, and very lightweight. The basic M134 gun weighs 85 pounds (39kg) and there have been some lighter models, however, there were issues. HGD’s ADVANTAGE is nearly half the weight, it weighs 46.45 pounds (21kg). A key feature is the mechanical barrel cluster rotational lock for absolute safety when the system is in the SAFE condition. It has similar barrel spacing, bolt assemblies, and bolt cam path as on existing M134 platforms, but uses an alternative ammunition feeding, delinking, and transfer mechanism. The drive system uses a brushless DC servo motor with closed-loop positional feedback for precise control of all rotating components. The gun has a longitudinal bolt searing safety mechanism, self-contained hardware barrel clamp with a threaded adapter for various muzzle devices. It has integrated suspension lug mounting provisions, as well as multiple feed inlet locations for optimal feed chute orientation. It’s 41.2 inches long (1046mm) and 8.5 x 7.7 inches in diameter (215mm x 195mm). 

High Ground Defense’s machine shop (above) features the DN Solutions (Doosan) DVF 4000 vertical 5-axis machining center (CNC). It has a 40-tool automatic tool changer which expands to 120 tools, allowing HGD to work with complex prototype designs and production. The DVF 4000 was chosen for its versatility. With linear scales on X, Y, and Z axis and rotary scales on the B and C axis, they can program extremely accurate positioning and repeatability. Manufacturing Engineer Jay Goodrich is intimately familiar with DN (Doosan) systems, having been involved in specifying, selling, and installing CNC machines in the past. The Lynx 2100LSY­ horizontal lathe is another DN Solutions offering. A highly accurate CNC turning machine, it has wider support structures for the X and Z axis, as well as the tailstock traverse. It’s very stable, allowing for very accurate prototyping and production of parts. Like many modern manufacturers, HGD is heavy on engineering and quality prototyping with these capabilities, while sub-contracting some parts and operations to trusted vendors.

The HGD 249 is standard size, (above) and the HGD 249CQB (not shown, but we were enamored of it) has an ultra compact receiver. Born from the M249 Para-style machine guns, the CQB system in 5.56x45mm has an overall length of 32 inches (813mm), a barrel length of 9.75 inches (248mm), and a weight of under 14 pounds (less than 6.35kg). The shortened steel receiver has an ArmorLube finish and a hard chrome-lined quick-change barrel. There is an optional folding stock. The rate of fire is around 800rpm. With the short barrel, the effective range is claimed as 800m. The 249 variants can be ordered without the magazine well capability. 

The HGD 7.62mm SAW is a belt-fed 7.62x51mm NATO light machine gun. There is no magazine feed, just the M13 disintegrating links. HGD also offers this in 6.5 Creedmoor as well as with suppressors. The steel receiver has an ArmorLube finish and the quick-change barrel is hard chrome-lined. It uses a mono-block gas system.

Thirty-three, two-person teams of military snipers from around the world competed in the 53rd Winston P. Wilson (WPW) Sniper Championship (National Guard) and the 33rd Armed Forces Skill at Arms Meeting (Inter-Service) December 1-8 at Fort Chaffee Joint Maneuver Training Center. These championships allow service members to test sniper skills and weapon systems in a battle-focused environment.

This year’s sniper championships included international competitors from Colombia, Denmark, and the Netherlands.

The guest of honor at the awards ceremony, marking the triumphant conclusion of the highly competitive event, was Maj. Gen. Jonathan Stubbs, Arkansas’ adjutant general. His presence added honor to the celebration, recognizing outstanding achievements in marksmanship.

“Marksmanship is not just about hitting a target. It’s about discipline, focus, and precision. These are the same qualities that make our National Guard Soldiers the best in the world,” said Maj. Gen. Stubbs.

“The Winston P. Wilson Championship and the National Guard Marksmanship Training Center are integral to the success of our Soldiers in maintaining their marksmanship proficiency,” Stubbs said. “Through these institutions, our Soldiers are equipped with the necessary skills to protect our communities and defend our nation. A strong marksmanship program is essential for the safety and security of our country, and the National Guard is proud to lead the way.”

The WPW sniper competition began in 1971 and has been held annually to determine the best shooters in the United States National Guard. This year’s 53rd WPW Sniper Champion is Utah National Guard. Shooters are awarded the prestigious Chiefs 50 Marksmanship Badge on behalf of the Chief, National Guard Bureau. The Chief’s 50 Marksmanship Badge was established to provide evidence and public recognition of outstanding marksmanship abilities demonstrated at the National Guard Championships.

In addition to earning the Chief’s 50 Badge and the Overall Championship Team Trophy, the Utah National Guard received the Chief David R. Logan Sniper Team Trophy. The 2nd place winner is the Iowa Sniper Team. Iowa shooters are also recipients of the Chief’s 50 Badge.

The Armed Forces Skills at Arms Meeting (AFSAM), established in 1991, is a multi-national competition created to promote marksmanship training and competition between United States military forces and allied nations. This year’s 33rd AFSAM Sniper Championship winner is the 2nd Special Warfare Training Group. The AFSAM championship ran concurrently with the WPW championship and incorporated the same fire courses.

This competition is designed as a training tool for US and Allied armed forces, immersing them into situations they could encounter in the real world. Attendees learn to maneuver and shoot in a carefully orchestrated chaos that mimics a battle-like environment. This allows participating teams to hone their current skills and develop new ones.

2023 National Guard Sniper Competition Results

WPW Sniper Team Champions:

• Utah National Guard, 1st Place   
• Iowa National Guard, 2nd Place
• Missouri National Guard, 3rd Place

WPW Specialist Christopher Horton Precision Engagement Memorial Trophy: 

• Utah National Guard

WPW Silent Hunter Team Champions: 

• Washington National Guard

WPW Carbine & Pistol Champions:

• Iowa National Guard

AFSAM Sniper Team Champions:

• 2nd Special Warfare Training Group, 1st Place
• Netherlands (Alpha), 2nd Place
• Naval Special Warfare, 3rd Place

AFSAM Precision Engagement Team Champions:

• All Guard Sniper Team

AFSAM Silent Hunter Team Champions:

• Operations Wolf Group

Carbine & Pistol Champions:

• 1st BN 75th Ranger Regiment

Senior leaders from around the Army met both virtually and in-person for the Army Modernization Equipping Conference, Dec. 4-7 at Army Materiel Command headquarters.

The AMEC, held semiannually, brought together leadership from the four major Army commands and Headquarters Department of the Army staff sections to synchronize equipment distributions and displacements in line with Army priorities and Regionally Aligned Readiness and Modernization Model phases to achieve cohesion throughout the Army.

“We’ve been busy supporting allies and partners in multiple theaters, and that’s impacting the Army’s equipping decisions and enterprise,” said Lt. Gen. Chris Mohan, AMC deputy commanding general.

He hailed the AMEC as a key Army synchronization conference and for being an important forum that provides the chance to review equipment fielding and modernization while resolving friction points.

In addition to equipping and modernization discussions, the AMEC also addressed special topics, including Second Destination Transportation, the Decision Support Tool and an update on the Rapid Removal of Excess pilot program, which wraps up Dec. 15 at Fort Liberty, North Carolina and Fort Stewart, Georgia.

“We’re here to support the Chief of Staff of the Army’s emphasis on continuing transformation and building the Army of 2030,” said Bryan Shone, Army G-8 deputy director of program analysis and evaluation.

Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Randy George charged Army Materiel Command to pilot a new program aimed at increasing equipment on hand readiness through focused fielding, lateral transfers and divestiture. Since October, active units at both installations have been turning in items ranging from small electronics and general supplies to military vehicles at their respective Modernization, Displacement and Repair Sites.

“Lessons learned from the R2E pilot program are being captured by AMC, Army Sustainment Command, 3rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command and U.S. Army Forces Command, all of which have a stake in unburdening our Soldiers,” said Eric Cowan, AMC divestiture team lead.

Cowan discussed the potential expansion of the pilot program and the transfer options for collected equipment, including the potential transfer of equipment to U.S. Army Security Assistance Command for partner nation opportunities for foreign military sales.

Both Mohan and Lt. Gen. Paul Calvert, FORSCOM deputy commanding general, praised the pilot program as well as 3rd ESC and the Army Field Support Battalions at Fort Liberty and Fort Stewart for rapidly identifying and collecting thousands of pieces of equipment.

“We’re going to take a pause to capture what we learned and apply it to the next iteration of the pilot program,” Calvert said. “But ultimately, we’re seeing that we’ve met the intent of unburdening the Soldier.”

The Army is using data and analytics to not only capture the amount of excess equipment in the field, but also to extend the predictability of logistics into the future for combatant commands in the European and Indo-Pacific theaters. By having better visibility of equipment and the condition it is in, AMC can predict MDRS and Organic Industrial Base operations one to two years ahead of time.

As the AMEC concluded, the resounding sentiment from participants was one of commitment to modernization and strategic alignment, underscoring the Army’s dedication to staying at the forefront of military sustainment.

“As we continue to synchronize with other big Army-wide conferences, the AMEC is only going to get better,” Mohan said. “It will continue to be the driving force behind senior leader decisions.”

Better is the enemy of good enough. While this statement remains valid for most everything that costs money, it is not so when it comes to weapons and warfighting. Continual upgrades to existing weapons along with next generation weapon development is necessary to win future conflicts. The development and fielding of hypersonic weapons is a prime example.

The media tells us that China and Russia, even Iran and North Korea, are ahead of the U.S. in the development and fielding of hypersonic weapon technology. We’re told hypersonic technology is also being developed by India, Japan, France, and Australia. We are led to believe that the U.S. Navy’s aircraft carriers are vulnerable to hypersonic weapons as is Guam, Hawaii, and coastal regions of the continental United States itself. All the media’s hypersonic hype leads many of us to reason, if hypersonic missiles and, perhaps, hypersonic aircraft, both manned and unmanned, are an unbridled threat to us, then development of antiaircraft guns firing hypersonic munitions, or super hyper-fast interceptor missiles must be a necessity. The media conveniently neglects discussion about the physical and material limitations involved in hypersonic weapons; leaving the reader fearing our certain demise should, say, a conflict over Taiwan or free passage of the South China Sea arise. China will fire thousands of hypersonic weapons at our forces and outlying territories like Guam and we’ll be at their mercy – or so the media would have us believe. As you will read below, our competitors are not ahead of us. In fact, their hypersonic technology pales in comparison.

UNDERSTANDING A MACH NUMBER

Named after the Austrian physicist Ernst Mach, a Mach number is a dimensionless quantity in fluid dynamics representing the ratio of flow velocity past a boundary to the local speed of sound. The speed of sound (Mach 1) is approximately 1,125 feet per second (FPS) which translates to 767 miles per hour (MPH) or, one mile in 4.69 seconds. These velocities assume a constant temperature of 69F at sea level. As temperature and elevation vary, so does the speed of sound.

HYPERSONIC WEAPONS TRAVEL FIVE OR MORE TIMES THE SPEED OF SOUND

At five times the speed of sound (Mach 5), a vehicle travels at approximately 3,835 MPH which is a little faster than a mile a second. In comparison, the fastest performing small arms bullet can achieve bullet velocities approaching the 4,000 FPS range. At velocities beyond 4,000 FPS, average off-the-shelf bullets literally disintegrate from heat generated by air friction.

It is one thing to have a hypersonic weapon that can only fly in a straight line to a preprogramed static target. It is quite another to have steerable hypersonic weapons that can maneuver inflight to engage a moving target hundreds of miles, even thousands of miles away. Reportedly, the U.S. has steerable hypersonic vehicles that are capable of Mach 22 (or faster). We’re talking a speed of 16,874 MPH. That speed translates to faster than 1 mile every 1/18th of a second, or a speed over ground of 18-plus miles a second. So how do hypersonic weapons survive hypersonic velocities without vaporizing, and how are they steered?

HYPERSONIC CRUISE MISSILES AND HYPERSONIC GLIDE VEHICLES

There are two principal types of hypersonic vehicles: hypersonic cruise missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles.

Hypersonic cruise missiles are powered by airbreathing scramjets, and are limited, because of air density necessary for fuel combustion, to flight below 100,000 feet. While airbreathing like a slower flying conventional fanjet engine, a scramjet significantly differs. Like a turbocharger on a car engine, a conventional fan jet engine uses a series of turbine fans to compress the air that feeds into its combustion chamber. This is necessary to richen the oxygen ratio for the air-fuel mixture entering the combustion chamber where it is ignited. The rapidly expanding gases resulting from combustion provide thrust from the rear of the engine. Conventional jet engines cannot be used at hypersonic speeds because they “choke” on the air that gets backed up in front of the engine’s compressor blades and air intake.

Scramjets don’t use compressor turbines because the speed of the vehicle is sufficient to compress the air entering the combustion chamber. Think of a scramjet as more of a pipe with a venturi combustion chamber inside. Scramjets can propel a vehicle well into the Mach speed range but still require air (oxygen) for fuel combustion; thus, capping their usable altitude at around 100,000 feet where there is still enough air for compression and combustion.

A hypersonic glide vehicle travels at much higher altitudes (outer atmosphere) and at greater speeds than their hypersonic cruise missile cousins. A hypersonic glide vehicle is usually launched atop a ballistic missile first stage called the boost stage. Upon reaching Earth’s outer atmosphere, the glide vehicle separates and transitions to hypersonic flight as it re-enters the lower atmosphere. This is called the glide stage and it is this super-fast maneuverable hypersonic glide stage that allows it to evade most existing nuclear missile defense systems, which were designed to counter ballistic missiles during a warhead’s ballistic re-entry stage. Even so, hypersonic vehicles are generally slower than ballistic missiles (i.e., sub-orbital or fractional orbital), because hypersonic vehicles travel in the atmosphere, and ballistic missiles travel in the vacuum of space outside Earth’s atmosphere.

Reaching hypersonic speed is not a significant engineering challenge. We have been achieving hypersonic speeds since the V-2 rocket was fielded by Germany during WWII. The piloted X-15 experimental rocket plane, flown in the late 1950s into the early 1960s, was hypersonic. The engineering challenges in hypersonic flight involves building vehicle bodies from exotic composite materials that can survive sustained frictional temperatures exceeding 3,632 degrees Fahrenheit. These same materials must also withstand the extreme air pressures of hypersonic flight without compromising vehicle strength and payload.

While hypersonic vehicle material construction is both demanding and expensive when compared to conventional cruise missiles or aircraft, the greatest challenge is directional control of the vehicle at hypersonic velocity, e.g., being able to correct the vehicle’s flight path to hit a target during, say, a 1,500-mile flight. Conventional winged or finned aerodynamic control surfaces like airplanes and cruise missiles have, don’t effectively work at hypersonic velocities. The physics speak for themselves; the faster a hypersonic vehicle goes, the less conventional aerodynamic control surfaces work. In fact, conventional airframe designs create unwanted turbulence and drag and serve to destabilize a hypersonic vehicle rather than facilitate its flight.

STEERING A HYPERSONIC VEHICLE

The U.S. has developed several unique means of steering a hypersonic vehicle that may already be incorporated into operational hypersonic vehicles. Operational status of this technology remains classified. Being able to make course changes in-flight at hypersonic speed is essential, especially if the target is moving, e.g., an aircraft carrier battle group. It is also essential to vary the hypersonic vehicle’s attack profile (altitude and track) making it less vulnerable to countermeasures.

One of these steering methods uses high-pressure air jets (thrusters) mounted along the vehicle’s body and flight surfaces which act as steering thrusters. These thrusters nudge the vehicle left, right, up, and down. Another steering method for ultra-high Mach speeds uses multiple pulsed lasers mounted along the vehicle’s leading aerodynamic edges and body. The lasers are aimed a short distance ahead and to the side of the vehicle. When the lasers are selectively pulsed, they create a low-pressure air plasma that reduces the drag over the lasered area. The unlasered counter pressure effectively nudges the craft in the direction of the lasered low drag area; thus, maneuvering at ultra-high Mach speeds is achieved. These same lasers, when pulsed ahead of the vehicle, create a low-pressure area reducing drag (less frictional heat) and further provide a radar-defeating stealth plasma envelope around the vehicle.

COMMUNICATING COURSE CORRECTION COMMANDS TO HYPERSONIC VEHICLES

Hypersonic vehicles must be maneuverable (steerable), either by means of an on-board GPS-based steering command system (likely AI-based), or a satellite link, or both. At hypersonic speeds antennas don’t function, or if they do, they marginally function. This means receiving GPS satellite navigation data can be sketchy, especially if flying inside a plasma envelope (described previously). Hypersonic vehicles employ internal guidance systems that are continually updated via satellite downlink. But steering a hypersonic vehicle has another set of issues that result from its speed. Course corrections and altitude changes require adequate standoff (distance-to-target) to be realized.

A marriage of satellite-based target detection, hypersonic vehicle tracking, and steering commands is necessary. This requires robust satellite capabilities that can understand and predict motion, and can perform data association, relative position determination, and maneuver detection. This must all be achieved real-time and then communicated to the hypersonic vehicle while it’s in-flight so the appropriate course changes can be achieved.

Let’s say, for example, a hypersonic glide vehicle has separated from its booster and is now traveling in-bound at Mach 20. Its target is an aircraft carrier 900 miles away traveling at 20 knots on a perpendicular heading to the glide vehicle’s course. The carrier is being tracked by satellite and the satellite is providing constant position updates to the hypersonic glide vehicle. Computation of the intended rendezvous attack point is constantly updated, and small course corrections are made to the glide vehicle’s flight path. The glide vehicle is less than 25 seconds out when the carrier battle group detects it and makes a radical course and speed change to evade the incoming hypersonic glide vehicle. The glide vehicle, because of the relative speeds involved, has virtually no time window to correct its course and still hit the carrier. The attack fails.

The lessons in the preceding scenario are this. Faster is not always better, and an agile target will usually always result in a miss. To up the odds of a hit in the carrier scenario, numerous hypersonic missiles would need to be fired in swarms (close sequence) – and that’s exactly the strategy our potential enemies intend to use. But this strategy can also fail if the carrier battle group has the appropriate countermeasures (decoys, counter missile batteries, and guns), and in that case, it leaves the attacker vulnerable with a depleted magazine of hypersonic weapons as expenditures outpace resupply.

COUNTERMEASURES

Are there effective countermeasures against hypersonic weapons?

The short answer is “yes,” but current detection and fire control systems are mostly inadequate no matter who’s flag you’re flying. The longer answer is countermeasure success depends on detection range, incoming speed, and flight profile at which the hypersonic weapon is traveling. Countering hypersonic weapons during the glide phase (at maximum speed) requires powerful sensor data fusion consisting of long-range radar(s), as well as dedicated space-based infrared sensor tracking capabilities to capture hypersonic signatures in the atmosphere, and fire control systems for tracking and aiming directed energy weapons and interceptor missiles. Much in the same way that anti-ballistic missiles were developed as countermeasures to ballistic missiles, directed energy weapons and ultra-fast hypersonic interceptor missiles are under development as countermeasures to hypersonic weapons.

SPACE-BASED FOO FIGHTER TRACKING SATELLITES ARE NECESSARY

A cohesive “FOO Fighter” satellite constellation capable of detecting hypersonic missiles and then directing interceptor countermeasures to destroy them is under development by the U.S. This highly classified program’s name is borrowed from the mysterious balls of light that plagued Allied aviators during WWII. Many pilots reported that luminous orbs appeared to be able to out-maneuver their aircraft and couldn’t be detected by radar. The pilots nicknamed these mysterious balls of light “Foo Fighters.” Hypersonic vehicles can out-fly modern military fighter aircraft and evade conventional missile tracking systems and that is what’s prompting the development of the FOO Fighter satellite constellation and other related hypersonic countermeasure programs.

CONVENTIONAL GUN AND HYPERSONIC BULLETS

As mentioned previously, off-the-shelf bullets disintegrate around velocities exceeding 4,000 FPS largely because of air friction-generated heat and conventional bullet material construction. Bullets could certainly be made from exotic metals, or ceramics, and specifically designed to survive hypersonic velocities, but exotic material construction is expensive and would solve only part of the problem. Bullet aerodynamic design would also have to radically change from the shapes we currently see; like spitzers or hollow-point boat-tails. A hypersonic round would more likely resemble a dart-like anti-armor sabot light armor penetrator (SLAP) round. Use of a sabot to carry the projectile down the bore would likely be necessary to gain hypersonic velocity. A SLAP-like projectile would be necessary to reduce drag and eliminate excessive mass. And last, the gun’s bore would likely have to be smooth since a rifled bore would burn out from hypersonic velocities and bullet spin would necessarily not improve projectile accuracy at hypersonic speed. This would all come with an excessive price tag and no guarantee of increased range or accuracy.

Directed energy weapons seem to offer the most effective counter to hypersonic vehicles. The U.S. military has already developed land-based, seaborne, and airborne versions capable of neutralizing hypersonic missiles. Even so, some missiles may get through if fired in a swarm.

Currently, the last line of defense against hypersonic weapons is the Navy’s 20 millimeter close-in anti-missile weapons system Phalanx C-WIZ and Army’s C-RAM land-based mobile version that fire at a blazing rate of 4,500 rounds per minute. The gun is automatically aimed using an automated radar and infrared optical fire control system. The gun’s high rate of fire literally puts a dense wall of 20mm bullets in the direct path of the incoming target that shreds it. While 20mm bullets are far from hypersonic, projectile quantity, from the gun’s high rate of fire, makes the destructive difference. That said, the gun has a limited effective range of about two miles and can only be used as a last line of defense. If it misses, there is no second chance.

Another shipboard countermeasure weapon being experimented with is a linear explosive resembling a hose that is projected by rocket a few hundred feet from a ship onto the sea surface perpendicular to the incoming path of a hypersonic missile. When the missile is on its final approach with limited maneuverability and closing on the target ship; the seaborne explosive charge is detonated, raising a curtain of water in the path of the oncoming missile. When the missile hits the water at hypersonic velocity it either disintegrates or veers off course.

A DEVELOPMENTAL PRIORITY IS NECESSARY

Which should be fully developed first: hypersonic weapons or hypersonic countermeasures? The price tag to develop both offense and defensive hypersonic weapons simultaneously is too costly. Both offensive and defensive weapon technologies require a dedicated satellite constellation for sophisticated detection, tracking and (fire control) targeting. Many believe that defense is principal, considering our competitors claimed technical maturity of their offensive hypersonic weapons. However, capabilities-based thinking has two consequences. First, it assumes that no weapon is ever “good enough” so capabilities must be continually improved, requiring more research, development, and lots of money. Second, because in the future anything is possible, weapon concepts advance using borderline-theoretical technologies. This approach bets that the technologies used will have ample time to mature and that time is on our side. This thinking seconds the possibility that our adversaries will likewise be striving to acquire the same capabilities and may succeed before we do. It further assumes our potential enemies are far advanced compared to us. This has recently been touted by the media and in adversaries’ claims about military application of autonomous systems, artificial intelligence, and machine learning into unstoppable hypersonic weapons. Such claims are largely deceptive, but we are meant to be afraid.

Fortunately, our competitors’ share the same issues we have. Without a strong defense against hypersonic weapons, and the industrial base to readily restock expended swarms, one must be very selective of the fight one picks.

The Army is continuing its efforts to modernize the force and build towards the Army of 2030 and beyond. To support that effort, Program Executive Officer (PEO) Soldier is engaging with soldiers at the ground level to get to the fundamental truth of how soldiers are equipped in the operational environment and what gear they have modified or purchased for mission, environment, comfort and personal effect.

PEO Soldier’s Assistant Program Executive Officer (APEO) Soldier has been conducting Operational Kit (O.K.) Analysis with the operational force to collect this data.

O.K. Analysis seeks to address a multitude of objectives to help shape the Army of 2030 and the future soldier. The effort looks to proactively identify opportunities utilizing the Soldier Enhancement Program (SEP), influence materiel change proposals, identify equipment training challenges and address installation Soldier equipment logistics challenges.

“The idea behind O.K. Analysis was hatched by APEO Soldier’s Senior Enlisted Advisor, Mast Sgt. Josh Kaplan,” said Col. Douglas Copeland, Assistant Program Executive Officer, PEO Soldier. “He identified the need to bridge the gap between what we think soldiers and squads carry as materiel developers and what is actually used out in the field.”

In launching the initiative, MSG Kaplan took a couple of key steps: First, he created a community of interest across various stakeholders . Second, he worked with Sgt. Major Daniel Rose, PEO Soldier Sergeant Major, to combine the O.K. Analysis event with the PEO Soldier Capabilities Demonstration, which informs the force of our current and emerging capabilities in the PEO Soldier portfolio. This strategy allows PEO Soldier to gain Soldier feedback about on operational needs and determine exactly how PEO capabilities are impacting the Force.

The goal is to provide operational context to the acquisition force, said SGM Rose. “We’re trying to explain to the acquisition professionals here at PEO Soldier and stakeholders in the Army enterprise how soldiers are using the equipment that they are designing, procuring and fielding in the operational environment. What we found is that sometimes they won’t be using the equipment the way it was designed to be used. We try to bring that kind of context back to the acquisition force to help them as they’re designing and procuring new pieces of equipment.”

The O.K. Analysis team kicked off the program at USARCENT in Kuwait in March 2023 and has since engaged with the 11^th Airborne and 25^th Infantry Divisions. As a result, PEO Soldier has, to date, collected data from eight Squads and worked with senior leadership to establish an equipment baseline across the Army’s operational units.

The effort goes beyond simply questioning soldiers about their thoughts and experience with PEO Soldier capabilities. MSG Kaplan explained, “We deploy a team of senior NCOs with extensive operational experience and extremely smart government contractors who carry out an array of responsibilities, such as data collection, statistics, logistics, and photography. We collect several thousand lines of data, hundreds of photos and several hours of interviews that are analyzed as a part of an out-brief to communities of interest, then added to our holistic database for further analysis.”

After taking part in PEO Soldier’s O.K. Analysis engagement, Sgt. Major Brian Disque, G-3, 5 and 7 Sergeant Major, USARCENT, stated that he was very impressed with its effectiveness and potential benefits. He explained, “It is a very ambitious effort to answer an important question: What gear are soldiers actually using and why? PEO Soldier took the idea of unit outreach and feedback to the next level with a meticulous approach to data collection to better understand the perspectives of soldiers across the Army. The wealth of data collected will be very useful when informing future efforts to outfit our soldiers. All of the Army should be grateful that this team was willing to roll up their sleeves and get out to all corners of our Army to answer these questions.”

This effort has already returned positive outcomes. Through the O.K. Analysis initiative, PEO Soldier has been able to strengthen critical partnerships with the Maneuver Center of Excellence, DEVCOM and several Army Corps. PEO Soldier has also been able to facilitate the establishment of Environmental Working Groups with these communities of interest, which include items discovered through the O.K. Analysis effort.

“The most important benefit of O.K. Analysis is to ensure that the soldier’s voice is heard, including senior leaders in operational units who have important soldier equipment insights,” Kaplan said. “We do this in the form of detailed equipment inventories, pictures and candid interviews that are shared with the enterprise. If someone asks, ‘Why is soldier equipment getting heavier?’, our team can say, ‘Let me show you.’ There is a lot of power in that.”

Disque agreed, noting, “For USARCENT and our deployed force, the opportunity to provide our candid feedback to the professional data collection team is of immediate benefit. Innovation is one of our top priorities, and we are always searching for ways to bring innovative concepts to our area of responsibility (AOR). Soldier kit is one of those topics for which there is no shortage of great ideas out there, often based on real-world feedback from operating environments across the CENTCOM AOR – you just have to ask the right questions, which I am confident the PEO Soldier team executed to perfection.”

Through this effort, PEO Soldier began an Army-wide innovation synchronization effort that encompasses 18th Airborne Corps’ Eagle Works, I Corps’ Lightning Lab, USARCENT and PEO Soldier’s Soldier Integration Facility. This will allow stakeholders to collaborate and share data and integration solutions across the Close Combat Integration Enterprise (CCIE).

“Any opportunity to connect our modernization efforts to deployed soldiers on a mission is valuable,” said Disque. “Some of the most innovative ideas come from operating in a deployed environment, and for the PEO team to have access to soldiers that served recently in Syria and other areas is tremendous.”

Kaplan and his team have proactively submitted proposals for the Soldier Enhancement Program (SEP) on behalf of soldiers through the O.K. Analysis. The SEP is a process designed to help the Army enhance soldiers’ ability to execute their combat mission by evaluating prototypes and commercially available items submitted by soldiers and industry. Since its inception six months ago, PEO Soldier has identified 23 potential SEP opportunities, which is an exponential increase relative to recent years. Soldiers, senior leaders and industry are also able to submit their own proposals utilizing PEO Soldier’s website.

“Soldiers are very innovative,” said Kaplan. “There is always that one soldier in the squad who can create ways for his unit to become more lethal. This initiative highlights innovative solutions so communities of interest can stay on pace with the operational force.”

Command Sgt. Major Joseph Gaskin, Command Sergeant Major, 1/11 Airborne Division, added to that assessment by stating, “Any effort the Army uses to better inform equipment requirements from the soldier on the ground is value added to our formation. The O.K Analysis comprehensive program captured data that will assist leaders to better understand what risk the soldier’s load presents as we operate in the extreme cold of our operational environment.”

PEO Soldier will continue its O.K. Analysis effort by visiting soldiers with the 3^rd Infantry Division in October and engaging with U.S. Army Europe in the second quarter of 2024. This ongoing effort will collect and share data amongst the CCIE to help shape the Army’s modernization efforts moving into 2030 and beyond.

PEO Soldier is now encouraging other interested U.S. Army operational divisions to reach out and schedule an O.K. Analysis of their area of responsibility.

 “We look forward to expanding our O.K. Analysis across the Army’s operational units to further collaboration, leverage creative innovation and enable proactive capability development for soldier equipment,” said Copeland.

Part of Military Systems Group’s CNC alley – a variety of high-quality machines with the capability of CNC lathe turning or CNC milling almost any size or type of metal. There are rows of machines like this, with different functions, and at the end is the toolmaker set up. Almost all prototyping and tool requirements can be handled in-house, along with full production runs.

“Military Systems Group: Always quality, always committed to the soldiers.”

Military Systems Group. Inc., located in Nashville, Tennessee, has a long and compelling history in the defense industry. Founded by E.R. ‘Pony’ Maples and Kay Horton in 1977 as part of the original RAMO Mfg. producing the Browning M2HB, the mount-building was in parallel with the first group designing the MK19, including the highly respected Colonel George M. Chinn. Pony astutely noted that a capabilities gap existed between those who made guns and those who made vehicles. Military Systems Group was created in 1984; to address this gap. The original concept was based on the clear need for specific vehicle mounting solutions, in a rapidly evolving vehicle environment. Company growth for almost half a century has been thoughtfully controlled, supportive of their government customers, and grown to be a key partner with many OEMs who supply military and law enforcement organizations worldwide.

There has always been a tremendous need for thoughtfully engineered and reliable mounts for combat vehicles, aircraft, and naval vessels. It’s not high visibility work like the fancy new machine guns might be, the mounts are seldom in the spotlight. Real end users and procurement professionals, though, know the environment soldiers work in is rough on equipment and while the firearms must be robust and reliable, the support systems for vehicle and aircraft mount must meet criteria that are every bit as demanding.

My take-away from meeting current ownership and their engineering/manufacturing team is: “Military Systems Group: always quality, always committed to the soldiers.” I got to spend a day with the owners (both of whom have served with distinction in elite U.S. military and U.S. government organizations), as well as Sales Engineer Barry Becker who has been with the company for over thirty years, the product development engineers, and the Director of Business Development Brace McCoy, as well as others on the team. Brace shared the vision for the company, including how much they value new customers and challenging projects. My in-depth time spent with the engineering team showed the deep commitment and knowledge base the company can draw from. They’re partners with a variety of key USG customers, as well as vehicle and weapon OEMs. As the meeting progressed, Brace emphasized that Military Systems Group is not just a mount manufacturer; they’re concept-to-production-to-fielding program managers for customer requirements. A U.S., NATO, OEM, or other international customer can contact MSG, start the concept conversation to develop a comprehensive needs analysis, and work with the company to get it finished – a one-stop shop for design/build weapons mounts and accessories. This collaborative design process led to the development of the USSOCOM turret system and gunner protection kit that is currently fielded for the GMV 1.1. With full engineering, research, and development in-house, prototyping, precision manufacturing, with market expertise to guide the customer, MSG is also a competitive build-to-print manufacturer. By way of illustration of one of their government contracts, MSG was recently awarded a $72M IDIQ to support prototyping activities for Naval Support Activity Dahlgren.

Twin machine guns have always been desirable on vehicle mounts; they give an added range of options on rate of fire needed, among other things. The M240B machine guns shown in this mount, can use either the hydraulic stock with a rate of fire about 650rpm, or the mechanical buffer stock between 700-750 rpm. The operator can choose to fire one to preserve ammunition; or use both guns, doubling the downrange projectiles and creating an oval beaten zone.

Military Systems Group’s customers wanted the twin mount to use standard M240B or G left-hand-feed guns, which can be quickly dismounted and used in the infantry style, thus the bipods are in place as well as stocks and pistol grips. Pull one pin, dismount, ready to move into the fight on the ground. When twin mounts were originally adopted, it was for air-to-air fighting, and the guns were set to converge at a certain point that was considered optimum distance in a dogfight. This put all rounds into a close group at the selected range- unfortunately, what converges, also diverges. The Military Systems Group engineers and customers agreed that the bullet streams should be in parallel to each other, thus creating an oval beaten zone, covering downrange more effectively to the aim. Feeding and brass/link disposal when you have two left-hand guns is always an issue. The M240 machine gun violently ejects the brass downward, and the links drop from gravity into the same basic area. The right-hand gun must have its ammo can to the right, but feed under the gun to the left side via a channel. The specially designed 600 round ammo cans use the same anti-whip principles as used in the M134 minigun, but the right and left cans must be loaded opposite to each other to present properly to the guns. The special mount base has dual shelves with angles that are anti-spinback, for the brass to deflect downward properly, and the link chute angles do so as well, so no brass or links gum up the system. In the opinion of this writer, an excellent and well-thought-out twin mount. 

The new generation of Military Systems Group’s DShK mount. The DShK has a fairly violent recoil to match its equally impressive muzzle blast; and in the past 20-odd years the DShK and its smaller companion machine gun in many theaters, the PKM, need to be interfaced with U.S./NATO style mounting systems. Here, the DShK is shown on Military Systems Groups’ newest generation of DShK mount on an extended vehicle arm with a vehicle pintle stem, Universal Pintle Adapter travel lock bar and traverse & elevation mechanism. All of those components interchange with the M2HB and MK19 type systems, and the pintle can also be ordered as a 30-50 pintle for the M3 tripod that uses the T&E mechanism. This is a strong, lightweight mount; the charging handle (always part of a DShK mount) is convenient to the left rear under the grips. It is still possible to charge the DShK with a spent 12.7x108mm in case of emergencies. The PKM mount (not shown) is equally adaptable and lightweight. This author has fired extensively with both the MSG first generation DShK mount on vehicle and M3 tripod, and the PKM mounts as well, and can attest to the design being well suited to the guns.

The Universal M134 Minigun Mount Systems were designed for several customers in a variety of helicopter uses such as the Mi-17 door gun mount. This is custom work that the Military Systems Group engineers had to customize in a very short period for customer needs. Any of the various 7.62mm M134 manufacturers’ guns will fit, no modification. This is a stand-alone system generally not requiring extra integration to the aircraft, mounts to the standard bases. It uses any of the standard M134 ammunition cans.

The system requirement included the operator having the ability to prepare the M134 for firing before opening the door, as well as having a footprint/width that appeared to be approximately 12 inches wide. The mount is robust yet light weight, can be adjusted for either side mounting, and stows in a very small area (as shown). The swingarm system has very positive lock positions, rotates in or out on two planes, and the locking/release mechanisms are large enough to handle but are unobtrusive. Reports from end users are that it is an excellent mount, solid to fire from, but this author has not had the chance to live fire from the mount, yet.

Richland Industries LLC

While the size of the facility for Military Systems Group is impressive, and the capabilities are very well-rounded and can accomplish almost any project they take on, the owners allowed that for larger contracts, they also own Richland Industries LLC. Conveniently located between Nashville and Huntsville, AL (an hour south of MSG) the Richland facility has over 500,000 square feet of manufacturing space, with a plethora of fabricating/manufacturing capabilities which includes over 21 overhead cranes, and its own railhead.  Richland primarily supports commercial customers such as municipal clean water facilities and serves to offset some of the risk associated with Defense Contracting.  However, when Military Systems Group receives large orders, they can rapidly pivot to utilize these capabilities.

Military Systems Group Inc.
736 Fesslers Lane
Nashville, TN
Tel: +1- 615-256-4248
Contact: info@milsysgroup.com
Website: milsysgroup.com

In the 1970s-80s, there was a movement in the U.S. to create rifles in .50 BMG (12.7x99mm.) .55 Boys rifles were converted, the magazine and barrel were close to the dimensions, 20mm Lahtis were as well, and a few extremely dangerous designs were showing up at civilian shoots with the incumbent accidents. Gunny Carlos Hathcock had famously made three kills at 2500 yards with “Ma Deuce” in Vietnam (only one confirmed), an M2HB with a craft-made mount from the SEABEE chop shop, for his 8-power Unertl optic. This author has seen cobbled together .50 cals all over the world from the revolutionary groups in South America to communist guerillas in Africa, mostly from the 1950s-60s. But it wasn’t until 1983 when a shooter/inventor named Ronnie Barrett showed up at the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot in Kentucky with his M82, that the idea of a semi-automatic .50 BMG sniper rifle could be taken seriously. At the time, this author was blown away by the functionality of Ronnie’s design, and I’ve had a long history with these rifles; shooting, training, armorering, supplying, use in the field OCONUS… and on this visit to the factory, I spent a few days with Ronnie and Barrett’s engineers with the intent to bring you this technical article on the M107A1- introduced in 2011- about what makes the M107A1 what it is today, an advancement beyond the M82A1 and M107.

By 1989, Ronnie Barrett’s M82A1 rifle was making serious waves in military circles; the Swedish Army ordered 100, and various “OGAs” (other government agencies) were taking notice and buying them. In 1990, the U.S. armed forces were making special buys, the Israeli Defense Force and others were lining up. The M82A1 was a hit with operators; it did a job they needed done, better than any other small arm. It had amazing range and impressive terminal ballistics. The U.S. Army adopted the M82A1 as the M107 in 2005 (with a longer rail and other mods), and Barrett immediately started on a quest to lighten the system, improve the recoil pressures, and make the new design suppressor friendly – the M107/M82A1 cannot reliably or safely use a muzzle sound suppressor. More on that below.

NIOA ACQUIRES BARRETT FIREARMS

M107A1 : THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD

Typically, in the firearms industry, we discuss aluminum using the 4-digit system- there is also a 5-digit system which is more precise but not prevalent. 7000 series aluminums use zinc as their main alloy element. The next three digits indicate an agreed-on mix of other alloy metals. The common example in firearms manufacture, especially AR-15 type firearms, is 7075, a WWII Japanese alloy mix adopted by the U.S. and others. It has a lot of advantages, one of which is its ability to 11% stretch without cracking. The second nomenclature for this would be “T6” which is a temper. 7075 T6 aluminum would have 5-6% zinc, 2-3% magnesium, and 1-2% copper, as well as some other small metal quantities. The zinc and magnesium making the alloy heat treatable. The “T” designations are temper processes for heat treatable aluminum alloys. In this case, T6 means that the 7075 was “Solution Heat Treated” then artificially aged. Solution Heat Treating means to heat the alloy just under its melting point, and some planned lower percentage alloys dissolve into the aluminum, creating a “solid solution.” The material is quickly quenched and preserves the new metal structure. 7075 age-hardens naturally, so if welded properly, the heat-treating recovers.

Why discuss this? Because Ronnie Barrett wanted to lighten the M107/M82A1 system and the first place to start is the upper receiver – a very large component. Barrett did not choose 7075 T6; it would be the wrong temper for the job. It’s difficult to extrude into the needed shape, it suffers a lot of internal stress which can cause deformation in processing, and it would not have the structural strength to match the cold-rolled 1045 steel in the M107/M82A1 upper. 1045 is a medium carbon steel that is very strong, with a high yield point (about 45,000 PSI). A lot of machinery parts, bolts, gears, shafts, etc. are made from this. It’s a good steel, especially for a long channel like the M107 upper.

Trying to match that strength with an aluminum alloy that can be extruded in long shapes to cut to length and machine is difficult and “7075 T6 isn’t it.”

Barrett’s engineers developed a scientific testing method with weights and distances to match the yield point of 1045 steel with a reasonable thickness, extrudable aluminum alloy, and they decided on 7075 but with a T6511 temper. The T6511 temper adds stress relief by stretching along with the solution treating and artificial aging. Perfect for the job; extruded, machinable lengths that won’t distort in machining.

The new 7075 T6511 upper receiver is finished with a type-3 hard-anodizing and then an oven-cured Cerakote finish, which matches durability with the M107/M82A1 1045 steel finished with a manganese phosphate parkerizing.

Front is the M107A1 showing the optic rail is milled into the aluminum extrusion, with allowance for a bolt-in-place rear back up sight. Rear is the M107 steel optic rail bolted in place, with the rear back up sight mounted on the rail. The optic rail on both the M107 and M107A1 is angled at 27 MOA. 

This new upper receiver was just the first of the techniques used to lighten the M107 system and create the lighter, suppressor-friendly M107A1.

As part of the lightening process, the bipod yoke, yoke mount, and the internal shaft of the bipod are made from titanium for the M107A1. The foot for the bipod legs is plastic for the M107A1. The M107A1 has plastic flat feet, the M107 has steel spiked feet, and the 82A1 has steel flat feet. Note the quick release pins must be put in from the rear, as recoil forces can dislodge them if they are inserted from the front.

M82A1/M107 top, M107A1 bottom: Some of the most important changes that were made were in the recoil system. Barrett’s M82A1/M107/M107A1 operate on the short recoil principle; i.e. the bolt and barrel are locked together and travel in recoil a specified, short distance/time until pressures have dropped, then unlock from each other and recoil and return separately. The first thing to notice in this picture is that the barrel springs in the M107A1 have a larger wire diameter but have a smaller overall outside diameter. Due to the smaller outside diameter of the barrel springs, the barrel spring relief cuts in the barrel were removed to aid in making the barrel stiffer. The M82A1/M107 barrel has the two deep grooves, the M107A1 barrel does not. Second, the impact bumper – the plastic cylinder behind the barrel key – is longer on the M107A1; this shortens the stroke for the barrel recoil. The (return to-) battery bumper is the same for all.

Top in each picture, is the M82A1/M107 bolt carrier assembly, bottom is the M107A1. Note there are several more cuts/wells in the M107A1; this is for the bolt extender, which is critical for suppressor use.

SOME BALLISTIC TALK ON .50 BMG & TRANSONIC SHIFT

Shooting at long ranges requires extensive understanding of exterior ballistics – from the projectile uncorking from the barrel, to striking the terminal end, as well as all the environmental factors that are constantly changing. There is a lot of information out there to digest, and we don’t have time or space to explain it all but there are a couple of things relevant to the subject of this article to start with. First, the Barrett rifles were designed to fire military ball ammunition back in the times when that was all there was. M33 Ball with a 660-grain (42.8 gram) FMJ boat tail bullet with a mild steel core. Fired in a 45-inch barrel from an M2HB machine gun, its muzzle velocity was 2,910 fps. In today’s world, there are many options – solid, turned, very accurate bullets, of 750 grains and other weights. These are designed for accuracy at long ranges, and are fired from 20-, 29-inch or other barrels but not the 45-inch barrel of “Ma Deuce.” Thus, velocity comparisons must be apples-to-apples – barrel length, rifling twist, etc. to understand at what distance the supersonic projectiles will drop into the zone approaching the speed of sound – the transonic region – and below, the subsonic region. Larger projectiles like .50 Browning Machine Gun (BMG) rounds are less affected by environmental pressures than smaller diameter/weight projectiles; but there is still an effect on accuracy.

When people are discussing calibers in comparison and make statements like “.50 BMG destabilizes as transonic at 1320 meters,” it’s inaccurate. There might be a combination of barrel length, bullet weight, etc. that does, but the U.S. M33 from a 45-inch barrel goes transonic in the 2200-meter range according to longtime military data, however today’s ballistic calculators show it at 1500 meters and a 750-grain AMAX bullet may go transonic much further from a 29-inch barrel. There is much more to it than simple calculations. A skilled shooter knows more than just the math, he reads the wind and everything else in the theatre he’s firing through and into. Hitting targets well beyond that theoretical transonic distance is both science and art, and is done frequently – look up “The King of 2 Miles” competitions.

WEIGHT:

• Weight M107A1 unloaded: 28.7 lbs (13 kg)
• Weight M107   unloaded:  32.7 lbs (14.8 kg)

BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE WITH M33 BALL AMMUNITION:

• 20-inch (508mm) 1:15 in. (381mm) 2,550 fps (778 m/s) Transonic at 1300m
• 29-inch (737mm) 1:15 in. (381mm) 2,799 fps (853 m/s) Transonic at 1,450m
• 45-inch M2HB:  1:15 in. (381mm)  2,910 fps (890 m/s) Transonic at 1,500m

FEEDING THE BEAST

One of the hardest parts of designing a firearm, is feeding the rounds into the chamber properly. It’s pretty basic on a straight-pull single-shot rifle, but when you go semi- or fully-automatic, there are many forces that come to bear. It’s not just a case of presenting the cartridge properly to the feed ramp, it must be done fast enough so that, as the bolt goes into recoil, the spring consistently presents the next round for feeding. Spring fatigue is also an issue. This can be a lot trickier than it seems, and it does explain why many firearms inventors adopt existing magazines, such as the M16 style for 5.56mm. In Barrett’s case, he had to deal with the length and weight of 10 rounds of .50 BMG cartridges, a much different animal than the 5.56mm.

MARKINGS

SUPPRESSING THE M107A1

Barrett and other knowledgeable people continually warn against firing the M107/M82A1 with a suppressor – it just isn’t safe. But some users have done this. There are a number of references in this article regarding upgrades to M107A1, and they all add up to: The M107/M82A1 system is not designed for suppressor use, which changes recoil forces, time of locking and unlocking, pressures, velocities, etc. While these rifles are robust, and some have successfully fired them, Barrett cannot guarantee their product with suppressor use. That is what the M107A1 is for – it has been purpose engineered to withstand these forces. I’ve had several people tell me about using a suppressor on the M82A1, each unaware of the real dangers involved and one manufacturer who explained his suppressor “worked” as is, and when pressed, he had made modifications to the rifle that would void his warranty and frankly, I did not see how they addressed the issues involved. It’s best to purchase the proper rifle for suppression, the M107A1, which is properly engineered for this. There have been charging handle impacts damaging the upper receiver, and broken bolt handles. One thing to remember – the recoil forces of putting a suppressor on an M82A1/M107, can easily warp the bolt latch into failure. That is a negative event…

The arrowhead muzzle brake designs used on the M107/M82A1 work very well for mitigating the recoil force with  rearward gas energy; approximately 70% reduction in recoil. In order to make the M107A1 suppressor-friendly, the design had to change so there could be a quick mount suppressor, which is the round one in the three photos here.

We at Small Arms Defense Journal hope that this focus on the Barrett M107A1 and its technical upgrades helps you in understanding the quality of this product. We have long experience with the Barrett systems, and there are quite a few misconceptions about why the M107A1 was needed- hopefully, this helps the readers and users understand the great leap forward the M107A1 is for the .50 BMG Sniper systems.

For many years I’ve been involved in performing and chronicling MIL-SPEC testing for firearms. I’ve also been involved in many M249 programs, supplying DoE, DoS, foreign governments and OGAs with the M249. When Steve Helzer told me that US Ord had the production line ready to go and was about to conduct the full MIL-DTL test, I had to be there and get the story….

Manufacturing the M249 machine gun requires a number of different skill sets, and there have been many attempts by companies to go into production. Obviously, the original manufacturer has been successful; FN Herstal as the Minimi, then FNMI for the U.S. government contracts. Besides U.S. Ordnance, there is one other who has had some success, but most crash and burn, especially on the receiver. Fixturing and properly welding the sheet metal receiver has been the bane of many a dream, but U.S. Ordnance has all the needed skill sets: Manufacturing and machining capability, Engineering design capability, and perhaps the most important of all- being a firearms manufacturer with vast and varied experience. If you’re not a “gun maker” you’ll be missing a lot of detail on any firearms project, and fighting through TDPs (Technical Data Packages) that never include all the details needed to make a firearm.

The receiver components here are being prepped to go to the various welding fixtures. Due to the special innovations, these fixtures are proprietary to U.S. Ordnance and not shown. The receiver channel is now considered to be a Title I firearm, a semi-automatic. Once the components are installed, it becomes Title II, a machine gun.

It’s always a great pleasure to visit U.S. Ordnance, they know what they’re doing, and make excellent machine guns. The M249 test visit to the plant in July 2023, was business as usual. We were set up like clockwork to go through the MIL-SPEC, so this article will follow it, as well.

MIL-DTL-70446C is a very boring document. AMENDMENT 1 adds to the “thrilling” reading. The latest document we had available was the 27 March 2009 version, which superseded all others. There are several round counts involved in the test, the longest of which is barrel wear.

________________________________

FIRST ARTICLE

This purpose of this MIL-SPEC test is getting the U.S. Ordnance M249 to the contract “First Article.” First Article doesn’t mean the first part or assembly off a production line- it means that a responsible person from the buyer takes an agreed number of the items from the production run, randomly, and puts them through a specified series of tests and measurements. Most contracts allow 270 days to reach First Article, as is the case with the other firearm tested during our program, the US Ord MK19 Mod 3 Grenade Machine Gun, which U.S. Ordnance has been the U.S. government supplier since 2016 and is now the NSN contractor. In this M249 test, it’s exactly what we’re doing on this MIL-SPEC test. In the case of the M249, the First Article language is as follows and, after meeting the full tests done here to prove it out, the customer will repeat the examination as follows, if required. But the contracting officer can forgo further testing if satisfied:

4.2.1 First article quantity. The first article sample shall be representative of the manufacturing methods and processes to be used for quantity production. The first articles shall consist of the quantities specified in Table IV unless otherwise specified.

TABLE IV. First article quantity:

Machine Gun, 5.56mm, M249 (9348199): 10

All components (except unmodified commercial parts): 5

All subassemblies: 5

All assemblies: 5

The testing starts out very simply; does the safety work properly. Note that the tech spec is very specific on this, and yes, red showed when in fire, clicks were audible, and we performed extra tests regarding the springs for proper pressure. The sear and disconnector are visually available in the picture. It’s difficult to quantify 3.4’s sear engagement test in a photo unless there was a cutaway receiver (which defeats the point of testing a real one) but we were able to visually inspect full sear contact, and conducted some buttstock kinetic tests while the sear was engaged to ensure it was in solid contact.

3.3 Small arms safety. The small arms safety, drawing 9348364, shall move manually without binding between the “safe” and “fire” positions and shall remain in the set position under spring pressure until reset. The trigger mechanism shall not function when the safety pin is set in the “safe” position (to the right). The trigger mechanism shall function when the safety is set in the “fire” position (to the left). When moving the safety between the two positions, there shall be an audible and tactical click. When in the “fire” position, the red warning ring shall be displayed.

3.4 Sear. When assembled into the weapon the trigger assembly, drawing 9348354, shall be capable of full engagement with the sear engagement notches of the operating rod assembly, drawing 9348408, and of holding the piston assembly, drawing 9348405, in the rearward, cocked, position.

Trigger pull is tested in a standard manner. One thing is for sure, a machine gun should never have a “match” trigger, and long experience has taught procurement people and trainers (as well as end users,) that you want a good, solid pull with enough weight required so that the flowing adrenaline prevalent in combat ensures the operator needs to positively engage the trigger. We used a Lyman Professional Electronic Trigger Pull Gauge, and tested in two manners: first, with the trigger group in a vise. This showed a pull of 7 pounds, 2 ounces, and then the more important pull measurement, when assembled and the bolt carrier is engaged in the sear notch and ready to fire to see what the trigger break was. This was a 9-pound, 1.2-ounce pull.

Trigger pull gauges measure an actual weight; gravity related. We’re not talking about foot-pounds, a unit of energy, we’re testing actual pounds as if you were pickup up X pounds with your finger, on the earth, against gravity. It’s “pound-force” not “foot-pounds.” A foot-pound is applying the force of one pound-force linearly, a distance of one foot. An energy measurement. We use this in muzzle energy calculations, and in torque in mechanics. Foot-pounds correspond to joules, not to newtons.

The specification in 3.5 is in “newtons,” a system that is not normally used in the U.S. firearms community but is standard in physics. Generally called a “newton-meter.” One newton is the force necessary to give a mass of 1 kilogram an acceleration of 1-meter-per-second, per second. Yes, it’s a unit of energy but doesn’t correspond to foot-pounds. In contrast, our test instruments are in pound-force as noted above. 1 newton = 0.22481 of pound-force, so in the specification below, 35 N = 7.86835 lbs on the low end, and 70 N = 15.7367 lbs on the upper end. Our test guns were well within the ranges under load.

3.5 Trigger pull. The force on the trigger required to release the operating group from the sear with the bolt in the open position shall not be less than 35.0 Newtons and shall not be greater than 70.0 Newtons.

PROOF TESTING

The spec calls for the completed firearm to be tested with an M197 High Pressure Test round. The M197 uses a 56-grain (3.63 gram) projectile, with SR7641 powder, which is an extruded/flake powder. This powder produces a chamber pressure of 70,000 PSI (pounds per square inch) as opposed to the M193 Ball with 52,000 PSI, or the M855 with 55,000 PSI. You can recognize the M197, it has a silvered (stannic-stained) or nickel-plated cartridge case. This cartridge is used to test M16s also, and should not be fired in normal weapons use.

3.6 Proof firing. Each main and assigned barrel (see 6.7) and bolt assembly shall be capable of withstanding the firing of a Government standard 5.56mm M197 high pressure test cartridge in accordance with MIL-C-46936 or approved equivalent. After firing, each barrel and bolt assembly shall be subjected to visual and magnetic particle inspections to determine that these components are free from cracks, seams and/or other defects.

After the proof testing called for in 3.6, Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) is performed. Generally, this is called “magnafluxing” after the manufacturer usually associated with the process. It’s a non-destructive process, and in the case of U.S. Ordnance, they use a “wet” system which is ideal for production needs. In this wet system, a petroleum based “suspension vehicle,” basically a light oil, has a specified quantity of fluorescent magnetic particles added to it (suspended in it). The formula is pretty standard in this use; Magnaglo 14A particles in Carrier II liquid.

This shows the M249 barrel to be tested, supported by a copper coated rod from end to end, and on each end of the machine there is a woven copper screen (copper is non-magnetic). The system is magnetized while the operator applies the wet liquid to it and continues until the magnetization is 100%.

He then uses an ultra-violet light source wand like this Magnaflux EV6000 in a darkened area, to make the magnetic particles visible.

As seen in the MPI enclosed area, the fluorescent magnetic particles on the surface present a unified appearance. If there is a structural break in the metal (this only works on ferromagnetic materials like iron, nickel, cobalt and alloys that feature them prominently, they must be capable of holding a magnetic field), it will appear as a darker area, an anomaly in the color. Thus, fracture lines, breaks, stress areas, will be indicated to the operator’s visual inspection. These are recorded.

The Carrier II is tested for viscosity and color, and in the left jar, the solution in use is tested for color, suspension, and the particle level in the bottom. This must be done periodically to ensure a quality test. When finished, the workpiece has to be demagnetized.

3.6 M249 Proof Marking

As called for in the MIL-SPEC, when certain parts are required to be proofed, or magnetic particle inspected, the markings “PM” are applied in a non-destructive manner. This bolt has been proofed with M197 firing and then magnafluxed.

For headspace testing, it’s important to gauge the firearm with the actual 5.56x45mm NATO gauges, not .223. “Headspace” is the distance from the face of the bolt to the point where the cartridge is seated in the chamber- in discussing bottleneck cartridges, it’s from the face of the bolt, to the datum line on the shoulder that is considered the point the cartridge is seated. For rimmed cartridges, it’s the distance from the face of the bolt to the front face of the chamber wall (barrel) and the gauge will be very short with a thick rim. The point is, headspace means different things in different calibers and styles of cases. A chamber for a machine gun will usually be a bit looser in tolerance than a rifle, and as close as .223 Remington and 5.56x45mm NATO are, the NATO chamber is a bit longer out of necessity, the throat is longer thus, the leade would be 0.0125 inches longer. (It’s safe to shoot .223 in the NATO gun, but not always the opposite.) Without getting too far out, there are other differences. Just be sure to use the M249 5.56x45mm NATO gauges on the M249, and not the ones for the British SA80 or the Swedish AK5, or the French FAMAS, all of which are slightly different even though they are all “NATO.” Example in just the U.S.: the civilian .223 “Go” gauge is 1.4640-inch while the M16 “Go” gauge is 1.4646-8-inch and the M249 military “Go” gauge is 1.4940-9-inch. For the “No-Go,” civilian .223 is 1.4670-inch, the M16 is 1.4704-06-inch and the M249 is, well, 1.4980-2-inch.

Just make sure you have the correct gauges.

3.7 Headspace. Headspace in the assembled weapon shall be in accordance with drawing 9348200.

Testing firing pin protrusion is critical to performance as is the next test for indentation. Protrusion is a different subject. Generally, for the size primer in 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition (small rifle) the specification is .030-inch, minimum protrusion, and .055-inch maximum protrusion. U.S. Ordnance has a very clever method of testing this using a milled down barrel extension section, early M249 carry handle, and a special gauge holder that threads into the assembly they created.

The firing pin protrusion test fixture in place in the threaded adapter.

The fixture as prepared for firing pin protrusion testing.

The fixture and gauge in position, with firing pin forward and the gauge measuring. The FP was well within the spec on each M249 we tested.

3.8 Firing pin protrusion. The firing pin protrusion, in the assembled weapon, shall be in accordance with drawing 9348200.

Firing pin indentation is a different type of measure, not just protrusion, but indicates there being enough inertia in the firing pin release to crush the anvil and activate the primer. There are several other indicators in this test, but the specification calls for measuring the original surface of the copper crush cylinder before striking, then the depth of the firing pin indentation compared to that, as well as compared to the potential “pillowing” of the copper around the indentation. U.S. Ordnance made their own gauges as shown in the photos of the testing.

Copper crush cylinders are specified to be 99.9% copper; if silver is added it is counted as copper percentage. They are made from an electrolytic copper rod, and yes, electrical resistance counts in this testing, as an indicator of the rod’s purity. The crush cylinder is specified as 0.399-to-0.4010 inches long and a diameter of 0.2245-to-0.2265 inches; the well in the test fixture must match tightly.

The crush cylinders were made in huge quantities in the WWI and WWII period, and government testing has always drawn from this supply. In 2018, the supplies were dwindling, and new criteria for the cylinders was being worked in – and there are civilian sources for the proper cylinders, such as SAAMI.

U.S. Ordnance has made an excellent fixture for holding the crush cylinders properly. Starting with an M249 5.56x45mm “Go” gauge, the toolroom milled out a spec dimension well for the cylinder. This cylinder has been tested, note the indentation.

Firing pin indent gauge inserted in the barrel chamber with fresh crush cylinder.

After testing, the crush cylinder showing the firing pin indent.

The fixture and crush cylinder are returned to the Mititoyo dial indicator depth gauge in a custom fixture, and measurements are made. Section 3.9 calls for an indent of not less than 0.51mm, which is 0.020-inch. Each test of the U.S. Ordnance M249 produced an indent of 0.32-inch, a solid, proper strike.

3.9 Firing pin indent. The firing pin indent, when utilizing copper pressure cylinders in accordance with MIL-C-20109, shall not be less than 0.51mm.

Dispersion and rate-of-fire is part and parcel to a number of related tests. On the table here, we’ve prepped for live fire dispersion, magazine test, and belt pull test, with our two barrels – the main and the assigned (spare) to the gun. These barrels are part of the long-term barrel life test later down, and we kept them in the process.

Firing for record. Here, we fired 18 rounds to get a longer string (the spec calls for 10 rounds). We did that several times and were well within spec and wanted a longer burst. The rate of fire is recorded as 702 rpm, which in section 3.13 is right in the target range – low end (preferred by most SAW gunners). We had one “flyer” and it was still within 20cm, and the group was a 2.09-inch mean radius; which is a 7.3cm square, far exceeding the 20cm square in section 3.10.

Both the main, and assigned barrel were tested with a government supplied 30 round M16 magazine, and we witnessed no malfunctions. As any M249 or Minimi variant gunner knows, the magazine feed can be finicky or unreliable in some manufacturer’s products. This is basically due to the dual feeding lobes needed on the M249 bolt, to feed from either above in the feed tray, or, push through a magazine feed lip set on the lower left. If this is not absolutely perfect in presentation (this is a welding issue for the fixturing of the magazine well) the magazine feed is usually what suffers. U.S. Ordnance was cognizant of this, and we fired many more magazines than required, with no malfunctions.

Magazine test target, no malfunctions, all rounds in the square.

3.10 Dispersion and targeting. When fired at a target located 50 meters from the muzzle, the machine gun with its main and assigned barrel shall meet the following criteria. The weapon must be placed in a government approved mount. Nine out of ten rounds fired in a single burst shall realize a figure of merit H+L (height + length) not exceeding 33cm. No keyholing (defined in 6.7.5) shall be permitted. The mean point of impact of 9 rounds of a 10-round burst shall be within a 20cm by 20cm square. The center of this square shall be 5cm above the point of aim.

3.12 Thirty round magazine. The machine gun shall be capable of functioning without failure (see 6.4) or unserviceable parts (see 6.7.4) with its main and assigned barrel using a government furnished 30 round magazine (see 6.8).

3.13 Cyclic rate of fire. The cyclic rate of fire for each M249 machine gun with its main and assigned barrel shall be between 700 and 850 rounds per minute. This requirement shall be met without failure (see 6.4) or unserviceable parts (see 6.7.4).

In section 3.11, belt pull is specified as pulling 2.86kg (6.305 pounds) while feeding with no malfunction. This test used to be done by mounting the gun very high, and hanging the belt freely at full length. After many studies, it was determined that a more effective pull test to ensure the machine gun transfers the proper amount of energy from moving operating group, to the feed shuttle mechanism, is to use a flat shelf, free roller, X amount of linked rounds and a hanging weight as shown in the picture. The weight is slightly higher than 2.86kg, on purpose, to show the machine gun exceeds the spec.

3.11 Belt pull. The machine gun shall be capable of functioning without failure (see 6.4) or unserviceable parts (see 6.7.4) while pulling 2.86 kilograms (the equivalent of a 200 round free hanging belt).

Section 3.14 of the MIL-SPEC calls for an interchangeability of parts test. The testing quantities can get complex based on monthly productions, IDIQ numbers, first article requests, etc. – that’s a book in itself. In this case, we chose a basic method from the specifications for 10 guns taken randomly from the production line. These were disassembled into components; first as basic assemblies and mixed up, then assembled with random assemblies and function tested and gauged. All passed. Second, the parts were broken down to a lower level and reassembled, then the firearms assembled, function tested, and gauged. All passed. This is a prove-out of the requirement in section 3.14.

Next, some parts from other manufacturers, from older models, common parts with the MK46 machine gun, etc., were used in assembling U.S. Ordnance M249s. All exchanges were successful, and in 3.14.2, it all must be done on the main assemblies, with no tools. A small hammer is required to persuade some new pins, but that is acceptable.

3.14 Interchangeability. Unless otherwise specified on the drawings, all component parts or inseparable subassemblies shall be interchangeable.

3.14.1 Interplant. Unless otherwise specified on the drawing, all component parts or inseparable subassemblies shall be interchangeable with weapons representing production from each of the previous manufacturer(s).

3.14.2 Tooling. No tools shall be required to assemble/disassemble the following assemblies from the M249 receiver: Bipod, drawing 13022945, Trigger Assembly, drawing 9348354, Buttstock, drawing 12556935, Gas Cylinder, drawing 9348345, Barrel Assembly, drawing 12011986, and Ejector, drawing 9348223. The Bolt Assembly, drawing 9348412, Slide Assembly, drawing 9348391, and Piston Assembly, drawing 9348405, shall not require any tools to assemble/disassemble from each other. The Heat Shield, drawing 12540405, shall not require any tools to be assembled/disassembled from the Barrel Assembly, drawing 12011986.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­____________________________________

U.S. Ordnance has developed a water firing system that is environmentally protective. This is a 155mm howitzer barrel that has been altered so that water runs through it under pressure, and the machine gun fires into the water. At the other end, the water cycles the spent bullets into a container with a conveyer system. The water recycles through the system many times, and is properly filtered.

The conveyor brings the spent projectiles, many of which have the jackets stripped in the water-firing process and dumps them into 55 gallon drums.

In section 3.15, Endurance, the mean rounds between failures, other failures are all defined. During the testing, the records showed well within the spec. I personally didn’t observe any failure that required more than charging the gun or sweeping the feed tray. Fast, normal machine gunner procedures, well within spec.

3.15 Endurance. When subjected to 10,000 rounds of firing using the 200-round magazine, each endurance weapon shall exhibit no more than 4 failures attributable to the machine gun. Of the 4 failures a maximum of 2 failures are allowed which take more than 10 seconds but less than 10 minutes to clear. All remaining failures must be immediately clearable within 10 seconds. No failures which require more than 10 minutes to clear and no instances of uncontrolled firing are allowed. When firing with the government furnished 30 round magazine (see 6.8), 3 failures (attributable to the machine gun), which take less than 10 seconds to clear are allowed in each endurance weapon. Only l failure (attributable to the machine gun) is allowed which takes more than 10 seconds but less than 10 minutes to clear. All incidents shall be recorded. Any incidents not chargeable to the weapon shall be substantiated and reported. No unserviceable parts are allowed during the endurance test. See Table I for endurance summary.

4.18 Barrel life. The 15,000 rounds barrel life test shall be conducted simultaneously with the 10,000 round endurance test (and 50,000 reliability test when applicable). If only the endurance test is being performed, an additional 5000 rounds shall be fired on the barrel for a total of 15,000. The ammunition, firing schedule, and data recording for the additional 5000 rounds shall be identical to those specified for the endurance test except that use of the government furnished 30 round magazines (see 6.8) is excluded. Likewise, the endurance maintenance schedule shall be continued. Acceptability inspection of the barrel life test shall be determined by magnetic particle inspection in accordance with ASTM E 1444 of the barrel for cracks, projectile velocity, and yaw measurement at 15,000 rounds. Magnetic particle inspection and velocity and yaw measurements (using 20 rds of M855 ammunition) shall be taken in accordance with the procedures specified for the endurance test.

U.S. Ordnance is in full production now on the M249 machine gun. They’ve passed a full MIL-SPEC test regimen, they are in process of delivering hundreds of M249 machine guns to government customers in various countries. The M249 lives on, and many countries (as the United Kingdom just announced) are sticking with the 5.56x45mm cartridge until the mid-2030s.

Contacts for U.S. Ordnance:

www.usord.com

sales@usord.com

marketing@usord.com

training: training@usord.com

4 MAX Scout

The 4 Max Scout features an extra wide, drop-point blade and stonewash finish, which is identical to the original 4 Max. It’s crafted from 5mm thick AUS10A steel for strength, toughness and edge holding potential. The handle’s silhouette mirrors the original. Instead of a G10 handle, the 4 Max Scout has one made of Griv-Ex™ with stainless steel liners and a Griv-Ex™ back spacer. Equipped with Andrew Demko’s groundbreaking Tri-Ad® locking mechanism, the 4 Max Scout has passed every one of our grueling shock and impact tests and then gone on to hold 600 pounds of free-hanging weight with no damage!

coldsteel.com

Overall Length: 10in
Closed Length: 6in
Blade Thickness: 4.8mm
Blade Length: 4in
Edge Length: 4in
Edge Configuration: Plain
Handle: Griv-Ex™
Steel: Japanese AUS10A
Weight: 10.2oz
Clip Position: Ambidextrous
Grind: Flat
Lock Type: Tri-Ad® lock
Blade Style: Drop point

COLD STEEL, INC.

SRK®

The SRK® in San Mai® features a tremendously strong clip point blade that’s fine enough for delicate work, yet possesses enough belly for efficient cutting, slashing and skinning strokes as well. At 3/16 of an inch thick, the SRK offers the sturdiest possible point and edge configuration, without sacrificing sharpness. The SRK’s handle sports a single quillon finger guard and a deeply checkered Kray-Ex® grip. If you want a reasonably priced, reliable knife, check out Cold Steel’s SRK.

coldsteel.com

Overall Length: 10.75in
Blade Thickness: 5mm
Blade Length: 6in
Edge Length: 6in
Edge Configuration: Plain
Handle: Kray-Ex™
Steel: Japanese VG10 San Mai®
Weight: 7.8oz
Clip Position: N/A
Grind: Hollow
Blade Style: Clip point
Sheath Material: Secure-Ex™
Mounting Hardware: N/A
Total Weight of Knife and Sheath: 11.1oz

DOUBLESTAR BLADES

Ahab-X

Inspired by the epic characters written in Herman Melville’s novel, Moby Dick, the Ahab-X was built to empower law enforcement officers to hunt down wickedness with all the tenacity of the Captain himself. This everyday carry was designed to be discrete and compact without sacrificing relevance. Elements like the oversized ring and precision thumb break provide the best amount of retention for quick deployment. The Ahab-X’s strong, lightweight construction makes it a great duty belt utility that will be there when you need it.

doublestarusa.com

Overall Length: 5.5in
Blade Thickness: .175in
Blade Length: 3.33in
Edge Length: 3.20in
Edge Configuration: Plain
Handle: .125in Medium-textured G10
Steel: SK5
Weight: 3.8oz
Clip Position: Dynamic and modular clip options
Grind: Flat
Blade Style: Traditional Tanto
Sheath Material: Injection-molded
Mounting Hardware: Button head screw/rubber washers/T-nuts
Total Weight of Knife and Sheath: 4.7oz

DOUBLESTAR BLADES

Lite-Fighter-X

Born from the theater of war and designed by an experienced soldier, Darrin Sirois, the Lite-Fighter-X is a “tactical fighter” ready to take on any mission. A 10-inch Flat grind leads the knife’s edge with a harpoon-style upper spine wedged and optimized for entrance and exit wounds. The deep thumb grooves are precisely placed for a positive, friction-free grip when it matters. The handle is skeletonized to create a well-balanced knife.

doublestarusa.com

Overall Length: 9.5in
Blade Thickness: .194in
Blade Length: 4.56in
Edge Length: 4.88in
Edge Configuration: Plain
Handle: .125in course-textured G10
Steel: Nitro-V
Weight: 8.9oz
Clip Position: Dynamic and modular clip options
Grind: Flat
Blade Style: Straight back with medium belly
Sheath Material: Thermoplastic
Mounting Hardware: Button head screw/rubber washers/T-nuts
Total Weight of Knife and Sheath: 10.6oz

EMERSON KNIVES, INC.

Mini CQC-7BW Flipper

Emerson Knives has now given the flipper treatment to the pocket-friendly version of the acclaimed Emerson CQC-7. Now featuring a flipper tab and a ball-bearing pivot system, the Mini CQC-7BW Flipper glides open with ease and locks with a satisfying click.

emersonknives.com 

Overall Length: 7.2in
Closed Length: 4.2in
Blade Thickness: .125in
Blade Length: 2.9in
Edge Length: 2.9in
Edge Configuration: Plain/serrated, Stonewash/Black finish
Handle: G10
Steel: 154CM
Weight: 4oz
Clip Position: Tip-up carry
Grind: Chisel
Lock Type: Liner lock
Blade Style: Tanto

EMERSON KNIVES, INC.

Mini Sheepdog

A knife is a guardian and protector. When a knife is the tool you need, the Mini Sheepdog will never let you down. For work, for adventure, for emergencies and for protection, the Mini Sheepdog is man’s best friend.

emersonknives.com 

Overall Length: 7.1in
Closed Length: 4.1in
Blade Thickness: .125in
Blade Length: 3.0in
Edge Length: 3.0in
Edge Configuration: Plain/serrated, Stonewash/Black finish
Handle: G10
Steel: 154CM
Weight: 4.8oz
Clip Position: Tip-up carry
Grind: Conventional V
Lock Type: Liner lock
Blade Style: Spear point or Bowie

GERBER

Propel Downrange AO

Developed to serve military and law enforcement, the Propel Downrange AO is a tactical addition you can rely on. Gerber’s premium design offers a stealth black oxide S30V steel blade, a grippy G10 handle and an innovative blade deployment keeping safety front of mind.

gerbergear.com

Overall Length: 8.5in
Closed Length: 5in
Blade Thickness: 0.12in
Blade Length: 3.5in
Edge Length: 3.25in/SE
Edge Configuration: Combination–partially serrated
Handle: Black G10
Steel: Premium S30V
Weight: 5oz
Clip Position: Adjustable three-position
Grind: Flat
Lock Type: Plunge lock and safety switch
Blade Style: Full-size Tanto

GERBER

StrongArm

With a full tang, 420HC steel blade and rubberized diamond-texture grip, the StrongArm is a knife you can rely on. The MOLLE-compatible, multi-mount sheath system offers optimal customization, keeping your knife ever at the ready in combat situations.

gerbergear.com

Overall Length: 9.8in
Blade Thickness: 0.19in
Blade Length: 4.8in
Edge Length: 4.25in/FE; 4.50in/SE
Edge Configuration: Combo edge
Handle: Rubberized diamond-texture grip; glass-filled nylon with rubber overmold
Steel: 420HC
Weight: 7.2oz
Clip Position: None
Grind: Flat
Blade Style: Full tang
Sheath Material: Versatile modular sheath system, MOLLE
Mounting Hardware: Detachable belt hoops for horizontal belt carry
Total Weight of Knife and Sheath: 10.9oz

MEDFORD KNIFE & TOOL

Gentleman Jack Slip Joint

The Gentleman Jack Slip Joint is another first for Medford Knife & Tool and is a new breed of the ubiquitous gentleman’s folder. It’s a titanium slip joint with all the usefulness, elegance and build quality you have come to expect. Launching exclusively in three configurations.

medfordknife.com

Overall Length: 7in
Closed Length: 4in
Blade Thickness: .125in
Blade Width: 3/4in
Handle Thickness: .125in
Blade Length: 3.1in
Edge Length: 2.9in
Edge Configuration: Most acute hand-polished for a face razor sharp keenness
Handle: Titanium
Steel: CPM S35VN
Weight: 2.9oz
Clip Position: N/A
Grind: Drop point
Lock Type: Slip joint
Blade Style: Waterfall nail nick

MEDFORD KNIFE & TOOL

Praetorian Swift FL

The Praetorian Swift FL has a hybrid aluminum handle, titanium spring and MKTech™ SS dual race, 18-bearing pivot frame lock.

medfordknife.com

Overall Length: 7 11/16in
Closed Length: 4 3/8in
Blade Thickness: .150in
Blade Width: 3/4in
Handle Thickness: .190in
Blade Length: 3 3/8in
Edge Length: 3 1/4in
Edge Configuration: Acute hand-polished
Handle: Aluminum and titanium
Steel: CPM S35VN
Weight: 4.5oz
Clip Position: Spring top tip-up
Grind: Tanto or drop point
Lock Type: Frame lock
Blade Style: Fuller groove

SPARTAN BLADES

Damysus

In Greek mythology, Damysus was the fastest of all the giants. This hefty same-named blade is designed to perform as an all-around combat/utility knife. Its straight edge and strong point combined with a full tang and Canvas Micarta® scales ensure the Damysus will perform the most demanding tasks. If tip strength is what you are looking for, consider this knife. Made in collaboration with KA-BAR® Knives.

spartanbladesusa.com

Overall Length: 103/4in
Blade Thickness: 3/16in
Blade Length: 6in
Edge Length: 51/2in
Edge Configuration: Plain
Handle: Black or green CE Canvas Micarta®
Steel: 1095 CRO-VAN
Weight: 9oz
Grind: Flat saber
Blade Style: Drop point
Sheath Material: Injection-molded sheath with active retention thumb lever
Mounting Hardware: MOLLE and TECH-LOK-compatible
Total Weight of Knife and Sheath: 14.7oz

SPARTAN BLADES

Spartan-Harsey Dagger

Designed by prolific knife designer William W. Harsey, Jr., the Spartan-Harsey Dagger was designed to be a combat dagger. Its timeless design is matched only by the use of premium U.S. materials which include: S35VN with excellent vacuum heat treatment with double-deep cryogenic treatment and pressure tempering; full tang construction; and a 3D-contoured Canvas Micarta® handle, textured for excellent grip. These features combined with its beautiful design makes for a knife that will most assuredly become an American classic.

spartanbladesusa.com

Overall Length: 10¾in
Blade Thickness: 3/16in
Blade Length: 6in
Edge Length: 5¼in
Edge Configuration: Plain
Handle: 3D-contoured double Black CE Canvas Micarta®
Steel: CPM S35VN (double deep cryogenic treatment)
Weight: 6.72oz
Grind: Hollow
Blade Style: Double-edged dagger
Sheath Material: Kydex® or leather
Mounting Hardware: MOLLE and TECH-LOK-compatible
Total Weight of Knife and Sheath: 11.456oz

SPYDERCO

Canis™

Designed by special operations veteran and close-combat expert Kelly McCann, the Canis is a no-nonsense folding knife optimized for personal protection. Its dramatic blade profile maximizes cutting power and tip strength and is paired with a high-strength Compression Lock®, carbon fiber/G10 scales and a fully configurable four-position pocket clip.

spyderco.com

Overall Length: 8.12in
Closed Length: 4.73in
Blade Thickness: 0.118in
Blade Length: 3.43in
Edge Length: 3.43in
Edge Configuration: Plain
Handle: Carbon fiber/G10 laminate
Steel: CPM® S30V®
Weight: 4.1oz
Clip Position: Ambidextrous 4-position
Grind: Hollow
Lock Type: Compression lock
Blade Style: Wharncliffe

SPYDERCO

YoJumbo™

A supersized expression of Michael Janich’s acclaimed Yojimbo™ 2, the YoJumbo features a 4-inch, hollow-ground Wharncliffe blade crafted from CPM® S30V® stainless steel. Designed to fit all hand sizes, its ergonomic handle boasts coarse-textured G10 scales, nested stainless steel liners, Spyderco’s patented Compression Lock® and a versatile four-position pocket clip.

spyderco.com

Overall Length: 9.29in
Closed Length: 5.37in
Blade Thickness: 0.145in
Blade Length: 3.98in
Edge Length: 3.98in
Edge Configuration: Plain
Handle: G10
Steel: CPM® S30V®
Weight: 5.3oz
Clip Position: Ambidextrous 4-position
Grind: Hollow
Lock Type: Compression lock
Blade Style: Wharncliffe