<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>ACR &#8211; Small Arms Defense Journal</title>
	<atom:link href="https://sadefensejournal.com/tag/acr/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://sadefensejournal.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2023 14:25:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>ORDNANCE ODDITIES</title>
		<link>https://sadefensejournal.com/ordnance-oddities/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Bruce]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2020 15:46:30 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Editorials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Features]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search By Issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[V12N4]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 12]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2020]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Advanced Combat Rifle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AUG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BRITISH MINISTRY OF DEFENSE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bullpup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dynamit Nobel's Caseless Cartridge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EM-2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FAMAS G2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flechettes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fusil d'Assaut de la Manufacture d'Armes de Saint-Étienne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[G11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Heckler & Koch’s]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HK]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IMP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[L85A2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Le Clairon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LMG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Bruce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rodman Laboratories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SAW]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCAMP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Small Caliber Machine Pistol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Squad Automatic Weapon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steyr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sturmgewehr 77]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Bugle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thomas B. Dugelby]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thompson Ramo Wooldridge group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TRW]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volkspistole 70M]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VP70M]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[XM235]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=83141</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Cold War Conflicts and ‘Brushfire Wars’ 1970s–1980s By Robert Bruce In the course of decades of researching various sources including military and museum archives, Robert Bruce has acquired a treasure trove of photos of what might be considered “odd and unusual weapons.” Here is a follow-on to earlier oddities that appeared in previous issues.  Now, [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2><strong>Cold War Conflicts and ‘Brushfire Wars’</strong></h2>
<h2><strong>1970s–1980s</strong></h2>
<p><em><strong>By Robert Bruce</strong></em></p>
<p><em>In the course of decades of researching various sources including military and museum archives, Robert Bruce has acquired a treasure trove of photos of what might be considered “odd and unusual weapons.” Here is a follow-on to earlier oddities that appeared in previous issues. </em></p>
<p><em> </em><em>Now, with apologies for some of these rough-looking images—presented as they were found—</em><strong>SADJ</strong><em> takes a look at some interesting developments in the tragic aftermath of the Vietnam debacle as U.S. and Allied forces pivoted to other Cold War conflicts and “brushfire wars” around the globe.</em></p>
<p><strong>When the Democrat-dominated</strong> U.S. Congress cut off funding and other military aid to America&#8217;s South Vietnamese allies, a Communist victory was assured. Saigon fell in 1975 to a combined North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and Viet Cong (VC) assault spearheaded by T-54/T-55 tanks supplied by Communist China.</p>
<p>Although badly shaken by what many bitterly considered a betrayal of an ally and callous disregard for the sacrifice of more than 211,000 dead and wounded Americans, the U.S. Armed Forces regrouped and refocused on the harsh realities of conventional—and likely escalating to thermonuclear—warfare with the Soviet Union; a formidable and nearly equal enemy. Joined by NATO Allies (not including the French, that&#8217;s another story) “force modernization” became a priority for rapid upgrades to ships, aircraft, tanks and all types of weaponry. Leaving the big stuff to others, we&#8217;ll concentrate here on just a few notable man-portable arms that were driven by a determination to equip fighting forces with better guns and ammo—some of which were already in the RDT&amp;E (Research, Development, Test &amp; Evaluation) pipeline when Saigon fell.</p>
<p><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async"   alt="" width="3068" height="1886" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/3648_OO6_01.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-83142 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<figure id="attachment_83143" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-83143" style="width: 3176px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img decoding="async"   alt="" width="3176" height="2031" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/3648_OO6_02.jpg" class="wp-image-83143 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-83143" class="wp-caption-text">West German Partisan Pistol: VP70M with Buttstock and Carrying Sling CREDIT: HK GmbH First produced in 1970 in the height of the Cold War, Heckler &amp; Koch’s (HK) Volkspistole 70M (literally “people&#8217;s pistol”) was intended for civilian partisans in the wake of an almost-certain USSR/Warsaw Pact invasion of West Germany. Inspired by the multitudes of cheap and simple weapons dropped by U.S. and Allies behind German lines in WWII to arm resistance forces, it was much more capable than the single-shot OSS “Liberator” pistol and even the quick-takedown British MKII STEN submachine gun. The VP70M is a highly concealable, 9mm 18-round capacity, semiautomatic handgun that instantly converts into a 2200 RPM three-round burst-fire machine pistol with addition of its buttstock/holster. Notably, it carries the distinction of being the first production-run polymer-framed handgun.</figcaption></figure>
<p><strong>West German Partisan Pistol</strong>: <em>VP70M with Buttstock and Carrying Sling</em></p>
<p>CREDIT:  HK GMBH</p>
<p><em>First produced in 1970 in the height of the Cold War, Heckler &amp; Koch’s (HK) Volkspistole 70M (literally “people&#8217;s pistol”) was intended for civilian partisans in the wake of an almost-certain USSR/Warsaw Pact invasion of West Germany. Inspired by the multitudes of cheap and simple weapons dropped by U.S. and Allies behind German lines in WWII to arm resistance forces, it was much more capable than the single-shot OSS “Liberator” pistol and even the quick-takedown British MKII STEN submachine gun. The VP70M is a highly concealable, 9mm 18-round capacity, semiautomatic handgun that instantly converts into a 2200 RPM three-round burst-fire machine pistol with addition of its buttstock/holster. Notably, it carries the distinction of being the first production-run polymer-framed handgun.</em></p>
<p><img decoding="async"   alt="" width="537" height="768" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_04.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-83181 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<figure id="attachment_83157" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-83157" style="width: 1280px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1280" height="896" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_03.jpg" class="wp-image-83157 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-83157" class="wp-caption-text">Underwater Revolver: Gun, Underwater Defense, Mk 1 Mod 0 Like the one seen here, locked away for posterity in the arms vault of the Naval Historical Society, the Mk 1 Mod 0 was developed late in the Vietnam War for use against enemy swimmers and continued in service with men of the Navy’s Underwater Demolition Teams and SEALs in the Cold War. It&#8217;s a seriously updated techno version of the multi-barrel “pepperbox” revolver of the 1800s. The removable barrel/chamber cluster holds six sealed Mk59 cartridges, each loaded with a wickedly long, needle-like tungsten dart.</figcaption></figure>
<p><strong>Underwater Revolver: Gun, Underwater Defense, Mk 1 Mod 0</strong></p>
<p>CREDIT: <em>ROBERT BRUCE</em></p>
<p><em>Like the one seen here, locked away for posterity in the arms vault of the Naval Historical Society, the Mk 1 Mod 0 was developed late in the Vietnam War for use against enemy swimmers and continued in service with men of the Navy’s Underwater Demolition Teams and SEALs in the Cold War. It&#8217;s a seriously updated techno version of the multi-barrel “pepperbox” revolver of the 1800s. The removable barrel/chamber cluster holds six sealed Mk59 cartridges, each loaded with a wickedly long, needle-like tungsten dart.</em></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2816" height="1880" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_06.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-83160 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Heavy Duty Grenade Gun: 40mm Philco-Ford CROW</strong></p>
<p>CREDIT: <em>NAVAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY ARCHIVES</em></p>
<p><em>Because grenade machine guns firing the M79 “Blooper&#8217;s” low-velocity 40mm grenades proved inadequate in Vietnam, logic demanded a weapon that could fire the newly developed, powerful and long-reaching 40mm M384 and M385 High Velocity ammo. But how to tame this hot round&#8217;s formidable recoil in a grenade machine gun (GMG) of manageable size and weight? In 1970, Philco-Ford&#8217;s Aeronutronic Division got a developmental award for their Counter Recoil-Operated Weapon (CROW) concept: “&#8230; the principle of converting kinematic energy of the round into potential energy. The energy stored in various springs is released during the counter recoil stroke to open the barrel, eject the spent round and feed the next round.” The resulting 35-pound GMG demonstrated effective operation at rates of fire up to 400 RPM. Nice try, but the prize went to Naval Ordnance Louisville&#8217;s MK19, which is still serving today.</em></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="3192" height="1459" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_07.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-83161 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>SAW Contender: Rodman Laboratories XM235</strong></p>
<p>CREDIT: <em>U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE MUSEUM</em></p>
<p><em>This interesting mini machine gun was entered in the Army&#8217;s 1975-1976 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) trials. Chambered in the Army&#8217;s specified 6x45mm experimental cartridge, its novel operation system—enhancing full-auto accuracy—was patented by its government design team as the Modular Lightweight Squad Automatic Weapon System, “&#8230; having symmetrical forces applied to recoiling parts by use of two parallel gas pressure rods acting in unison. An integral sprocket feed system is actuated by the recoiling parts and avoids gross asymmetrical movements about the weapon&#8217;s center of gravity resulting from shifting ammunition weight. A dual tube receiver and dual gas system is featured in the weapon.” In the end, the Army chose FN&#8217;s Minimi in 5.56x45mm NATO, serving now as the M249 light machine gun.</em></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2816" height="1880" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_08.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-83162 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Fire and Forget It: TRW&#8217;s Low-Maintenance Rifle</strong></p>
<p>CREDIT:<em> AUTHOR&#8217;S COLLECTION</em></p>
<p><em>It isn&#8217;t PC to assert that many if not most Third-World troops are culturally indifferent to properly maintaining their weapons, so we&#8217;ll just present this one as an interestingly cheap and simple shoulder weapon for U.S. counterinsurgency forces to arm certain soldiers. Responding to a 1971 Army requirement, the Thompson Ramo Wooldridge group (TRW) offered this 7.26-pound, 34-inch-long, 450 RPM, 5.56mm Firestick, only externally reminiscent of the superlative, sophisticated WWII German FG 42. Its equally simple and cheaply printed 1973 Tech Manual dryly notes in typewritten prose: “&#8230; a 5.56mm magazine-fed, gas operated, air cooled, shoulder weapon &#8230; designed for use as an automatic weapon and functions from the open bolt position. &#8230; The rifle is fabricated from corrosion-resistant materials and is semi-permanently lubricated by the dry film process.” Less than a dozen were made, and the project was abandoned. After all, millions of uncannily reliable AKs were available worldwide—super simple, dirt cheap and with mountains of 7.62x39mm ammo.</em></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1936" height="1288" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_09.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-83163 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Piggyback Projectiles: Frankford Arsenal&#8217;s Folded Ammunition</strong></p>
<p>CREDIT: <em>U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE MUSEUM</em></p>
<p><em>Some engineers—ever eager to explore even marginal improvements to conventional cartridges—have produced some genuine oddities. Not the least of these is presented in a “Feasibility Study of 5.56m Folded Ammunition System,” published in September 1976 by the Munitions Development and Engineering Directorate at the Army&#8217;s Frankford Arsenal. Citing advantages including efficient stowage, higher performance in less overall space, weight reduction, etc., it boasts: “The shorter ammunition length shortens the weapon bolt stroke required to feed the ammunition and extract the case after firing. This feature enables a shortening of weapon length in the chamber/breech location.” So, what has transpired in some 4 decades since? Most notably not Frankford&#8217;s folded ammo but the HK G11&#8217;s molded brick caseless and AAI/Textron&#8217;s lipstick-tube cased-telescoped ammo.</em></p>
<h2><strong>BULLPUP MASHUP</strong></h2>
<p>“The EM-2, a British rifle fleetingly adopted in the UK in 1951 as &#8216;Rifle, No. 9,&#8217; was the first attempt in the world to field a general-issue military shoulder weapon based on the &#8216;compact&#8217; or bullpup system.” (R. Blake Stevens in the introduction to Thomas B. Dugelby&#8217;s 1980 Collector Grade book, <em>EM-2 Concept and Design—A Rifle Ahead of its Time.</em>)</p>
<p><em>Bullpup??!!</em> Most simply defined as the term applies to small arms, a “bullpup” design puts the magazine and firing chamber behind the pistol grip/trigger group that&#8217;s typically located about midway along the length of the weapon. Why? For compactness, balance and quick handling.</p>
<p>There are advantages and disadvantages to this arrangement, kicking off all manner of controversy between proponents of traditional configurations and cocky challengers. Evidence of resistance to change is readily seen in the fact that the first promising young litter of Brit bullpups died from neglect. But that didn&#8217;t end the breed, so let&#8217;s zoom in for a closer look at some bullpups born in the ‘70s and ‘80s.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1763" height="1126" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_10.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-83164 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>U.S. Air Force Arm Gun: Colt&#8217;s Lightweight Submachine Gun</strong></p>
<p>CREDIT: <em>U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE MUSEUM</em></p>
<p><em>Seen here circa 1969 in what&#8217;s likely a conceptual drawing from a presentation of the remarkable IMP-221 (Individual Multi-Purpose), this unique bullpup pistol, firing hot .221 Remington Fireball cartridges, was intended to be a compact and deadly efficient survival weapon for downed aviators. Credited to engineer Dale Davis of the USAF Armament Laboratories, it evolved from the more conventional Colt SCAMP (Small Caliber Machine Pistol) into an ergonomically unique solution to the challenges of producing an ultra-compact weapon with acceptable stopping power and practical range. Its bullpup design provided good balance, and the receiver with magazine along the arm provided some stability, swiveling to accommodate right or left handers.</em></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1936" height="1288" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_11.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-83165 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Colt IMP</strong></p>
<p>CREDIT: <em>U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE MUSEUM</em></p>
<p><em>For a variety of reasons—not the least of which was the absurd difficulty of accurately shooting the thing—the USAF-Colt IMP initiative was ultimately rejected. But independent gun maker Gwinn Firearms apparently appreciated its novelty and saw potential for civilian or perhaps law enforcement sales, producing the Bushmaster Arm Pistol around 1972. It&#8217;s a very close version in .223/5.56 NATO, economically utilizing a lot of standard AR-15/M16 components such as Eugene Stoner&#8217;s familiar multi-lug, rotating bolt.</em></p>
<figure id="attachment_83166" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-83166" style="width: 5016px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="5016" height="3273" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_12.jpg" class="wp-image-83166 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-83166" class="wp-caption-text">Pictured left to right are the SA80-A2, XL 60 and EM-2 assault rifles. The EM-2, also known as Rifle No.9 Mk1 or Janson rifle, which was an experimental British assault rifle. It was briefly adopted by British forces in 1951, but the decision was overturned very shortly thereafter by Winston Churchill&#8217;s incoming government in an effort to secure NATO standardisation of small arms and ammunition. An innovative weapon with the compact bullpup layout and an optical sight, it used one of the early intermediate cartridges (a concept introduced by the Germans with the 7.92×33mm Kurz) as a result of combat experience and German advances in weapons design during World War II. As the EM-2 could not be easily adapted to the longer and more powerful 7.62×51mm NATO round, it faded from use. However, the bullpup layout for a British service rifle was finally adopted some years later in form of the SA80 assault rifle, the EM-2&#8217;s spiritual successor, which remains in service today. The XL60 series of experimental firearms was the first generation of what was initially known as the ‘485 Weapon System’, designed and produced at the Royal Small Arms Factory (RSAF) Enfield, located in North London, United Kingdom. The term ‘485 Weapon System’, so-named for the weapon’s 4.85 mm calibre, was later dropped in favour of ‘Enfield Weapon System’ or EWS, which persisted until at least 1982 but was ultimately also side-lined. Instead, the name ‘Small Arms of the 1980s’ or ‘SA80’ was adopted and remains in use to this day. This term is used alongside the land service or ‘L’ designations (e.g. L85A2). Interestingly, this name was in use from the very beginning by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), sometimes with the prefix ‘Section’ as in ‘infantry section’ or squad. As per the preliminary study and MoD specification, the EWS/SA80 system comprised rifle and light machine gun variants, known by their period NATO euphemisms of ‘Indivi</figcaption></figure>
<p><strong>Brit Bullpups: Evolution of the “Rifle, No. 9”</strong></p>
<p>CREDIT: <em>WIKIMEDIA COMMONS</em></p>
<p><em>Seen on the far right is a well-worn trials version of the “EM-2” that soon followed the No. 9, likely chambered for an experimental 6.25x43mm “intermediate type” cartridge. To its left are later variants of the design; the first is identified as an XL60 in .280/4.85mm, and the more recent SA80 A2 (L85A2) in 5.56mm NATO. All of these bullpups are a radical break in British Army rifle tradition, with the SA80 series officially adopted as standard in 1987.</em></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1268" height="3306" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_13.png" class="alignnone wp-image-83167 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Intermediate Cartridge Showdown: .280 vs. .223</strong></p>
<p>CREDIT: <em>WIKIMEDIA COMMONS</em></p>
<p><em>On the left is the .280/4.85x49mm, the Brit hopeful in NATO&#8217;s weapon and ammo trials of 1978-1979, standing side-by-side with what became the NATO standard .223/5.56x45mm (right). The difficulty of “herding cats” applies here with each of several nations offering their favorite rifles and cartridges with the goal of standardizing to the extent possible for “interoperability.” What emerged was each nation kept its preferred rifle though chambered for America&#8217;s mandated 5.56mm fed from America&#8217;s M16 mags.</em></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2750" height="1800" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_14.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-83168 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>SA80/L85</strong></p>
<p>CREDIT: <em>BRITISH MINISTRY OF DEFENSE</em></p>
<p><em>2001: A steely-eyed Royal Marine Commando proudly cradles his newly upgraded L85A2 bullpup (topped with a well-used SUSAT day sight) while providing security for a nuclear-armed submarine during Operation Veritas. Cheaply and poorly made in Britain in the beginning by RSAF Enfield, the rifle was plagued with reliability problems, and only a radical rework by the German firm HK in the early 2000s and subsequent manufacture as the A2 version rescued it.</em></p>
<figure id="attachment_83169" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-83169" style="width: 1728px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1728" height="1152" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_15.jpeg" class="wp-image-83169 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-83169" class="wp-caption-text">French Armed Forces, armed with FAMAS F1 assault rifles, participate in the Memorial Day ceremony at the LaFayette Escadrille Monument in Paris, France.</figcaption></figure>
<p><strong>“Bugle” Blaster: The</strong> <strong>French FAMAS</strong></p>
<p>CREDIT: <em>U.S. AIR FORCE VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS</em></p>
<p><em>As a member of NATO, the French participate in defense of Europe and occasional forays overseas. So a certain amount of interoperability is evident in the distinctive FAMAS G2 (Fusil d&#8217;Assaut de la Manufacture d&#8217;Armes de Saint-Étienne) assault rifle including 5.56mm chambering and M16 standard magazines. The French’s quirky penchant for home-grown designs led to this delayed blowback-operated bullpup with the nickname “Le Clairon” (“The Bugle”), entering service in 1978. Interestingly, the bugle has blown its last notes, and France&#8217;s soldiers now carry the superlative German HK416. Sacre bleu!</em></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1200" height="1600" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_16.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-83170 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong><em>Armee-Universal-Gewehr</em></strong><strong>: The Austrian Steyr AUG</strong></p>
<p>CREDIT: <em>AUSTRIAN MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND SPORT</em></p>
<p><em>With its rakish profile including integral optic and streamlined polymer housing, the AUG would seem perfect for arming starship troopers in most any sci-fi flick. Entering Austrian Army service in 1978, the Sturmgewehr 77 (assault rifle) is a truly modular weapon that can be immediately configured without tools from a standard version with a 20-inch barrel into a short-barrel submachine gun, carbine, heavy-barrel sniper rifle or a squad auto weapon firing from an open bolt. While firing 5.56mm NATO ammo, early versions were fed from proprietary waffled translucent polymer mags, an interoperability problem corrected in later NATO versions, also fitted with Picatinny accessory rails. The AUG proved enormously successful and was purchased in quantity by numerous countries, most notably Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.</em></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1024" height="675" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_17-1.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-83178 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Leap Ahead Assault Rifles:</strong> <strong>Advanced Combat Rifle Program</strong></p>
<p>CREDIT: <em>ROBERT BRUCE</em></p>
<p><em>Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, 1989: Soldiers at a press preview showcase the “final four” candidates that will travel to Fort Benning, Georgia, for sudden-death playoffs on a super high tech instrumented, combat simulation range. From top left and clockwise: Steyr ACR firing flechettes telescoped inside polymer tubes; Colt ACR, a modified M16A2 firing “duplex” (two stacked bullets) in conventional brass cases; AAI ACR firing brass-cased flechettes; and the HK ACR firing 4.73mm caseless cartridges. While marching underneath the ACR program banner of “doubling hit probability,” in reality the Army was grasping for something better than its somewhat serviceable M16 rifles and NATO 5.56mm ammo. Formally launched in 1986, it flamed out 4 years and $300 million later because none reportedly achieved the stated goal. Since then, GIs have wondered if their M16s and M4s really are the best they deserve, a doubt lingering for 30 years that may be set aside by the winner in the Army&#8217;s Next Generation Squad Weapon trials.</em></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="4113" height="2742" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_18.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-83172 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Brick Firing Bullpup: HK G11</strong></p>
<p>CREDIT: <em>HK GMBH VIA WIKIMEDIA</em></p>
<p><em>Undoubtedly the most radical concept—not only in the ACR program but in any previous practical pairing of gun and ammo—this wunderkind is an engineering and tactical tour de force, birthed in the 1970s from the marriage of West German companies Dynamit Nobel and Heckler &amp; Koch. Among its most striking attributes is its little, brick-like rectangular caseless cartridges made from a nearly magical propellant, compressed and formed with a skinny 4.73mm projectile nestled snugly in a tunnel. On detonation in the oscillating chamber, the bullet zips downrange and everything else disappears, needing no extraction or ejection. It fires in semiauto, auto (460 RPM) and three-round bursts at an astonishing 2,100 RPM. This last intended to maximize accuracy and multi-hit lethality because the third bullet is well on its way before any muzzle jump. The engineering wizardry required for this comes from a vertically oriented, disc-like “chamber” that feeds at 12 o&#8217;clock and rotates 45 degrees to align with the barrel at 3 o&#8217;clock to fire. Perplexed? Do a Wiki search for details on this German military marvel. A brilliant live-fire demonstration, starring the late, great Jim Schatz in the G11 gunner role is readily available on YouTube. Search “G11K2 Demonstration—Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 1990.”</em></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1600" height="1200" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_18a.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-83173 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Dynamit Nobel&#8217;s Caseless Cartridge</strong></p>
<p>CREDIT: <em>WIKIMEDIA</em></p>
<p><em>A near miracle in chemical engineering and ultra-modern manufacture, the G11&#8217;s remarkable ammo is seen here with its components. The HITP (high ignition temperature propellant) is shaped into a tiny 1.3-inch long brick, hollowed out to hold a cup-shaped primer/booster and a 4.73x33mm projectile, held centered by a plastic cap. Resistant to moisture, crushing and cook off, it kicks out its 51-grain FMJ bullet at 930 m/s with scant recoil.</em></p>
<p><em><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1356" height="1052" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_19.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-83176 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></em></p>
<p><strong>Caseless LMG</strong></p>
<p>CREDIT: <em>HK GmbH</em></p>
<p><em>Although unknown if this ever went beyond its conceptual drawing, the HK G11 system with Dynamit Nobel&#8217;s caseless brick ammo could almost certainly have been developed as a SAW/LMG in at least prototype form. Presumably, the vexing problem of cook off from overheating in fast, sustained firing would be solved in some manner, but would this work with a rotating disc chamber? Other caseless contemplations included a handgun-like personal defense weapon. In the end, West Germany&#8217;s plan to adopt the G11 died of monetary starvation because of many financial and other problems after the Soviet Bloc crumbled and “reunification” followed with its impoverished Eastern brethren.</em></p>
<p><strong>NEXT TIME</strong></p>
<p><em>In the next installment of Ordnance Oddities we&#8217;ll give a nod to the next 2 decades with such well-intentioned efforts as the U.S. Army&#8217;s Land Warrior initiative. What were they “imagineering” for 21<sup>st</sup> century soldiers? </em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_19.tif"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-83174" src="http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3648_OO6_19.tif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bushmaster ACR Adaptive Combat Weapon System</title>
		<link>https://sadefensejournal.com/bushmaster-acr-adaptive-combat-weapon-system/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christopher R. Bartocci]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:32:01 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Author Name]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search By Issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[V3N2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2011]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bushmaster Firearms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christopher R. Bartocci]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Magpul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Masada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Silver State Armory Ammunition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SSA]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=829</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The sample rifle was extremely accurate with Silver State Armory 69grain OTM ammunition. Groups hovered between 1” to 1.5” @ 100 yards. At the 2007 SHOT Show, Magpul introduced their Masada Adaptive Combat Weapon System.  There was quite a buzz around the booth from both the introduction of the Masada as well as their revolutionary [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="img " style="width:100%px;">
	<a><img decoding="async"  alt="" width="100%" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/bushmaster1.jpg" class="lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></a>
	<div>The sample rifle was extremely accurate with Silver State Armory 69grain OTM ammunition. Groups hovered between 1” to 1.5” @ 100 yards.</div>
</div>
<p>At the 2007 SHOT Show, Magpul introduced their Masada Adaptive Combat Weapon System.  There was quite a buzz around the booth from both the introduction of the Masada as well as their revolutionary new PMag polymer magazine.  The Masada is, of the entire current available piston operated 5.56mm weapon systems, the most advanced and conceptionaly new weapon system out.  Unlike the POF, Heckler &amp; Koch and LWRC models, the Masada is not based off of an existing M4 weapons platform.  Like the Heckler &amp; Koch XM8/G36 weapon systems and the British SA80 weapon systems, the Masada uses technology borrowed from the Eugene Stoner designed AR-18/AR-180 weapon systems of the early 1960s.  The Masada however, takes it to the next level.</p>
<p>The Masada name comes from the battle of Masada where the Roman X Legion laid siege to the Jews in 72 AD.  The fortress stood on top of a plateau and had a secure source of fresh water.  Due to this, the Romans were forced to build a ramp to permit their formations to attack the fortress without breaking ranks.  With the ramp being nearly complete, the Jewish defenders decided to end their existence rather than come under Roman rule.  The citizens of Masada left their food out in plain view so the Romans could see they were in no danger of starving and through this act of defiance, the citizens of Masada decided they would kill themselves rather than have their women and children raped and enslaved by the Romans.  The entire town perished by their own hand.  They controlled their own destiny.  Magpul found the story of Masada a bold example of defiance.  Most weapon systems bear the name of their designer; the Masada name is more of a symbol of defiance.</p>
<p>The Masada is the first weapon system to be developed by Magpul.  Magpul had thought of a firearm design for several years; however it was not until 2006 when pen went to paper.  Magpul’s Mike Mayberry headed the Masada design team and was designed in only 4 months time.  Like many other firms, their initial goal was to take the current successful M16/M4 weapon systems and incorporate those desirable traits into their weapon system.  Due to the excellent human engineering characteristics of the M16 weapons platform, this is a good starting point and it would offer potential users an easier transition.  During the developmental stages, many weapon systems were looked at.  Upon examination of different systems, Magpul was able to extract what they felt were the benefits of each design and would incorporate those into their final design.  Magpul was, however, able to keep some parts commonality with AR-15/M16 components.  These parts are the barrel and barrel extension, trigger, disconnector, hammer assembly, hammer/trigger pins, trigger spring, front sight assembly, extractor pin/spring/plunger, ejector/spring and retaining pin.</p>
<p>Magpul found that to retrofit the standard M16/M4 weapon system with their improvements would be quite difficult and costly.  In March of 2006 the decision was made to abandon the retrofit design and start from a clean sheet of paper and in the fall of 2006 the project commenced from scratch.  As previously stated, they would model the mechanics of the operating system of the AR-18/AR-180 though they had to make many modifications from that design.  The AR-18/AR-180 was not a combat proven design by any means.  The ArmaLite rifles were never manufactured in quantity for military sales – only for commercial sales.  The first military production of this system was the British SA80 which was, and is still, a disaster.  The H&amp;K XM8 was never fielded and the G36 has seen limited use.</p>
<div class="img " style="width:100%px;">
	<a><img decoding="async"  alt="" width="100%" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/bushmaster2.jpg" class="lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></a>
	<div>The author putting the Bushmaster ACR through its paces. Notice the AimPoint Com4 reflex sight and the Magpul PMag.</div>
</div>
<p>The Masada was covered in extensive detail in a previous SADJ exclusive (Vol. 1, No. 1, 2009).  However, that was with the Masada prototype.  Like ArmaLite in the 1950s, Magpul saw itself as a design firm and not a firearms manufacturer; so they would team up with a company that was geared towards manufacturing: Bushmaster firearms.  In January 2008, Bushmaster entered into a licensing agreement with Magpul where they would take on manufacturing and all further development of the ACR.  However, Magpul remained heavily involved with the development.  Bushmaster initially announced product release in second quarter 2008 but for various reasons it would not actually be released for production until 2009 &#8211; but not in major numbers until 2010.  Also the ACR was shown at Industry Day as a potential candidate to replace the M4 carbine as the next U.S. service rifle.  That has yet to be seen and it will likely compete in the trials in the summer of 2011.</p>
<p>Bushmaster realized early on that as received the Masada was not designed for mass production and several changes needed to be made.  The barrel assembly changes incorporated a different locking mechanism, barrel profile, and the ability to access the operating system from the front for ease of maintenance.  They also increased the reliability, durability, and maintainability of the system through design changes, coatings, and alternate materials.  Changes were also made in the brass deflector, hand guards, and lower (alternate material) to comply with military specifications.</p>
<p>The ACR is a truly modular weapon.  Everything including the stock, trigger group, barrel, bolt and handguard can be replaced to meet any requirement a small arm could have.  Starting in the rear of the rifle, the stock assembly is removed from the trigger group by pulling out on a captive pin and lifting it out of the receiver.  The stock strongly resembles the Magpul UBR stock.  The length has 7 adjustable settings and the cheek piece can be raised.  Additionally the stock can fold to the right side.  With the stock folded the weapon can still be fired.  The ejection port is clear and there is enough play in the stock in the closed position where a left handed shooter can manipulate the ambidextrous selector.  Additionally, the Magpul PRS precision stock has been adapted to work on the ACR lower receiver.</p>
<p>The lower receiver is manufactured from a super strong polymer.  It contains the pistol grip, fire control group and magazine well.  The pistol grip is based on the Magpul MIAD which has the stowaway core that takes various inserts.  The one provided with the T&amp;E rifle accepted two of the CR123 batteries.  The trigger guard has the familiar Magpul enhanced trigger guard shape and the checkering on the pistol grip is the Magpul symbol.  The selector lever is ambidextrous and very easy to manipulate as is the ambidextrous magazine catch.  The bolt catch is ambidextrous and is located in front of the bottom of the trigger guard.  When the magazine is empty, the follower lifts the arm locking the bolt to the rear.  To close the bolt one only has to push down on either side of the lever.  The front of the magazine well has a gripping area identical to that of the pistol grip, the Magpul symbol.</p>
<p>The upper receiver is the serialized component.  The upper is manufactured from extruded aluminum and is marked for caliber as multi-caliber.  The upper was designed as a piston gun.  Rails inside of the receiver keep the bolt in proper alignment in the receiver.  The top rail is a continuous Mil-Std 1913 rail providing zero retention of optics.  Provided behind the ejection port cover is a fired cartridge case deflector.  To aid in the ambidexterity, the fired cartridge case ejects at a constant 1 o’clock direction insuring a left handed shooter would not be struck with a hot cartridge case.  The charging handle may be placed on the right or left side as the receiver is cut to accept it either way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
