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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George: What did Chinn do after college? 

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

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

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

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

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

George: Slot machines? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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