Swiss VP9 Integrally Suppressed Pistol
Jonathan Ferguson | Photography N.R. Jenzen-Jones/ARES
The manually operated, integrally suppressed VP9 pistol by B&T AG (formerly Brügger & Thomet) came as something of a surprise when it was launched in 2014. It is an intriguing contemporary-civilian take on a World War II British-design for a military covert-operations pistol. The Royal Armouries, whose collection includes more examples of the original Welrod and Welwand pistols than any other in the world, acquired the example pictured here and seen in the accompanying video. This was, in part, the rationale for its acquisition. As befits its intended veterinary role, the pistol came in a discrete briefcase with interchangeable standard and training suppressors, spare magazine, rubber wipes, screwdriver, suppressor disassembly tool, cleaning tools, and a clamp-on Picatinny rail adapter for any accessories that the user might deem appropriate (most likely a flashlight).
The basic design is pure Welrod, with tubular body, ported barrel, manually operated twin-lugged cock-on close rotary bolt, and the detachable magazine serving as the pistol grip. The trigger remains a simple push-rod that directly impinges upon the sear in order to release the internal striker. Most importantly, it retains the basic design of the Welrod suppressor as well, with a stack consisting of metal baffles and rubber wipes. Wipes are rarely used by modern-day suppressor makers, but can still be useful when striving for the quietest report possible, as in this case. As with the Welrod, the ported barrel allows sufficient drop in pressure to decelerate and render the bullet subsonic, eliminating the supersonic “crack” that would otherwise be produced. The “training” suppressor is a more modern machined- and ported-design, but offers a substantially reduced sound suppression capability, intended for practice without having to clean and/or service the primary unit. The VP9 is chambered for the 9 x 19 mm caliber—a characteristic again shared with the later Welrod, which had originally been designed in the .32 ACP for maximum sound-suppression potential.
However, there are some significant changes embodied in the B&T redesign. The VP9 is considerably shorter, more compact and lighter (see below) than the Welrod; the latter being 360 mm long and 1.5 kilograms in weight. Due to the truncated overall length of the gun, the barrel is also significantly shorter than the 3.74 inches of the .32 Welrod at just under 2 inches. The scoop on top of the pistol behind the breech has been significantly enlarged, presumably to reduce weight and possibly aid in ejection. Whereas the only synthetic material found on the Welrod was its rubber grip sleeve, the VP9 makes more extensive use of modern polymer, which comprises the grip frame, trigger and grip safety shoes, magazine release and the magazine casing. The trigger guard is sheet steel; all other components are forged or machined steel. The magazine release has been relocated from a lever inside the trigger guard (or the spring catch on the back of the magazine in the original model) to a push-button on the left side of the grip. This is safer and more ergonomic, albeit the button does not sit under the first pad of the thumb as on most modern pistols; this is not a weapon intended for swift reloads under pressure. The grip safety is now a polymer button rather than a sheet-metal lever and must be depressed in order to retract the bolt. The radioactive radium-painted night sights are gone, replaced by modern Glock-style white dot and U-shaped markers. The front sight is located at the breech as in the later (9mm) Welrod, rather than on the end of the suppressor as in the early (.32 ACP) pattern.
Despite the family resemblance and the tactical potential of the pistol, there is no indication from B&T that the VP9 is intended for military or law enforcement purposes. Indeed, the original niche role of the Welrod is probably best served today by other weapons capable of delivering greater firepower more rapidly. The VP9 is likely used by vets and others with a need to humanely and quietly dispatch wounded or sick animals. It would nonetheless be interesting to compare the capabilities of the two pistols given the improvements made but also the closeness of the two designs.
A YouTube video entitled B&T Vp 9 calibro 9 mm Parabellum suggests a 120.5-peak decibel level for the VP9. Although American OSS testing produced a figure of just 73 dB for the Welrod, this was not carried out with modern equipment (by way of comparison, an unsuppressed .32 ACP pistol produced just 105 dB when tested by the OSS). Two post-war tests (1968 and 2002) show that the .32 Welrod was, like the VP9, capable of 120 dB, or a noise reduction of around 32 dB. This in turn is comparable with the best of the modern detachable suppressors when run “wet” although the VP9 achieves this in a form factor comparable to an unsuppressed compact pistol.
The Armouries have purchased two examples of the VP9, and ARES hopes in the future to test-fire one of them alongside an original Welrod.
This article is part of a series of collaborative works produced by ARES researcher Ian McCollum, who also runs the Forgotten Weapons blog and YouTube channel, in conjunction with ARES technical specialist Jonathan Ferguson and ARES director N.R. Jenzen-Jones. Using access to unique collections facilitated by ARES, the series examines a range of interesting weapons in both video and print formats.
Special thanks to the National Firearms Centre at the Royal Armouries, who graciously allowed ARES access to their world-class collection for this and other videos and photos.
Philip A. Luty 9mm Submachine Guns
Jonathan Ferguson | Photography N.R. Jenzen-Jones/ARES
The weapons examined and photographed for this article are the original examples of what the designer, Philip A. Luty of West Yorkshire, U.K., dubbed the “9mm submachine gun.” This was part of a series of designs that Luty called Expedient Homemade Firearms (also the title of his series of instructional books, published by the U.S.-based Paladin Press). It made extensive use of folded sheet metal, machine-bar stock and household DIY-items such as washers and Allen hex screws. Even parts that may be considered readily available in many states—such as the pistol grip and magazine—were scratch-built. However, as a result, no attempt has been made at barrel rifling, a shoulder stock or the provision of even basic iron sights. This, together with a lack of factory-style tools and test equipment, results in sub-optimal quality control and is likely to seriously compromise the capability of the weapon. Blowback submachine guns may be simple and cheap to produce, but they are highly sensitive to internal geometry and details of magazine-design in particular. The capabilities of these two examples, one of which is fitted with a simple sound suppressor, are unclear. Luty’s very conviction shows that at least one of them did constitute a firearm by the standard of English law, but reliable functioning would not be necessary to prove this legal point.
Luty’s clear—indeed, his stated—intent was to make a political point on the subject of gun control. If a firearm could be manufactured entirely from scratch using commonly available materials, then anyone with the requisite skill would be able to bypass national or local firearms law and restrictions on sales. This was also the motivation of U.S.-based Defense Distributed when they released their own open source and craft-produced Liberator pistol in 2013, relying on 3D-printing technologies. The important difference (arguments over the control of information notwithstanding) is that it was quite legal under U.S. federal and local law for Defense Distributed to manufacture and test-fire their prototypes. Unfortunately, Luty manufactured and test-fired his prototypes illicitly. In fact, this seems to have been quite deliberate; unsurprisingly, he soon ran afoul of local law enforcement. Luty’s case came to court in 1998: There he admitted manufacturing of a prohibited weapon and possession of ammunition and was convicted and received a sentence of four years in prison. Several further developments in Luty’s case were reported in the local press.
Readers should not assume that Luty’s efforts have made homemade firearms easy to produce. In fact, they remain quite sophisticated pieces of engineering. Despite Luty’s label of “expedient,” his guns are in fact true “craft-produced” weapons, replicating the features—if not the quality, accuracy or reliability—of an original-purpose firearm. For this reason they require considerable skill to replicate successfully. Furthermore, the manufacturer must also obtain quantities of suitable ammunition. In any case, although Luty’s pattern weapons have appeared in other parts of the world (for example in Romania and Australia), criminals in the U.K. do not appear to have made any great use of them.
Important Note: Manufacturing, or even an attempted manufacturing, of an unlicensed firearm is a serious crime in many jurisdictions around the world. In addition, even possessing copies (hard or soft) of Luty’s designs and instructions could be deemed criminal under certain circumstances. Would-be firearms designers should take note of and abide by relevant national and local laws. Please note that this article is provided for educational purposes only. ARES is an apolitical organization.
This article is part of a series of collaborative works produced by ARES researcher Ian McCollum, who also runs the Forgotten Weapons blog and YouTube channel, in conjunction with ARES technical specialist Jonathan Ferguson and ARES director N.R. Jenzen-Jones. Using access to unique collections facilitated by ARES, the series examines a range of interesting weapons in both video and print formats.
Special thanks to the National Firearms Centre at the Royal Armouries, who graciously allowed ARES access to their world-class collection to examine this and other arms and munitions.
British Besal (Faulkner) Light Machine Gun
Jonathan Ferguson | Photography N.R. Jenzen-Jones/ARES
The Besal or BESAL was, in essence, a simplified derivative of the British Bren, itself a variant of the Czech ZB-26 light machine gun (LMG). A British Small Arms Committee (SAC) minute of June 1940 established the requirement of a “Garage Hands Gun” or what is typically referred to today as a “last-ditch” gun (Neil Grant, 2013). However, this was not in fact “last-ditch” at all, but an attempt to get ahead of the manufacturing curve and accelerate production of the LMG, which at that time was the very basis of British infantry section (squad) firepower. The standard .303 cartridges would remain, and the design would retain the barrel and magazine of the Bren, which was already plentiful in the supply chain. As Grant notes, it was even suggested that spare Bren barrels could be taken from stores to get the new gun into production as fast as possible.
The War Office contract for the prototype gun was given to an experienced company, Birmingham Small Arms (BSA), in 1941. The lead designer was Harry Faulkner, who had already produced the Besa Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) machine gun. BSA delivered the first prototype of the new gun by March 1942. This retained a Bren-style cocking handle, but was further simplified in August 1942, as detailed below.
Description
The weapon is substantially fabricated from sheet-metal pressings that are welded together. As a hand-built prototype of what would have been a rather crude weapon, the Besal is well finished, with the welds being largely ground flush and finished smooth with a deep-blue protective coating. Despite the intent to utilize Bren barrels in production, the barrel on the prototype is proprietary, with a built-in tubular flash suppressor, a front sight/gas block clamped around the gas port, and a carrying handle. There is no adjustable gas regulator as on the Bren. The rear sight pivots fore and aft to switch between its 300- and 500-yard apertures. The barrel is detached by cocking the weapon and rotating the removal lever rearward, allowing the user to pull it forward off the weapon.
Disassembly is fairly straightforward. Once the buttstock has been detached by means of a simple trumpet-headed cross-bolt, an unusual knurled plug under the barrel releases the working parts for removal out of the rear of the receiver. The dust cover is a hinged flap that locks in place under the magazine catch when no magazine is fitted. The bipod is a heavy-machined unit with a very positive deployment action. Despite extensive use of sheet metal, the weapon is close in weight to the Bren. Aside from the hefty bipod, the stampings are relatively thick, the barrel heavy and no lightening cuts are made to the machined components. The bolt carrier group is based upon the Bren, but redesigned for a minimum of machining operations, giving it a bulky, square appearance. The weapon has no conventional cocking handle; instead it’s cocked by sliding the pistol grip. This must be released with a rather awkward-located lever at the top of the backstrap, before sliding the unit forward to collect the bolt group, and then dragged backward against spring pressure to hold the bolt to the rear on the sear. The bolt is locked with a vertical-acting bar at the rear of the bolt carrier. There is no provision for semi-automatic fire. Furniture is Spartan, with a pair of wooden grip panels and a matching set of butt-stock panels covering the hollow metal butt-stock.
Why “Besal?”
As ARES researcher Ian McCollum notes in a video, there is no definitive explanation of the acronym “BESAL.” However, this is because the name is rooted in period British slang and is not really an acronym. “Beezer,” “Beesa” or “Besa” were common phonetic names of the company acronym BSA therefore the name applied to the company’s AFV/tank gun (a copy of the Czech ZB-53). Due to the modern assumption that it is an acronym, it is frequently written as “BESA,” but should more properly be named “Besa.” This explains the name “Besa” but for “BESAL” some educated guesswork is required. With a new machine-gun design on the books and a precedent for incorporating the company name in a gun’s designation, the most likely explanation is that BSA opted to add “Light” to “Besa” to arrive at “Besa Light” machine gun, or “BesaL” for short. The “L” would differentiate the gun from the existing “Besa” AFV/tank gun. “BesaL” being rather awkward to look at, “Besal” seems to have been the preferred rendering (although “BESAL” remains common today).
Nonetheless, the Besal was renamed “Faulkner” after its designer in January 1943. Grant suggests that the renaming was a move to distance the LMG from its AFV MG stablemate—Besal and Besa being too similar to one another.
The Bren Soldiers On
Unlike the Besa—which was formally adopted and used on armoured vehicles—the Besal did not see serial production. By 1943, supply worries over the Bren had eased and along with them the need for the Besal/Faulkner. It never entered production and instead the Bren continued into Marks III and IV. The Bren was retained post-war in the L4 variant chambered for 7.62 x 51mm (which itself passed through several variants), finally being withdrawn completely circa 1991—nearly half a century after its potential replacement had been “binned.”
This article is part of a series of collaborative works produced by ARES researcher Ian McCollum, who also runs the Forgotten Weapons blog and YouTube channel, in conjunction with ARES technical specialist Jonathan Ferguson and ARES director N.R. Jenzen-Jones. Using access to unique collections facilitated by ARES, the series examines a range of interesting weapons in both video and print formats.
Special thanks to Neil Grant.
This article is reproduced courtesy of Armament Research Services (ARES). See www.armamentresearch.com for further original content.
