Advancing Combat Lethality

Recently the influential and well-known NDIA Small Arms Symposium combined with some sister NDIA groups to add GARM (Guns Ammunition Missiles and Rockets) and UEA (Unconventional Emerging Technologies) to create the NDIA Joint Armaments Conference. For 2020, they’ve added in the Robotics group.  This event is not going to be an outlying conference away from the action; it will be at Fort Benning, Georgia, the “Home of the Infantry.”

The conference itself is in Columbus, Georgia, and is lining up to be a world-class group of presentations and panels including NATO Panels on small arms as well as various ballistic and innovation groups. On Monday afternoon, there will be capabilities briefing from the various schools at Ft. Benning. The keynote speakers on Tuesday consist of multiple Generals and will provide the direction that military procurement will be headed, from the shakers and movers who drive that whole process. There will also be four prestigious awards: Chinn, Hathcock, Ambrose and Triffiletti.

During the conference, there is an exhibit hall with innovative companies who are vying for new contracts and are presenting new designs and weapons. Papers will include new advanced technologies from Cased Telescope Ammunition to One Way Luminescence Tracer technology. Exhibiting in the hall guarantees the ability for the vendor to live-fire at the all-day Thursday live-fire demonstrations.

The live-fire demonstrations will be held at two separate ranges on Thursday—medium and large caliber at one range in the morning and small caliber in the afternoon. You must be a conference attendee to attend the live-fires, and you will be able to get hands-on with many of the latest innovations in small arms. For most, this is the highlight of the event!

The word straight from NDIA:

Armaments and Robotics

Description

Hosted in the middle of a defense industry hub, this newly joint event offers attendees a unique conference and exhibition experience. With an overall theme of Advancing Combat Lethality, keynotes, networking events and exhibits will be shared. However, different breakout sessions will occur simultaneously and be either armaments- or robotics-specific. With this structure, attendees have the freedom to personalize their agenda by choosing to attend any and all sessions that are of the most importance and interest to them. At the same time, attendees have the opportunity to branch out and explore sessions and topics that may be new to them.

*Please note: some concurrent sessions of this conference are restricted to DoD, U.S. DoD contractors and DOE Only who are citizens of the U.S. Provisions of applicable DoD policies do no permit waiving the DoD and U.S. Citizenship requirements for attending these sessions.

This event is open to the press, except for the closed sessions noted above. 

Why Attend?

• Participate in a first-time event that brings together the Armaments and Robotics communities under a common theme and purpose.
• Network with a diverse crowd of innovators from industry, government and academia.
• Curate a personalized agenda based on your interests and expertise with keynotes speeches, technical presentations, dynamic demonstrations, networking opportunities and more.
• Uncover the growing role of arms, guns and ammunition, rockets and missiles and unconventional and emerging armaments systems.
• Identify the importance of robotic training systems, combat vehicle autonomy and armament, situational awareness, joint lethality in contested environments, manufacturing and readiness, logistics and maintenance and international participation by allies and partners.
• Attend a live-fire demonstration of armaments technology and a demonstration of robotic capabilities.

Who Attends?

Find your place at the defense industrial base’s intersection of armaments and robotics, where advancing combat lethality is a top priority when it comes to supporting the warfighter.

*Numbers are based on 2019 conference attendance.

Contact

Trish Wildt – Conference Logistics
(703) 247-2586
twildt@ndia.org

Ms. Tatiana Jackson
(703) 247-9479
tjackson@ndia.org

It’s just not right. Someone should do something to stop the bullying. The U.S. government fat-shaming ammunition has got to stop. The messages are loud and clear:

• S. Navy used to cube out ships, now they weigh out ships. Lighten the load fatso.
• 20%-30% lighter ammunition could increase a helicopter strike team by one soldier. One more could mean success or failure on a critical mission. Get lean!
• We need to lighten the load of the soldier, so he can carry other stuff like batteries and electronics!

Ammo is too fat, and it needs to go on a diet!

The ammunition diet fad—aka lightweight ammunition initiatives—has been a key focus for over 20 years within the U.S. government. The recent award of the 6.8 caliber Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program is down-selected to three players with lightweight ammo in mind. To spice things up the government is pushing 6.8 caliber to also add in a little “overmatch” against the 7.62×39 in engagement distance.

The new kid on the block is True Velocity, Inc., with a composite polymer hybrid cartridge. Its weapon partner is General Dynamics (GD). The oldest dog in the game is Textron, with its polymer-cased telescoped cartridge and Winchester as its ammunition load, assemble and pack partner. Textron has been working the Lightweight Small Arms Technology (LSAT) in 5.56 for nearly 2 decades and has been designing ammo for the government for over 50 years. SIG SAUER rounds out the group with a bi-metal cartridge design and will go the battle alone for ammo/weapon design and assembly. These awards are the culmination of decades of work and hundreds of millions of dollars of public/private development funding in ammunition to shave off those unwanted pounds.

Two of the three awardees have a polymer/plastic design. Will they win the competition? Is the future finally here to depart from the solid brass cartridge design as used since Sharps rifles of the 1860s? Can ammo get skinny and still meet the rugged demands of the government? Does the commercial consumer care about fat ammo? Will the 6.8 replace 5.56 as the high-volume caliber of the U.S. Army?

History

Plastic injection molding was invented in 1872. Plastic ammunition goes back to at least WWII; however, there is not a lot of easy-access information about all the experiments that the government did in this area. There were multiple patents in the early 1950s. One of the first commercial/government endeavors was the Dardick Tround. Dardick Corp. (1954–1962) created multiple calibers in a revolver-like device from .38 to 30mm that was rather short-lived. My father remembers testing rounds in the 1960’s time frame. They worked well; however, they never took off. Plastic shotshell ammunition has been around since the 1960s.

Technical Challenges

I will credit my father with an accurate prediction from the early 1990s when we consulted with some of the early polymer designs. In his opinion, when you are trying to make plastic act like brass, you are going to have problems. A redesign of the weapon chamber with significantly thicker neck walls would allow plastic to function with less technical issues. The three winners have held to this principle with both polymer designs not having a traditional neck and the SIG SAUER design sticking with a brass neck.

The initial technical challenge with most of the early plastic ammunition was the splitting of the case neck wall. Plastic is not as strong as brass or steel when only .008-inch thick. The latest generation of polymer materials has performed much `better; however, they still can be an issue. All three of the NGSWs seem to have a handle on this issue, with kudos to True Velocity for the design departure from having a neck at all, while still looking close to a traditional cartridge case.

The challenge of the last decade is how the ammunition handled the extreme temperature ranges of Department of Defense (DOD) testing. MAC, LLC, and its polymer body and brass head have been very successful in this area with the USMC. MAC has not been able to meet 100% of the U.S. Army’s requirements, therefore it has not been able to make the jump outside of the .50 caliber for adoption. I’m not 100% convinced that interagency politics are not a significant factor in MAC not being fully fielded. The future will tell how the three players fair in the temperature battle.

The government’s success record on these experimental programs in small/medium caliber is very good but not 100% successful. The Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) from the early 2000s was not successful with over $772M in funding. The departure from traditional cartridge case manufacturing technology and equipment has been of questionable success on the Setpoint case cells at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. Setpoint is basically out of the business and appears to not be in consideration for any future equipment.  Insider scuttlebutt is that if the government had to do it over again it would not have chosen Setpoint. The 40mm day/night thermal impact/marking improvement program is pushing $500M in funding and was recently placed under a “stop-work” order due to increased occurrence of range fires. Range fire prevention was one of the key performance criteria, and chemiluminescence with ZERO potential of range fires lost out to pyrophoricity, which had a high probability of causing range fires and other round/weapon safety issues. Therefore, the probability of the NGSW beginning successfully is not a lock. All of the three efforts could fail, or the government could run out of funding (it happens) before a final solution.

Funding Challenges

The funding for these programs has been enormous; however, not enough to get the items into full fielding. The cost to get to a Total Readiness Level 9 is beyond expensive. The NGSW had nearly a dozen bidders to be down-selected to three. It is estimated that each of the original bidders spent at least $1M to $30M of their own money to get to the place where they could bid. This does not include prior U.S. government funding they might have received.

The weapons will also be a funding challenge for the government. Funding will limit the speed at which it can purchase the two different proposed weapons once selected. The cost of the accessories on the weapons will cost money. The cost of the ammo will be more expensive than 5.56, which it will replace. This will also limit the rate at which the government can field the weapons and ammo.

Per the Army’s Program Manager–Maneuver Ammunition Systems (PM-MAS), the NGSW ammunition will be built at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. This is going to require multiple pools of funding to make this happen. There will need to be facilities funding to build a new building complex, which I estimate at $200M–$500M depending on the size of the effort and falls outside of the PM-MAS funding pool. [Jay’s edit:] There will need to be new production equipment at Lake City to manufacture any of the current three possible winners. The U.S. government will need to scrap/decommission some to all of the existing equipment since they will not be used to manufacture these rounds.  This will cost an estimated $50M–$500M depending on the initial ramp-up time frame, type of equipment, number of lines, final design and long-term requirements. There will need to be testing equipment that might require some facility money to modify buildings, test weapon money and probably a few areas I am forgetting.

All of these areas need to be funded in conjunction with one another to have this program proceed at a reasonable pace. If you have the ammo manufacturing equipment funding without the weapon funding, the program will drag on without success. In short, we have a long way to go, even if all the designs passed all the gates.

Pro and Cons of Each Team

Each of the cartridge designs has its own niche. The tough questions are: What does the Army want for the ammo and the weapons? What is a key criterion right now that may be waived or reduced later? Is the Squad Automatic Weapon version more important than the carbine? Is weight more important than function? Here are this author’s opinions:

SIG SAUER—SIG is the least experimental and least deviated from traditional brass cases. SIG has the best chance of meeting all the cartridge functional criteria since there is no plastic. The cartridge should be easier to manufacture. It seems to offer the least weight savings. SIG has been on a roll with the win in the Army Pistol competition. It has decades of know-how to make outstanding weapons, and it seems to know what the customer wants and can get close enough to win a competition. SIG is large enough to support dumping a bunch more of its $228M in annual revenue into the program. It is the small guy on the block in terms of revenue. Is there enough defense revenue to support a win if needed?

True Velocity—It has the most experimental design, as this iteration of their ammo only came out just in time for the competition. The lack of a thin neck wall problem is averted with the new design; however, does it create other problems? How easy is it to manufacture repeatedly? Right now, the cartridge wins the “cool factor;” however will the momentum last through the competition? Their claimed 30%-plus weight savings, heat reduction and tighter standard deviation are advantages. True Velocity claims GD is not known for wildly creative weapon designs, and it doesn’t make the volume of weapons that SIG does. True Velocity is individually the low man on revenue, estimated under $20M. Its partnership with GD Ordnance & Tactical Systems brings True Velocity into the $2B-plus range (GD total revenue is $36B); therefore, depending on the relationship, the private funding might be there to support the program, if needed.

Textron—Its ammunition design is not experimental, but it has never hit full-rate production. We (MAST Technology) did a run of around 300,000 units in 2012, and to the best of my knowledge, there has not been another run of this size. How easy will the round be to manufacture for Winchester? One functional issue could be that the cases could be mistaken for the top or bottom of the round in the dark with gloves on. Can Textron fight off Murphy ’s Law to win? On the weapon side, Textron does not have the small-caliber weapon experience of SIG or GD. The revolver-like design seems sound; however, can it stand up to the other rigors of U.S. government testing? Textron does have an extensive background in the design and development of experimental ammunition for the U.S. government going back to the 1960s. Textron is $13B in revenue, so it can contribute significantly more than the other players, if needed.

Below is my ranking system. It does not correlate with the government evaluation criteria. Common sense may or may not be a factor in the final decision. I will not declare a winner, because it only matters what the government wants in the end and what sacrifices it is willing to accept or not accept. Mere mortals may not fully understand all the evaluation factors.

Future Predictions

If the 6.8 program succeeds, the 5.56 usage would be reduced. There would need to be another major decision to replace the 5.56 with the 6.8. Several years ago, the Army was saying it needed to reduce the number of round types to reduce the inventory, and then a couple years later it wanted to add “training-only,” small-caliber ammunition. They seem to change their minds quite a bit. In addition, when 5.56 and 7.62 NATO rounds became the calibers of choice in the late 1950s/early 1960s, .30-06 was still in production until the mid-1970s at Lake City. So, we will probably have 5.56 for a long time even if it all goes perfectly.

Weighing in on all the factors discussed above, my gut says that SIG SAUER is in the best position to win the NGSW; however, it depends on what the Army wants. A sexy new design that can pass the entire evaluation-criteria lower threshold could easily win, too. If the design just passes the threshold criteria, it might not matter that the SIG passes at a much higher level. Overall I give the Army program a 91% chance of success. My main rationale is there are too many cooks in the kitchen to bring the program to a quick finish and get the ammo skinny. I don’t believe consumers’ care. They want cheap ammo and will not pay for expensive plastic ammo.

On the other hand, I am surprised that 100% steel or stainless-steel solid cases were not in the mix. They have been around nearly as long as brass. There have been trillions of rounds of steel ammo built and successfully fired in the 100 million-plus AK-47s that have been built since 1946. The cartridge manufacturing equipment could be converted to run steel rather than re-inventing the wheel in the manufacturing process. The raw material is cheaper. I believe the negative connotation that steel gets is largely not supported by fact, rather opinion. The average American gun enthusiast or U.S. soldier does not want to admit that Uncle Joe Stalin does ammo and guns better than Uncle Sam. Such heresy would be un-American.

The use of optics on small arms has become very commonplace in today’s world. In fact, it is more common to find guns with some sort of optical equipment than without. Iron sights still play an important role across the world, but today find their majority of use on sidearms. While it is always important to have an understanding of how iron sights work, the myriad of optical platforms available today is truly dizzying and quite complex.

Over the last 20 years, military optics have seen greater standardization and a streamlining of features. The dominant military optic for combat small arms has been the Trijicon ACOG in one form or another. Most of the standard ACOG sights are set to 4-power magnification and feature bullet drop compensators in the reticle. The ACOG is well known as one of the most rugged and reliable optical sights available today. It is, however, slightly antiquated in  comparison to what is currently available.

The TANGO6T

The basic features of the TANGO6T don’t immediately stand out on a spec sheet; however, in combination with each other, they deliver an incredibly effective and compact package. The scope features a 30mm main tube and a magnification range of 1 to 6 power. The reticle is a first focal plane type, meaning that the reticle itself zooms in and out with magnification, thus allowing the same firing points and range estimation ability regardless of magnification. The adjustments for windage and elevation are 0.2 MRAD, or roughly equivalent to 2cm at 100m. While this is not a spectacularly precise click value, it is certainly fast and easy.

The scope itself is available in both Flat Dark Earth and Black. It comes with a throw lever for fast zoom but attaching it is optional. The windage and elevation turrets are capped and feature rubber gaskets to prevent moisture or coming loose. The illumination turret can lock in place. In order to adjust illumination of the reticle, you have to lift up on the locking ring and rotate to your choice of illumination brightness. It can be locked in place by lowering the lock ring.

There is a choice of five different reticles available for this scope. The reticle tested is the horseshoe dot version. It features a general bullet-drop compensating feature out to 800 yards and a horseshoe center that eliminates for fast close-distance shooting. This type of reticle is the most similar to the traditional ACOG sights and is quite comparable to the TA31 ACOG also featured in this article.

The author found that the scope was easy to use and very simple to set up and zero. It has some clever features like an engraved mounting line which allows it to be very quickly indexed to the scope mount of your choice. As far as scopes go, this one is very user-friendly and quite intuitive to use. During the course of testing for this article, the author fired approximately 1,500 rounds and never had a loss of zero, even when shooting from difficult or hasty positions where the scope got bounced around and treated in an indelicate fashion. While its durability has yet to be fully proven on the battlefield, it did pass the MIL-STD810G test.

 The specific contract offered to SIG SAUER by the DoD is to the tune of $12,000,000, which is no small change. The contract was a huge win for SIG SAUER, which as a company is new in the optics game. There is not a tremendous amount of information publicly available regarding the adoption process of this scope. Sources associated with the project told the author that the only real differences between the commercial and military versions were in some very minor details and some markings, but there was no military source available to confirm that. SIG was unable to comment.

Testing the TANGO6T in the Field

For this article, the author built two rifles. One rifle is meant to resemble the M16A4 and features what would have been state-of-the-art technology circa 2005 to 2012. There are some parts in it that are simply cosmetic, but the function and accuracy standards meet or exceed Marine Corps standards. The rifle is capable of firing half-inch groups at 100m using Black Hills MK 262 77-grain ammunition. The accuracy standard was established using a Leupold Mark 5HD 5-25×56 scope. Velocity was calculated at 2813fps. For the purposes of this article, a military duplicate TA31 ACOG was mounted and zeroed for 100m using the same MK 262 ammunition.

The second rifle built, while made from comparable commercial parts, was meant to represent the most modern of military features. It is something of a hybrid build using the M27 IAR (Infantry Automatic Rifle) as inspiration for the lower receiver and the URG-I receiver group currently being delivered to USASOC for the upper. While it is not identical, many of the parts used in it are the same as currently issued. Both rifles in this article use parts 100% sourced from Brownells, which should make it easy if you choose to build something similar.

The second rifle was also tested using Black Hills MK 262 77-grain ammunition. In a similar test, the rifle was fired at 100m with the Mark 5HD scope. Its average group was three quarters of an inch for five shots. Velocity was calculated at 2720fps. Then it received the SIG SAUER TANGO6 in a Geissele Automatics Super Precision® mount. It was then zeroed at 100m.

Both of these rifles were fired at distances of out to 800m, with the majority of testing taking place inside 500m. This was designed to simulate combat scenarios. The guns were fired at steel plates and cardboard IDPA targets.

Between the two scopes and rifle setups, is quite easy to see how far technology has marched along in the last decade. Even though the M16A4 build was very easy to handle and very accurate, it was found generally lacking by direct comparison, despite the fact that it was more accurate on paper and delivered higher velocity. What it really came down to was the flexibility of the optic.

The ACOG, while rugged and reliable, is not a scope that is meant to be dialed in for windage and elevation in a fight. It is meant for speed and lethality in various light and environmental conditions. Using a 100m zero, the author was easily able to engage targets out to 500m without much of a fuss. After 500m, the BDC  (Bullet Drop Compensator) began to separate from the trajectory of the bullets, and it was difficult to keep rounds on target out to 800m. The hit ratio on man-size targets from 50m to 500m was 80%, which was excellent considering that the targets were at known distance points. At ranges past 500m, the likelihood of hits began to drop considerably when engaging targets. The graduations on the reticle just weren’t precise enough to allow for easy holds when wind and mirage were taken into account. Overall, the ACOG is an excellent optic and has earned its reputation.

Our hybrid military build did significantly better thanks to the flexibility of the TANGO6T. The fact that it behaves in a similar way to the ACOG at ranges from 50m to 500m was great, but it truly began to shine at distances past that. Because of the fact that the author knew the velocity of the bullets, he was able to very easily translate precise drop points to the reticle of the scope. Making small adjustments was much easier thanks to the fact that the turrets allow for easy and fast adjustment. While the extra magnification was nice, it was not enough to be considered a significant upgrade over the ACOG. In fact, the author did much of his shooting with the TANGO6T at 4 or 5 power just because of the wide field of view he prefers.

Medium Range Performance

For the next series of tests, the author took the two rifles to a shorter distance range of 200m. There were berms at 100m and 150m as well. These drills assess how well the scope did in a close-range scenario against multiple targets.

The M16A4 with the ACOG went first. The rifle was well-built and was a very smooth shooter. The longer gas system and buffer tube make for an excellent, very soft shooting rifle. The only real downside to the set-up is how short the eye relief is on the ACOG. You really have to get your eye right up to it to see a full field of view.

Because of how close the optic is to the shooter’s eye, it can be slightly uncomfortable in the case that the rifle is not properly in the shoulder pocket or an awkward position is assumed. While the rifle built for this article had almost no recoil, it can be distracting to have something so close to your eye while shooting rapidly.

Using the 100m zero, all that the shooter must do is simply put the Chevron in the center of their target out to 200m and fire. This is very fast, and the illuminated Chevron is very easy to pick up. Shooting at these shorter distances with the ACOG is like shooting with a magnified red dot. You can be quite precise if you take your time and aim, but it is much to your advantage to simply center on the body of the target and fire. Overall, it was hard to miss from most field positions.

An advantage of the ACOG is that it takes advantage of the Bindon Aiming Concept which allows for both-eyes-open shooting. This is part of what makes the design so fast. There are some shooters who swear by this shooting style, and it is very easy to see why they do. The M16A4 with an ACOG mounted is one of the most comfortable and accurate combinations ever fielded in modern warfare.

With the M16A4 and ACOG freshly tested, the author knew that the TANGO6T had a steep hill to fight. Unlike the ACOG, there is plenty of eye relief to be had with the TANGO6T. The scope was positioned further forward than the ACOG, which allowed for a more relaxed feel when shouldering the rifle. Because of the fact that it was so easy and comfortable to get behind, the scope was a pleasure to shoot at these closer distances.

Again, the author did not spend much time on 6 power. These closer targets demanded speed and visual acuity. Because of the fact that there is not a significant difference in bullet drop between the M16A4 and the military hybrid to build at closer range, it really came down to speed of target acquisition. The TANGO6T is a conventional scope in that it really is meant to be used with one eye closed. That is not to say it cannot be used quickly.

Because of the way the horseshoe reticle is laid out, there is a visible gap below the center dot used for zeroing. This means that, unlike the ACOG, you can be more precise at closer distances. The ACOG reticle, while useful, has a Chevron that interrupts fine aiming points at medium distance. The author counts this as an advantage for the TANGO6T.

At medium distance, the newer scope did not show a significant enough advantage for the author to declare it a winner; although it was easily on par with the established standard. In the next series of tests, the author moved to a 25-yard pistol bay to practice some close-quarters drills.

CQB Distance Crucible

The 25-yard range is where the two rifles and their scopes saw the heaviest round count. By the end of this test for this article, the two rifles saw a combined total of nearly 3,000 rounds. The goal was to see how they would perform when hot and dirty.

An assortment of combat drills were used to test the TANGO6T. At these closer ranges, the author kept the scope 2x magnification with the illumination turned all the way up for bright daylight. It was a very hot day when the testing was conducted, and there was a significant amount of heat coming off of the barrels of both rifles. These were harsh conditions for any gun, not just the rugged examples built for this article.

When shooting quickly at short distance, the M16A4 build was again quite comfortable to shoot, but it was slower to swing onto target, and the eye relief of the ACOG again became a liability to performance. If you move your head too far back along the stock, you lose the full-sight picture through the optic. The both-eyes-open feature was great here.

Our hybrid military build performed extraordinarily well thanks to the fact that it had an adjustable stock and the TANGO6T’s excellent eye relief. When shooting at the short distances, the newer scope had the propensity to give a double image when using a both-eyes-open shooting style. When using a more conventional aiming style with one eye closed, the TANGO6T performed extremely well.

Closing Thoughts

As far as military end-use goes, the author believes that the U.S. Army has made an excellent choice with the TANGO6T in its intended Squad Designated Marksman Rifle role. The modern SDMR systems that use this scope will bring a significant advantage to our warfighters simply by means of user-friendliness and simplicity. The scope is very easy to learn and allows the marksman to rapidly and easily engage targets from CQB distances out to a half-mile. As far as civilian end-use, the scope offers a number of benefits to competition shooters and hunters.

The Stribog SP9A1 9mm submachine gun and its carbine and pistol variants come from the same mind as the advanced Grand Power (GP) rotary breech pistols. Unlike the revolutionary GP K100 and its derivatives, the Stribog SP9A1 appears, at first glance, to be purely evolutionary. A detailed look reveals a number of original technical solutions that add up to an excellent weapon with great ergonomics.

Named after the Slavic god of wind, Stribog is a conventional-looking 9mm blowback firearm feeding from proprietary double-stack, double-feed magazines with 20- and 30-round capacity. Unlike many third-generation submachine guns that Stribog resembles, it uses an extruded aluminum rather than stamped-steel receiver. A much simpler shape, it is also much stronger thanks to the internal reinforcing rails. The serialized upper attaches to glass-reinforced polymer lower with two pins. The overall weight of the pistol is just over 5 pounds, but it feels extremely solid. The overhanging bolt and non-reciprocating charging handle, reminiscent of the Walther MPK, keep the receiver length down to a minimum without resorting to a bullpup configuration. Despite firing from a closed bolt, Stribog is more than a pound lighter than the MPK and equally short while sporting a longer 8-inch barrel. Everything about this design is optimized. The bolt is squared off, very simple to manufacture. Field-stripping requires pushing out one captive pin in the back of the receiver to hinge the upper receiver—forward to expose the back plate to which a stock or a brace would attach. The back plate slides down, exposing the back of the receiver. On disassembly, the bolt comes out as a unit with the recoil spring and guide, a guide rod and a double rubber recoil buffer. Further disassembly is usually unnecessary.

All controls are either ambidextrous, like the magazine releases, rotary safety levers and bolt stops, or reversible, like the non-reciprocating charging handle. The left-side mag release is just right for retaining magazines, while the right-side assumes drop-free magazines; although its transparent polymer magazines usually don’t drop free when empty. The two bolt stops are single-stamped parts, very easy to use either for locking or for releasing the bolt. As with an AR-15, locking in a fresh magazine places the left hand perfectly for closing the bolt to chamber the first round. Everything about the Stribog feels robust and streamlined for rapid deployment. Charging the weapon from a closed bolt requires only a moderate effort, a welcome difference from many small blowback guns. Since the bolt locks open on an empty magazine, bringing it back into action takes but a left thumb twitch. An enlarged trigger guard works with bulky winter gloves, and the well-textured flared pistol grip combined with a brace enables a comfortable one-handed operation if necessary.

Optics and Configurations

The gun comes with non-adjustable folding post and ghost rear sights. Folded flat, they present smallish post and notch sights useful for firing the gun in the pistol configuration. Upgraded metal or metal adjustable sights are available in theory, but the full-length Picatinny rail on top of the gun makes it more likely that the users would just mount an optic and relegate irons to backup duty. The iron sights are quite low, so they can be used through skeletonized scope or red dot bases. It’s more comfortable, however, to use AR-height sighting devices. Always dubious about factory-regulated sights, I tried them to discover that they delivered hits on a silhouette past 100 yards. The sights are well designed, glare-free, and the front sight is protected inside a ring.

Accuracy is one of Stribog’s strong points: with iron sights or red dot, 4MOA with all loads from 90 to 185 grains is routine. With a 2x scope, 2MOA is equally routine. Unlike most carbines, Stribog doesn’t favor light bullets over heavy. Ammunition used for most of the author’s testing was Federal Syntech Action Pistol 150-grain, polymer-coated “flying lipstick.” Wide mouth SIG SAUER 124-grain defensive JHP and lightweight SBR frangibles fed as reliably as everything else. The trigger feels heavy at over 5 pounds, but doesn’t seem to get in the way of delivering accurate fire. The trigger mechanism is partly interchangeable with AR-15 parts, so it can be improved if desired. Prone firing is aided by the long magazine well holding the mag securely enough to rest the gun on the magazine floorplate for additional support: pressure on the ammunition feeding device does not induce malfunctions. The well-ventilated, medium-weight barrel retains accuracy even when warmed up, and overheating in general isn’t a concern for this gun. The forend has a bottom Picatinny rail for accessories, not to include a vertical foregrip due to NFA restrictions. A typical configuration could be a white light and laser on the bottom, close enough to the muzzle to avoid occlusion of the light beam, and a slightly magnified optic like a 1.5x compact ACOG on top. The long top rail permits placement of night vision devices in front of the optic if desired. In addition, two M-LOK slots are available on each side of the forend.

Reliability

Reliability of the Stribog SP9A1, a general feature of Jaroslav Kuracina’s designs, is predictably excellent. In over 1,000 rounds of all kinds of ammo, half of it fired with a sound suppressor without cleaning or re-lubricating afterward, SP9A1 had zero stoppages of any kind. Between superb ergonomics and perfect reliability, this gun really gives confidence to the user! Ballistic performance from the 8-inch barrel is close enough to be maximized for 9x19mm, with very little muzzle flash even with the hypervelocity loads. With 115- to 124-grain bullets, Stribog SP9A1 adds at least 100fps to the muzzle velocity over a typical service pistol. The weapon is suppressor friendly, with the muzzle factory threaded 1/2×28. A little blowback can be felt with the can on, something that the A3 variant (expected in the U.S. by late 2019) solves. If you do not run it sound-suppressed, I would recommend the Kaw Valley Precision Linear Compensator (kawvalleyprecision.com) to divert the report more towards the target and away from the shooter. Especially when used with 185-grain Seismic HP ammunition, the compensator cuts down the muzzle blast considerably for a more comfortable experience and reduced hearing damage in case of a precipitous firefight.

The pistol ships from the importer Global Ordnance with three 30-round magazines. Magazines are extremely easy to load by hand and weigh very little. Retail price is very reasonable: $699 at time of writing. At $30 each, extra 30-round magazines are a good deal. Various braces add a little to the price. Having shot it both with a fixed single tube and two collapsible struts, I am a fan of the more flexible collapsible variant. Both are compatible with various braces, with the Gear Head Tailhook (gearheadworks.com) being the most compact and robust option. The pistol ships with two back plates, one set up for a tube and one for a braceless configuration.

Compact dimensions, good balance and excellent ergonomics make Stribog SP9A1 an easy gun to shoot unsupported. Felt recoil is moderate, thanks to the well-calculated spring and bolt weight ratio and also to the double rubber recoil buffer in the back of the upper receiver. It’s been a strong favorite with my range visitors and models. Polish railroad police and Cape Verde SWAT officially adopted it. An updated A3 version with a remarkably simple roller-delayed blowback action has already been developed in 9mm Luger and 10mm Auto—hopefully, to be imported by Global Ordnance soon. Recently, the Stribog was a strong contender in the U.S. Army PDW competition. The main benefits will be reduced felt recoil and delayed unlocking in suppressed use to reduce already minimal gas blowback. Compared to the MP5 design, SP9A3 accomplishes the same goal with a single pin moving inside a bolt raceway. A more robust magazine design with metal-reinforced lips has also been developed, due soon in the U.S. As it is currently configured, Stribog SP9A1 would be my personal first choice for a defensive 9mm sort-of-pistol, complementing a GP Q100 or K100 pistol in the same caliber. It comes ready to use from the factory, unlike certain competitors that require numerous aftermarket parts to fix ergonomic flaws.

During the last (almost) 30 years, ROK (Republic of Korea) Army’s squad automatic weapon (SAW) was a K3 light machine gun. Developed and fielded at around the beginning of the 1990s, the K3 has been the backbone of ROK infantry squads’ firepower (one K3 per squad).

But there is, and always has been, a problem, its reliability.

The K3 was designed during the 1980s and was very heavily influenced by the FN Minimi. The problem is, during the 1980s, the Minimi itself wasn’t mature enough; and the K3 wasn’t a licensed copy of the Minimi. It was very close to the Minimi, but it’s highly doubtful FN actually supplied technical details to Daewoo Precision (today, S&T Motiv). So, the K3 can be considered as an imperfect copy (whatever the legal issues may be) of an immature weapon. It could be a problem,

and the problem isn’t over yet. The Minimi has been gradually upgraded over time. For example, the M249, a U.S. version of the Minimi, underwent a few incremental upgrades like M249E2 or E4. FN’s original version also underwent similar evolution, and now its Mk.3 is on the market. Simply speaking, the first-production version and current version of the Minimi/M249 are not exactly the same gun inside or outside. K3, on the other hand, has surprisingly not changed since its introduction—not even a minor upgrade like adding a MIL-STD-1913 rail on its feed cover.

With all those things mixed together, the K3 became quite a problem almost from the beginning. Many guns in ROK service suffered reliability issues, from minor to major. Some units considered the K3 as total junk, almost similar to the U.S. attitudes toward the .30-06 converted Chauchat. While later production guns were improved in terms of internal parts, dimension/tolerances and use of materials (for example, barrel life improved gradually during its production history), the reliability issues were never solved completely.

Trial Winner

During the last few years, the ROK Army and ROK gunmakers, namely S&T Motiv and Dasan Machineries, tried to make a new LMG for next generation the SAW. When Dasan, who is a new player in the ROK military small arms market, tried to call the attention of the ROK Army with new foreign products like the ARES-16, many people expected Dasan’s victory based upon the K3’s notoriety, but S&T Motiv beat the trial with its new “Next-Generation LMG;” a heavily upgraded K3. Around late 2018, it became the ROK Army’s new SAW with the new name of “K15.” It will be mass-produced and fielded around 2020.

The name K15 means it is the next Korean-made and standardized small arm after K-14, a bolt-action sniper rifle. Many people feel it is more like a K3A1 or such, but the military didn’t bother with that nomenclature. It’s more of a modernized K3, rather than a new model and is more like a relationship between the Minimi original and Minimi Mk.3.

But there are also a few significant different points between the two. The K15’s ergonomics are way better than the K3’s; K3 simply recycled K2’s buttstock and pistol grip, and it was not that comfortable to shoot. The K15 has a completely redesigned, adjustable buttstock and pistol grip/trigger group component to improve its ergonomics.

Internal parts are also completely redesigned. Of course, they are still our familiar Minimi-inspired designs, dimensions and specific shapes which were completely re-configured from K3. Many parts were also manufactured with closer tolerances than K3. Overall, S&T Motiv tried to make a much more reliable gun than the K3.

One thing that is interesting is the K15’s barrel latch mechanism. Unlike K3/Minimi, it uses a push button to hold and release its barrel, and the barrel has three upper positioning lugs to ensure its position on the receiver. With a push-button latch and three positioning lugs, the barrel would sit on a correct position virtually every time. Maybe ROK gunners suffered barrel alignment problems with its previous lever-type barrel latch, but I can’t be sure of the exact reason for the change.

Unlike Minimi/K3, the K15’s barrel latch is push-button type, and there are three positioning lugs above chamber.

External Changes

Moving to the externals again, the feed cover has its own MIL-STD-1913 rail, and the handguard has been completely redesigned. Now the K15 has MIL-STD-1913 rails on both sides and below. Also, the bipod has completely changed. The K3’s bipod was also a point of contention, but on the K15, the bipod is more like a mixture of the FAMAS and Mk.48 versions. While you need to operate each single bipod leg, the bipod gives a sturdier platform than the previous one. The front sight is also collapsible.

Actually, MIL-STD-1913 rails were one reason to develop the K15. The ROK Army is planning to use a new electro-optical (EO) sight and day-night laser sight (similar to the PEQ-15) on their new LMGs. The new EO sight is a day/night sight (thermal), with a laser rangefinder and ballistic computer. Simply speaking, it is a day/night fire control system. And those things need MIL-STD-1913 rails, which the K3 doesn’t have (the K3 could accept optics with a special adaptor, but having rails installed from the beginning is way better than using an adaptor).

One thing is the same: the feeding method. The K15 still uses the typical GI-issued 200-round plastic container and also can accept a STANAG magazine as well. During its design there has been debate over the magazine feed, which the German MG4 doesn’t have, and it can also save money while increasing the receiver strength. But the ROK Army still feels the magazine feed is necessary for emergencies; I think it’s from their experience with the K3, which sometimes had to use a magazine when its original belt-feed mechanism didn’t work (which often happened).

Testing the K15

I couldn’t test the gun within a military trial-like environment, like putting the gun in the sand or mud, and couldn’t fire much—I only fired 200 rounds—but during the test in the S&T Motiv’s company range, our test gun worked perfectly. The test shooter (not the author), who is a Reserve ROK Army Major, intentionally put no support on the K15’s ammo belt while shooting to see its feed mechanism’s reliability. It digested the whole belt with no hesitation.

The only drawback to the K15 compared to the K3 is its weight. While the K3 weighs slightly less than 7kg, K15 is close to Minimi Mk.3’s weight. Even without its bipod, the K15 weighs 7.16kg, already heavier than the K3. And with its “Full Set” configuration (gun itself + FCS) it weighs 8.4kg. But compared with the Minimi Mk.3, which is already close to 8kg without optics, it seems tolerable. I interviewed a few ex-K3 gunners, and all of them said that if the K15 is much more reliable, they would choose the K15, even with its added weight.

Since the K15 is not yet fielded, we have to wait to see how reliable it is in “real life” situations. I hope S&T Motiv’s R&D guys learned enough lessons from K3’s near-30-year life!

ADEX means “Aerospace & Defense Exhibition.” The show began as the Seoul Airshow in 1996 and gradually evolved into an airshow / defense exhibition. It is now by far the most important and largest defense expo in Korea and has a large display of ground equipment and small arms. 430 companies from 34 countries participate, and a few hundred thousand spectators visit each year.

While the show’s main participant target is the Korean military procurement market, it also drew many other countries’ interests as well, since many Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE show considerable interest in Korean defense products as do many Southeast Asian countries. Korean defense products like supply ships or self-propelled Howitzers are also constantly sold to non-Asian countries, such as Norway, Finland and Poland, and now the Australian Army is showing a strong interest in Hanwha Defense’s AS21 “Redback” IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle).

And how about small arms? Unlike other fields, especially aerospace, where many prominent foreign companies were represented, small arms were almost monopolized by Korean companies, namely S&T Motiv and Dasan Co. Actually, until 2016, small arms were virtually S&T Motiv’s monopoly, except a small batch of counter-terrorist weapons, but now Dasan also can supply military small arms if they win a bid, since as of 2016, Dasan Co. also got a license to supply the Korean military. So now the two companies have to compete against each other.

This provided considerable change this year, and the biggest change came from S&T Motiv. As Daewoo Precision’s successor (actually the same company with a different name and ownership), their portfolio didn’t change much since the early 1990s. Most of the weapons, especially rifles, carbines and machine guns, were simply variations of the so-called “K Series,” namely K1, K2 and K3. So, even when the ROK Army Special Forces are currently trying to find new carbines to replace the current K1A “SMG” (while it’s a 5.56 carbine, ROK nomenclature is “SMG,” because it mainly replaced the M3 Grease guns), S&T Motiv originally suggested a modified (shortened) K2 rifle, namely the K2C carbine or its variant. But things changed drastically this year.

This time, surprisingly, S&T Motiv showed us the new STC-16 carbine, which is basically an AR-based, piston-driven carbine. While K2 is also based upon the AR design, STC-16 is much more like “S&T’s interpretation of [the] HK416” rather than another variation of the K1/K2 series. This is because the competitor, Dasan, is now suggesting the DAR-15P carbine, another AR-piston carbine variant to customers, and the customers (especially Spec Ops guys) like DAR-15P more than their current “K Series” weapons. S&T Motiv felt it was time to have another platform other than K1/K2.

S&T Motiv also displayed some other surprising products, this time, an AK! And this time it’s purely for the export market. S&T Motiv is now trying to expand its export sales, since the ROK military has more than enough small arms. From the mid-1970s (when the current S&T Motiv was then government-owned Busan arsenal) to today, more than two million rifles and carbines (M16A1, K1/K2 variants) have been produced and procured by Korean military and police. Now the Korean military is downsizing from 600,000 to 500,000; it’s no wonder their procurement now is significantly reduced. S&T Motiv is still making K2C1 rifles (a flat-top variant of the K2 rifle), but K2C1 production is close to the end, and after that, no large-scale military contract is scheduled. So, S&T Motiv is now trying to make an export-specific portfolio, including an AK series and AR series. Actually, this time, S&T Motiv even showed us its own copy of the M4 carbine (STR-19), complete with the original direct impingement gas system!

Not only do S&T Motiv and Dasan compete for rifles and carbines, S&T Motiv and Dasan also now compete with each other for new machine guns. Now the ROK Army is looking for new 7.62NATO medium machine guns to replace M60s, and two companies are seriously competing with each other. While S&T Motiv is suggesting the K12 variant for infantry and vehicle mount, Dasan made its suggestions as well, under the name of XK-16 (infantry) and XK-17 (vehicle/aircraft). Dasan’s XK-16/-17 are actually variations of the FN MAG, with a few minor modifications. Unlike the original, Dasan’s are side-ejecting, and the barrel change system also has been changed to be similar to S&T Motiv’s K15 machine gun. Also, the XK-17 has a similar stock/spade grip system, which can be converted into a ground role immediately after removing the spade grip and extending the telescopic stock.

While this sounds ambitious, I don’t think it will really go anywhere; K11 has virtually failed, the ROK Army only bought a handful and wants no more, and since XM-25 also failed in the U.S. Army, I don’t think the ROK Army would seriously invest in a “Korean XM-25.”

Foreign Companies at ADEX

While guns themselves are a monopoly of Korean companies, optics and other accessories are not. Actually, optics was also a monopoly of a handful of Korean companies, but after many scandals and defective products, foreign companies also have a chance. There’s a considerable chance, because now the ROK military is trying to renovate its infantry equipment under the project “Warrior Platform.” ROK infantry equipment is outdated almost 20 years compared to top NATO countries, so the ROK military is trying to tighten the gap. Actually, this year, L3 Harris, Trijicon and Aimpoint set up booths and showed their products at ADEX. Also, while not having its own booth, Holosun products were shown on the Army’s own Warrior Platform booth as samples. They are not officially adopted, only supplied as samples, and it’s hard to imagine the ROK Army buying a considerable number of them. Surefire and OSS also supplied a small batch of suppressors as samples.

New Mortars

While not small arms, we also have two new mortars. One is S&T heavy industry’s (not the S&T Motiv, but within the same S&T conglomerate) 120mm semiautomatic mortar. Using a French-developed 120mm rifled mortar round, it can fire up to 13km (with a range-extended round) with a maximum fire rate of 10 rounds per minute. It uses a semiautomatic loading system and can be mounted on a 5-ton truck or on armored vehicles. The Korean Army will buy them as a self-propelled mortar for mechanized units.

The other mortar is HYUNDAI WIA’s KM114 lightened 81mm mortar. They produced the KM187 mortar, 81mm, for a long time since the 1990s. While the KM187 can fire range-extended ammo for the M252 mortar, the KM187 was somewhat heavier than M252, since KM187 was a lengthened version of the obsolete U.S. M29 mortar. KM114 is lightened version of the KM187, which reduced 20% of its weight using Titanium and Aluminum alloys for many parts. It also uses a high-tech digital control system, which helps very fast gun-laying and allows for less crews. The ROK Army is planning to use the mortar as a company level support weapon, replacing current 60mm mortars.

SHOW REPORT

Location

ADEX mostly has been, and will be, held at the Seoul airport. It’s not a commercial airport, but actually an airbase of ROKAF, which is used by the ROK government for VIPs. Also, while the name is Seoul Airport, it’s not in Seoul: it actually is in Seongnam City, which is a suburb of Seoul. So, locals will more easily understand when you say, “Seongnam Airbase.”

Website

seouladex.com

Contact

ADEX

Email: promotion@seouladex.com

Next Show

October 2021

Focus

This program is especially adapted to SMEs looking for contractors. The main advantage of this service being that participants receive pre-arranged meetings with business partners—the ideal occasion to identify future commercial partners and to meet buyers.

Dress

Business attire.

Accommodations

Finding good tourist hotels in Seongnam is not easy, but you can find many good hotels in southern Seoul, which is close to the site, for around $100 to $150 USD per night. There are less expensive ones, but you may have a language barrier at such places. But even cheap hotels are quite safe, so you can leave your bags at your room.

Transportation

The best option is taking the subway (Line No.8 or Bundang line), off the train at Moran (line 8) or Taepyeong (Bundang line) station and take a shuttle bus or taxi. I would recommend a taxi, since it’s not that expensive, no tips required, and it’ll take you right in front of the gate. You can take a rental car, but driving on congested Korean roads with sometimes violent Korean drivers, is one of the last things to be recommended in Korea.

Power & Plug Types

220v AC, with EU-type electricity plugs.

Currency

Korean won. The U.S. dollar is not accepted at most places, but you can use most U.S. credit cards at almost any place. Check xe.com for exchange rates.

Country Warnings

Violent crimes against foreigners are rare; actually, South Korea is one of the safest countries to visit. Even when crime happens, virtually no firearms are involved.

Tourism

You can visit many interesting places in Seoul; there’s a very large war memorial museum in Seoul, which is worth visiting.

Other tips

Avoid weekends and Friday to visit ADEX: visitors are heavily concentrated during those 3 days, especially on Saturday and Sunday (public days).

Product description for each caliber

Caliber:

Projectile style:

Projectile weight:

Velocity FPS:

Energy (Ft. Lbs.):

Accuracy:

How packaged:

Cartridge weight:

% weight savings:]

TRUE VELOCITY INC. [HAS 3 products]

True Velocity’s ammunition is over 30% lighter than conventional brass rounds. TV’s proprietary design innovations reduce overall weapons signature. Our lighter weight ammunition reduces transportation costs and increases operational advantages. Through the collaboration of science, technology and ballistic subject matter experts, True Velocity’s ammunition is specifically designed to meet the rigorous demands of the next generation weapon and modernization strategy.

tvammo.com

5.56x45mm NATO

True Velocity composite case 5.56x45mm Precision Ammunition is designed to incorporate many capabilities not found in other ammunition. The fully loaded composite case is more than 30% lighter than brass and acts as an insulator against heat fatigue in weapon chambers. Proprietary development and production methods allow the ammunition to meet velocity and function requirements in all USSOCOM-tested weapons. The projectile is an Opened Tipped Match bullet designed for consistency and accuracy. True Velocity Composite ammunition has been designed to function in harsh conditions and in all USSOCOM weapon systems.

Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO

Projectile style: Lightweight Composite/OTM

Projectile weight: 77 grains

Velocity FPS: 838.2m/s (2,750 ft/s)

Energy (Ft Lb): Proprietary

Accuracy: Proprietary

How packaged: MIL-SPEC

Cartridge weight: 144 grains

% weight savings: More than 30% lighter than brass

7.62x51mm NATO

True Velocity composite case 7.62×51 Precision Ammunition is designed to incorporate many capabilities not found in other ammunition. The fully loaded composite case is 30% lighter than brass and acts as an insulator against heat fatigue in weapon chambers. Proprietary development and production methods allow the ammunition to meet pressure, velocity and function requirements in all USSOCOM-tested weapons. The projectile is a Sierra Match King, 168 grains. The unique design of the projectile assures superb accuracy, flat trajectory and high momentum delivery with low sensitivity to crosswinds at all ranges. True Velocity Composite ammunition has been designed to function in harsh conditions and in all USSOCOM weapon systems.

Caliber: 7.62×51 NATO

Projectile style: Lightweight Composite/ Hollow-Point Boat Tail

Projectile weight: 168 grains

Velocity FPS: 814.7/s (2,673 ft/s)

Energy (Ft Lb): Proprietary

Accuracy: Proprietary

How packaged: MIL-SPEC

Cartridge weight: 264 grains

% weight savings: More than 30% lighter than brass

.50 BMG / 12.7x99mm NATO

True Velocity’s composite case .50 BMG / 12.7×99 NATO Ammunition is designed to incorporate many capabilities not found in other ammunition. The fully loaded composite case is 30% lighter than brass and acts as an insulator against heat fatigue in weapon chambers. Proprietary development and production methodologies allow the ammunition to meet velocity and function requirements in all current DoD weapons, as well as to function across a wide spectrum of harsh operating environments.

Caliber: .50 BMG / 12.7x99mm NATO

Projectile style: Lightweight Composite/ FMJ, M33 Ball

Projectile weight: 660 grains

Velocity FPS: 885.4 m/s (2,905 ft/s)

Energy (Ft Lb): Proprietary

Accuracy: Proprietary

How packaged: MIL-SPEC

Cartridge weight: 1,259 grains

% weight savings: More than 30% lighter than brass

MAC, LLC

.50 Cal Polymer Cased Ammunition

The only polymer rounds qualified by the U.S. government, fielded and used in live operations. MAC .50 Cal Polymer Cased Ammunition

meets specifications for MIL-DTL-10190F for velocity, pressure, accuracy, bullet pull and function at ambient and temperature extremes. Compatible with all US-MIL caliber .50 machine guns and rifles with standard .50 BMG chambers.

info@macammo.com

Caliber: .50

Case: Hybrid polymer/metal design

Projectile style: Customer Choice

Projectile weight: Proprietary

Velocity FPS: 2,905 fps (885 m/s)

Energy (Ft Lb): Proprietary

Max Pressure: 65,000 psi

Accuracy: Single-digit Standard Deviation for velocity

How packaged: 100 rounds linked 4/1 tracer in M2A2 box, or per customer specifications

Cartridge weight: 96 grams (typical)

% weight savings: Up to 30%

NAMMO

5.56 PSRTA

Plastic Short Range Training Ammunition (PSRTA) is intended for use in training areas where range restrictions preclude the use of full-range standard service ammunition. Lead-free primers remove nearly all trace amounts of toxins reducing risk to users. Currently in use at Special Operations training facilities.

nammo.com

Caliber: 5.56×45

Projectile style: Polymer force on target (training)

Projectile weight: Proprietary

Velocity FPS: Generally matched to 855A1

Energy (Ft Lb): Proprietary

Accuracy: Similar to M855 at 20m

How packaged: 30 per box

Cartridge weight: 3.0g–3.3g (48 ± 3 g)

% weight savings: Proprietary

TEXTRON SYSTEMS [HAS 3 Products]

Textron Systems’ CT ammunition uses a novel ammunition design, in which the projectile is seated within a cylindrical case. The CT design allows for up to 37% weight savings, compared to equivalent-performing brass cartridges.

textronsystems.com

5.56mm CT

The 5.56mm CT reduces total system weight by 40% and maintains the same capabilities as the M249 conventional system.

Caliber: 5.56mm CT Cased Telescoped

Projectile style: M855

Projectile weight: 62 grains

Velocity FPS: 3,020

Energy (Ft Lb): 2,509

Accuracy: Proprietary

How packaged: Proprietary

Cartridge weight: 127 grains

% weight savings, cartridge: 33%

% Weight savings, cartridge and link: 39% (Reference cartridge & link M855/M27)

6.5mm CT Carbine

The 6.5mm CT Carbine system provides a 35% ammo weight savings with 30% increased lethality, compared to 7.62mm conventional systems.

[ADAM—THE 2 CHARTS BELOW HAVE EMBEDDED TABLES I CAN’T REMOVE.]

7.62mm CT MMG Cased Telescoped

With a total system reduction of 37%, the 7.62mm CT MMG matches the performance of the M240 conventional system.

The U.S. Army is on the hunt for a new small arms weapon system to replace its current rifles and light/medium machine guns. Currently they have contracted five companies to provide a prototype for the Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle (NGSAR). At least one company, Textron Systems, will be fielding a prototype machine gun that fires cased telescoped ammunition (CTA) (South, Todd, “The Army’s Next Machine Gun Could Fire Caseless Ammo—and One of These Companies Might Build It,” Army Times, July 12, 2018… If Textron with CTA is awarded the contract to produce the Army’s next light/medium machine gun, it would create a huge impact on the future of small arms by being one of the first big changes to ammunition since the invention of the current brass casings. Why is there a need for new bullet technologies? As of late, new fluid body armor technology has been developed that could make most battlefield rounds obsolete (Caughill, Patrick, “New Ultra Lightweight ‘Fluid Armor’ Can Stop a .44 Magnum Bullet,” Futurism, May 17, 2017, futurism.com/new-ultra-lightweight-fluid-armor-can-stop-a-44-magnum-bullet). Many of these new protective light armors could render most modern rounds ineffective if there is not a next-generation of ammo developed.

What Exactly is CTA?

CTA is another form of cartridge. The “telescoped” aspect means the bullet is partially/completely enveloped by the propellant charge. In the case of the ammunition being fielded by Textron, it has a “straight-wall polymer case with a centrally located primer in its base … The projectile is surrounded by propellant up to its cannelure. The case is open at the front with the projectile nose visible. A single groove runs around the circumference of the forward part of the case” (Fortier, David, “Telescoped Ammunition Might Be the Future of Cartridges,” Rifle Shooter Magazine. Aug. 29, 2018… CTA retains all the same parts of current ammunition but adds in polymer to modify its position. The idea behind this is to get a lighter cartridge that is a bigger and more powerful projectile with the same weight as a smaller brass counterpart.

Textron Systems claims that CTA has many advantages over conventional ammunition, including a significant reduction in weight. It claims to be able to field a medium machine gun, firing the CTA equivalent of 7.62 NATO with 600 rounds, at only 3 pounds heavier than the current M249 light machine gun firing 5.56 NATO with 600 rounds (Shipley, Paul A., Benjamin T. Cole (AAI Corporation, Textron Systems Unmanned Systems) and Kori Phillips (U.S. Army ARDEC, Joint Service Small Arms Program). Cased Telescoped Small Arms Systems. NDIA Joint Armaments Conference: Textron Systems, May 2014). It also claims that the new weapon with CTA has better reliability, is easier to maintain and has less felt recoil and improved accuracy. While all those are just claims, the U.S. Army will definitely put every single one to the test with thousands of rounds each. And if it turns out that Textron’s claims run true then CTA will change the face of small arms as we know it.

History of CTA

The idea for improvement and innovation over current ammunition has been around for a long time. From electrically/magnetically fired projectiles, to CTA, to caseless ammunition, enormous amounts of money, time and research have been spent on trying to figure out the next step in the evolution of ammunition. For a time, it seemed as though caseless telescoped ammunition would take the forefront for new innovation, and in 1977, the U.S. Air Force was even granted a patent to this caseless ammunition (Harold O. Evans, Caseless Ammunition Round with Spin Stabilized Metal Flechette and Disintegrating Sabot. U.S. Patent US4015527A, filed March 10, 1976, and issued Apr. 5, 1977).

Caseless ammunition is very similar to CTA, but instead of a polymer case, its case is made from solid propellant, making the case and propellant singular. But it seems that the challenges of producing caseless ammo were never completely overcome, and CTA has taken the lead as the next step in ammunition development. Since its inception in an Air Force laboratory in 1954, CTA did not look like it was fairing much better though, and in fact, CTA has been wrought with issues over the years. In 1995, a report from the Inspector General stated “$213 million [spent] over 41 years has not resulted in a viable weapon system” (U.S. Department of Defense/Defense Technical Information Center. Office of the Inspector General. “DOD Cased Telescoped Ammunition and Gun Technology Program,” by Robert J. Liberman. Report No. 96-164. June 14, 1996). But the report countered the lack of progress by saying the research being conducted was important, and if several major issues could be resolved, then CTA could provide a new lethal advantage to the battlefield. It seems only in the past 2 decades since this report, have polymers become advanced enough to make CTA actually viable. But that does not mean that there are no issues that need to be resolved.

Differences in How Weapons Firing CTA Function

CTA, because of its differences, requires a new operating procedure with the bolt and receiver from current weapons. Two of the current machine guns the Army seeks to replace, the M249 SAW and the M240B/L, operate like all other guns have for the past century (FN. “FN® M249 SAW.” FN® America. fnamerica.com/products/machine-guns/fn-m249-saw). The chamber and barrel are forged from one piece, the cartridge is pushed into the fixed chamber, fired and then the casing is extracted so the process can repeat and continue.

CTA is different in that “normal” extraction does not work with polymer casings. To get around this, a “swinging chamber” has been developed. How this works is a round is placed into the chamber in the open position. Then the chamber swings in line with the barrel for firing. After the round is fired the chamber rotates back into the load position. A new round is forced into the rear of the chamber, pushing the spent casing and any other debris out of the front of the chamber (McGregor, Captain I.A., “Telescoped Ammunition a Future—Lightweight Compact Ammunition?” The Canadian Army Journal, 12.2, No. Summer 2009, 75-81. publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/forces/D12-11-12-2-eng.pdf). This also helps keep the heat of the chamber low, so the polymer cases are not as likely to melt, which has presented issues in the past. The new firing system also allows for CTA rounds to be perfect cylinders, which simplifies manufacturing. Another difference is that cartridges are also linked together by a polymer chain instead of the traditional metal links that held belts of bullets together.

Design Considerations and Challenges

A big challenge in designing CTA is making a polymer casing that can withstand the high temperatures and contained explosion, in the firing of a round. A study done by the Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center put different polymers to the test and based on their criteria showed how different polymers failed and why they did so (U.S. Department of Defense/Defense Technical Information Center. Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center. “Alternative Case Material and Design,” by Jerry S. Chung, Frontier Performance Polymers Corporation and Lucian M. Sadowski, Project Engineer, ARDEC. Technical Report ARAEW-TR-05007. July 2003 to Oct. 2004). The lessons learned from this study have led to the polymer casings that Textron is fielding in their prototype.

Another issue arises in that CTA “not only reduces the volume available for the propellant charge but also places severe geometric constraints on both the distribution of the propellant and the location and functionality of the ignition system” (U.S. Department of Defense/Defense Technical Information Center. Army Research Laboratory. “Progress in Modeling Ignition in a Solid Propellant Charge for Telescoped Ammunition,” by Michael J. Nusca and Albert W. Horst/Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL. Vol. ARL-TR-3673. Nov. 2005). This problem was addressed in a study by the Army Research Laboratory, in which they tested different solid propellants to find one that could produce more power with less volume while also being very consistent. They were unable to find a perfect match, but the results showed exactly what the perfect propellant would need to look like.

An article in Defense Technology Journal also pointed out that because the chamber is rotating and not fixed, every time it locks back into firing position, it will be aligned slightly differently. This results in more wear in the throat of the barrel and also reduced accuracy. The results from this experiment give an acceptable allowed error in how precise the chamber needs to lock every time to expect a certain accuracy (Corriveau, D., and C. Florin Petre, “Influence of Chamber Misalignment on Cased Telescoped (CT) Ammunition Accuracy,” Defence Technology, 12, No. 2 (Apr. 2016): 117-23. doi:10.1016/j.dt.2015.11.008). Companies can use this data to make sure they are precise enough in how much the chamber is allowed to slip-in-error between rounds.

                In the Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, a different article showed how the barrel of a weapon reacted differently to CTA rounds being fired. The experiment illustrated the different kinds of shock caused by CTA relative to standard ammunition, showing how the barrel vibrations differ. From these findings, companies can see how the barrels are stressed and better choose the correct material and design of a barrel to properly handle CTA (Gimm, Hak In, Ki Up Cha and Chang Ki Cho, “Characterizations of Gun Barrel Vibrations of during [sic] Firing Based on Shock Response Analysis and Short-time Fourier Transform,” Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 26, No. 5 (May 2012): 1463-470. doi:10.1007/s12206-012-0335-5).

The rotating chamber of CTA also lets what would be propelling gasses escape, much like a revolver and the gasses that escape between the cylinder and the barrel. In a test performed by Mechanical Solutions, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Defense, different materials were tested to see how well they could make a seal between the chamber and the barrel (U.S. Department of Defense/Defense Technical Information Center. Mechanical Solutions, Inc./U.S. Army TACOM-ARDEC. “Cased Telescoped Ammunition Smart Seal Development,” by William J. Kelly and William D. Marscher. Vol. TR-81801. Sep. 5, 2002). Mechanical Solutions looked at the different properties and what has been used to create a seal in similar environments before. Another similar test was conducted by the Nanjing University of Science and Technology in China. Their findings showed a “sealing structure [that] has a good sealing performance and can solve the spherical transient high-pressure gas seal problem for the rotating chamber of the medium calibre CTA gun, and it is expected to offer a reference value to solve related problems in engineering” (Chen, Longmiao, Qiang Fu and Gui Lin, “Study on the Sealing Properties of the Sealing Structure for the Rotating Chamber of a Certain Cased Telescoped Ammunition Gun,” Computer Modelling & New Technologies, 18, No. 3 (March 1, 2014): 93-97.). These tests helped find the right seal to attain the least amount of propellant gas lost, thus making CTA more efficient to produce higher bullet velocities.

Why Is so Much Effort Being Put into CTA Anyway?

A question that should be considered: Is there really anything wrong with current ammunition and firearms? They are clearly proven and tested to be reliable and accurate for the last century; otherwise, a new ammo and/or firearm would have been already developed. Per Arvidsson from Small Arms Defense Journal argues that there really is no need to run away from the current ammunition, especially the 5.56. He claims that if countries want more lethal small arms, that better training is needed for security forces, not new weapons or ammo (Arvidsson, Per, “Is There a Problem with the Lethality of the 5.56 NATO Caliber?” Vol. 3, No. 1, Small Arms Defense Journal, Jan. 6, 2012.). This would certainly seem to be more cost efficient as 5.56 is streamlined across all of NATO already. Moving to CTA would mean huge upfront costs in terms of buying new weapons and converting ammunition factories to produce it (“The Case for Caseless Telescoped Ammunition,” Military News. YouTube. Nov. 25, 2017.). Yet, it seems the U.S. Army still wants more bang for less weight and is set on getting a bigger round than the little 5.56 (Keller, Jared, “The Army Is One Step Closer to a 6.8mm Next-Generation Rifle,” Task & Purpose, Oct. 8, 2018.). Such a decision for CTA usage would likely compel NATO countries to adapt as well.

Regardless, it really is all about the weight/power ratio. In the article, “The Soldier’s Heavy Load,” the author describes how dismounted soldiers’ mobility and effectiveness correlates to the amount of weight they have to carry (Fish, Lauren, and Paul Scharre, “The Soldier’s Heavy Load,” Center for a New American Security. Sep. 26, 2018.). Soldiers are physically limited on how much they can carry and at times have to sacrifice protection for mobility, or mobility for firepower, etc. Unfortunately, technology often increases weights, instead of decreases loads carried. Weapon to weapon, CTA can decrease the weight carried both in the firearm itself and the ammunition, proving advantageous because every pound counts when it is being put on a soldier (Tobias Lindner, Christoph Schulze, Sandra Woitge, Susanne Finze, Wolfram Mittelmeier and Rainer Bader, “The Effect of the Weight of Equipment on Muscle Activity of the Lower Extremity in Soldiers,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2012, Article ID 976513, 8 pages, 2012. doi.org/10.1100/2012/976513). And if for the same weight a soldier can carry more firepower, it also seems to be advantageous. This seems to be the reason why CTA is being considered so heavily.

But CTA is not the only way to reduce weight. A report filed by Major Steven Miskinis for the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College shows that an aluminum casing would weigh less than the polymer of a CTA counterpart, and aluminum is less flammable. His findings also show that aluminum would cost less, while CTA would be the same cost as current brass cased ammunition; although he does admit that CTA has a substantial advantage in corrosion resistance (U.S. Department of Defense/Defense Technical Information Center. U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. “Should the U.S. Army Adopt New 5.56mm Ammunition Cartridge Designs to Reduce Overall Ammunition Weight?” by Major Steven G. Miskinis, Jr. Fort Leavenworth, KS, June 2011. apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a547525.pdf). So why not just replace brass with aluminum? It seems that with aluminum being a cartridge case, it has a vital flaw of a “burn-through phenomenon” where the casing fails and, in the process, completely disables the weapon (U.S. Department of Defense/ Defense Technical Information Center. Frankford Arsenal. “An Analysis of 5,56mm Aluminum Cartridge Case Burn-Through Phenomenon,” by Walther H. Squire and Reed E. Donnard, Jan. 1972. AD0750379). If this can be fixed it may be a better alternative, but so far the emphasis on CTA would hint at this not being an easily fixable flaw.

Bottom Line

CTA has not been perfected. While being first envisioned in 1954, CTA has seen great advancements in the last decade. Testing for CTA must continue finding faults, while providing cost-effective solutions. If CTA can live up to the claims given to it by Textron and others, it seems that the future of small arms lies within it. If not, it is just one more idea scrapped either for good or until technology can advance to the point to make it viable. Regardless of its failure or success, the continuous process for something that weighs less, hits harder and is cheaper to manufacture will continue. But for now, all one can do is sit back and watch where CTA goes, especially with an enormous U.S. Army contract on the line and with adversaries developing new armor technologies to protect against current NATO rounds.

Nathan Fairhurst is a Research Assistant in the Department of Military & Strategic Studies, U.S. Air Force Academy. Dr. Jahara Matisek (Major, U.S. Air Force) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Military & Strategic Studies, and a U.S. Air Force Academy Non-Resident Fellow, Modern War Institute, West Point, U.S. Military Academy.

The fifth International Military-Technical Forum <<ARMY-2019>> (aka Army-Forum) was held at the Patriot Park exposition centre over June 25–30, 2019. The venue is located some 60km from Moscow in the Odintsovsky District, Moscow Region, on the site of the former military base and armoured vehicle training area and testing facility known historically as Kubinka Air Base.

Patriot Park, which opened in 2015, features a number of display areas, manufacturers’ exhibition buildings and visitor activity areas. Army-2019 as in previous years was centred on the imposing Exposition (EXPO) pavilion building, with the overall layout of the site comprising of centrally located permanent display areas of armoured vehicles and artillery. Elsewhere on the EXPO site are the Congress Centre building and a number of smaller exhibition buildings used for themed displays.

In addition to the static display areas, there are large areas given over to outdoor display areas, with virtually all of the major Russian defence industry manufacturers participating in some shape or form. A number of individual manufacturers’ outdoor pavilions are also sited on the extensive display areas located in front of the main pavilion. The main pavilion building has four designated halls, A–D, with entry to the pavilion being gained by three external access points which face onto the main display area. This year, Halls A–C contained a mix of major and smaller manufacturers booths, intermingled with exhibitors providing supporting services in the security, Information Technology, specialist product manufacturers and clothing and uniform insignia areas to name just a few. Hall D was again a focal point (but not exclusively so) for the Russian Ministry of Defence with many organizations within the MoD represented, including personnel support/historical groups.

Unexpected was an extensive display area recalling the 70th anniversary of the first Soviet atomic weapon test, with full-scale mock-ups of devices shown, together the original control facilities and posters explaining the development of the programme and notable figures involved.

This year there was an “Innovation” display area where small businesses and individuals could promote their ideas.

The number of foreign exhibitors continues to increase, including this year: Azerbaijan (MoD), China, India, Pakistan and Turkey were represented.

This year an unexpected downturn in the weather resulted in extremely wet and windy conditions for the last 3 days of the EXPO but breaks in the weather allowed access to all external display areas. For those readers interested in current Russian armoured and artillery developments, part of the main display area was again given over to a static display of armoured and other specialist vehicles currently under development.

Additional Activities Within the Patriot Park Area

Although it continues to be called “Army-Forum,” there is large tri-service participation with field/live-fire demonstration “clusters” all within the greater Patriot Park area. The Air Force cluster is based on the airfield at Kubinka, and the Naval Force demonstration cluster is at Alabino, as is the Land Force demonstration cluster. A free shuttle bus service is provided from the rail station Kubinka-1 for the Air Force demonstration area and from the rail station at Alabino for the Naval and Land demonstration areas. There is also a shuttle bus service to/from the demonstration areas, all of which are a considerable distance from the main Exposition site. Visitors to the demonstration areas are strongly advised to plan in advance if they want to attend one or all of the foregoing as visitors are unlikely to be able to cover more than two activity areas in one day.

A comprehensive programme of round-table discussions and briefings under the heading, “Thematic Meetings” was again offered with a total of 32 separate meetings being listed and held in varying locations within the greater Patriot Park area. A comprehensive programme of events and locations in electronic and hardcopy formats in both Russian and English is available well ahead of the Forum, allowing individual agendas to be selected in advance. Those visitors wishing to attend any of the listed events should check eligibility early on—not unreasonable given the event and host nation.

Outside of the exposition area are a number of additional corporate buildings which have display areas open to visitors during the Army-Forum, such as the Concern Kalashnikov building with administration and meeting rooms above; the ground floor has an indoor display area of the group’s military small arms as manufactured by the former Izhmash (AKs) and Izhmek, more commonly known as “Baikal,” which continues to offer a wide range of sporting and hunting firearms. The parent group of Concern Kalashnikov continues to broaden its manufacturing base with subsidiary companies now producing specialist law-enforcement vehicles and riverine patrol craft; and this year a number of robotic vehicles were on display. Visitor advisory: The Concern Kalashnikov indoor display area attracts large numbers, and visitors should be aware that access may be restricted at certain times.

The Tactical Missiles Corporation (АО «Корпорация Тактическое Ракетное Вооружение) also opened its indoor display to visitors. The Rostec building of the State Corporation for Assistance to Development, Production and Export of Advanced Technology Industrial Product (Государственная корпорация по содействию разработке, производству и экспорту высокотехнологичной промышленной продукции «Ростех») provided additional indoor display space for manufacturers, and those exhibiting included JSC Bazalt (АО «НПО «Базальт») which has developed an extended range of special purpose missile launchers and associated munitions. The Central Scientific-Research Institute for Precision Machine Engineering (TSNIITOCHMASH-ЦНИИТОЧМАШ), a subsidiary KBP, exhibited its new Udav 9mm self-loading pistol for the first time in the Rostec building and also provided a display section of prototype small arms rarely, if ever, “seen in the flesh.” These included the 5.6mm Avtomat AO-36 double-barrelled assault rifle developed for the Abakan rifle trials in mid-1986, which was designed to provide an initial cyclic rate of fire of 6,000 rds/min; the 5.6mm bullpup configured Avtomat AO-34 experimental assault rifle, which is believed to have been first developed in the mid-1960s; the rather strange looking 5.6mm Avtomat AO-40 experimental assault rifle; and the 7.62x54mmR AO-22M light machine gun. (Note: Although rifle calibres were listed as 5.6mm, it is believed all were in fact in 5.45x39mm caliber; however, the AO-40 utilized a steel magazine reminiscent of the 7.62mm AK magazine.)

Shooting Opportunities

Within the greater Patriot Park area, Concern Kalashnikov has a purpose-built, multi-lane shooting range. Access to the range, which is by invitation only, is by shuttle-bus from the Concern Kalashnikov pavilion. Visitors wishing to visit the shooting range should inquire in the first instance at the CK Reception desk in the main pavilion.

Show Master Info

Army-2020

Location

Moscow Region, Odintsovsky District, Russian Federation

Venue

Patriot Park Exposition Centre

Website

rusarmyexpo.ru

Next Show

August 23–29 (Note: Venue dates have seen significant changes at short notice in the past)

Focus

Army-Forum is based on and themed around the Army & Air Force displays and exhibitions, in conjunction with defence manufacturers of the Russian Federation and other invited countries. Public and family attendance is encouraged.

Access

Access to the enclosed Patriot Park exposition area is via three entry points: Entrances A–C are

for all visitors, with entrance B also being indicated for VIP visitors and entrance C for Media.

It should be noted that access by the public and general visitors is restricted to the last 3 days of the event; intending visitors should check eligibility to attend on any particular day.

Show Requirements

Proof of identity via national identity document/passport for foreigners.

Ticket Purchase

Entry tickets are obtainable on-site, cost (2019) circa $25 USD /day.

Visa Requirements

With some exceptions, all visitors to the Russian Federation will require an entry visa obtained before travel. Visa requirements are dependent on visitors’ nationalities, and visits to the Russian Federation usually require a Letter of Invitation to support the visa application. It should be noted that visa processing times can be protracted, and intending visitors should begin the process as early as possible or risk the considerable expense of last-minute visa costs. (Intending visitors are in fact advised not to make any travel arrangements until a travel visa has been issued.)

Media

A comprehensive Media facility is on-site and available for use by all registered Media. It is a government requirement that all foreign-based journalists need to be accredited in advance by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Media representatives wishing to attend in 2020 should immediately check current accreditation requirements, as the accreditation process can take some time.

Getting Around

Public transportation: The exhibition centre, which is located approximately 60km to the west of Moscow, is most easily accessed by rail using the main suburban rail station at Belorussky Vauxhall (Белорусский вокзал); trains to Golitsyno or Kubinka-1 and Alabino depart every 30 to 40 minutes. Journey times vary with approximately 50 minutes for all stations’ service to about 35 minutes for the express service (which has limited stops) to Golitsyno, the recommended arrival station for the Patriot Park exposition.

Internal on-site transportation: All rail arrival points are serviced by a free shuttle-bus service with departures every few minutes. There is also an internal shuttle bus service between the exposition centre and outlying demonstration areas. Details of bus services/route numbers are provided online or on-site in hardcopy form.

Car travel: Those intending to travel by car should be aware of heavy traffic congestion at peak hours, not only leaving and entering Moscow but at the arrival/departure points at Patriot Park. Car parking (paid) is available on-site, but it should be noted that the travel advisory suggests travel by other means due to high levels of car park usage.

Travel Expenses

Travel by suburban rail services and Metro services is inexpensive, and officially licensed taxis all charge by the meter. Credit/debit card payments for the latter are limited.

Accommodations

Foreign visitors may wish to stay within the greater Moscow area which is serviced by a very comprehensive public transportation system. For convenience, the Moscow Metro connects directly with the Belorussky Vauxhall station, the main departure point for the exhibition centre. The Tverskaya area in which the Belorussky station is situated is well-provided with reasonable cost hotels with adjacent shopping areas, restaurants and bars.

Languages

The Army Forum 2020 website offers English and Chinese, in addition to Russian. First-time visitors should be aware that while the English language may be understood in the Moscow area, elsewhere Russian is the sole language, and communication for non-Russian speakers can be difficult. However, increasing use is made of dual Russian/English signage on the roads and rail transportation networks. Should you need to enquire in English, it is best to approach the younger generation who now routinely learn the language. At the Forum, helpful multi-lingual speakers can found who will provide the necessary linguistic support.

Security

Moscow like any major city has areas that should be avoided. The Tverskaya-Belorussky station area as already mentioned is convenient for both travel to and from the exposition and for sightseeing within the central Moscow area. First-time visitors would be advised to use a reputable travel agency/airline to book suitable accommodations. Credit/debit cards are widely accepted in the metropolitan areas and at railway stations reducing the need to carry large sums in cash. ATMs in Moscow are generally available in tourist hotels and commercial areas.

Museums

Incorporated within the greater Kubinka area and under the umbrella of the Patriot Park are the large tank and smaller Air Force museums. Visitors wishing to visit either should view the respective museum websites well in advance of any visit. The Kubinka Tank Museum recommends, for a number of reasons, a guided tour with a translator for non-Russian speaking visitors (tankmuseum.ru/kubinka).

Elusive Rifles         

From the small sample size that we have been able to research with, there appears to have been two production runs of Al-Kadesiah rifles: an early initial batch that might have run from 1988 to 1991 and then another lot in 2003, just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. We still don’t know how many in total were produced, but a ballpark estimate would be in the several thousand, perhaps not more than ten thousand rifles ever produced. What we know about the intent and use of the Al-Kadesiah is even less. Similar to many of Iraq’s indigenously produced small arms, it doesn’t appear that many of them ever saw combat or were even intended for combat use in the Iraqi Army, Republican Guard or paramilitary Fedayeen forces. Historical photographs, videos and interviews with pre-2003 Iraqi Army forces reveal that many soldiers could easily serve a term of service without seeing a Tabuk, Tariq or an Al-Kadesiah. A prime, statistics-based example of this is at the reserve collection of the Marine Corps Museum, which has several hundred captured Iraqi Army items spanning Desert Storm and post-2003, the overwhelming majority of which are not Iraqi-produced.

With the exception of the Tabuk rifles, Al-Quds RPK light machine guns and al-Nasirah RPG launchers, a critical component of these indigenously produced weapons appears to have been a gifting mechanism, both within Iraq as an award, promotion or to the family members of soldiers killed in battle, and to foreign governments overseas (Gaddafi of Libya and Mubarak of Egypt are two known examples). Indeed, some of these gold-plated Tariqs, Al-Kadesiahs and carbine Tabuks are inscribed in Arabic: “A Gift from President Saddam Hussein, President of the Republic of Iraq.” One rare example in the case of Tariq handguns reads: “The home country is the honor of the fighting soldier; A present from the President Saddam Hussein for those who defend the mother country” engraved along the slide. However, not all of these gold-plated small arms would have any particular phrase stamped into them; many are simply gold-plated without any additional markings.

Features

What make the Al-Kadesiah distinguishable from a Soviet SVD Dragunov are enough features to make the majority of parts from either rifle not interchangeable. This is important because between the Soviet and Chinese Dragunov rifle variants and even the Romanian PSL rifle, users and logistics officers alike have assumed interchangeability when there was none to begin with, something that causes problems downrange. An example is PSL magazines because they can latch into place in an Al-Kadesiah magazine well, but without actual modification to the rifle or to the magazines, their tolerances are off just enough that the rounds will not feed when charged. This hasn’t stopped rifles already in theater being altered by rebels on the ground who are often forced to make do with limited supplies.

Outwardly and from afar, the two rifles are virtually indistinguishable, but upon a closer inspection, we find that the Al-Kadesiah is actually a poor clone of the Soviet SVD. Operationally, the two rifles are identical, both utilizing a long-stroke gas impingement system acting on a multi-lug rotating bolt; however, the Al-Kadesiah’s gas tube cannot be adjusted, and the bolt is akin to a Kalashnikov bolt with its two main locking lugs and one guide lug rotating in the same direction (a Dragunov’s bolt rotates opposite of a Kalashnikov’s due to the cut of the lug paths). All Al-Kadesiah rifles also have a red-capped plastic pistol grip. A very important distinction is in the receiver construction, the Al-Kadesiah is a three-part, stamped-steel receiver with a thickness of 1.5mm and pinned trunion, while the Dragunov is a single-milled receiver (trunion area included). Some key visible differences are in the Al-Kadesiah’s palm-tree-embossed magazine, four cooling slats in the handguard versus six in a Dragunov and rear sights without any Cyrillic markings on the Al-Kadesiah. Scopes used in the series are mainly Yugoslavian OM-M76 4x optics with special 7.62×54 marking on the turret, but also seen are some older Soviet PSO-1s, and many were issued with Romanian LPS Type 2 optics.

Three Variants

After a thorough study of available examples of Al-Kadesiah rifles in reference collections, open sources and on display in museums, there have been three basic variants that have come to light. We begin with the serial number lot numbers. All the available Al-Kadesiah rifles surveyed begin with the 50000XX serial number range. This is on par with other Al-Kadesiah products, such as 9x19mm Tariq handguns which all fall in a 313XXXXX range, Al-Quds RPKs in an early 300XXXX range, folding stock Al-Quds in the 400XXXX range and Tabuk rifles that can fall in a number of different serial number ranges.

The earliest variants we observed are gold-plated rifles from 1988. These rifles have not been observed to come equipped with scopes but appear to have scopes in their velvet carrying cases. They have also been seen separately, in plastic bags. They have a full and matching serial number stamped on the lower receiver, bolt carrier and receiver cover, a year stamp below the serial number and have the marking “AL.KADESIAH, 7.62×54, MADE.IN.IRAQ.” At least one of these rifles has been spotted with the gift inscription and a Tariq Ibn Zayid medallion pressed into the wooden handguard.

After this golden presentation variant comes a standard field-grade variant which appears to have been intended for troop issue. The rifle is identical to the first variant but is not gold-plated and has “KADESIH” instead of “SIAH.” Year samples are from 1991 and 1992. Some of these features a shortened two-digit serial number on the receiver. Note that the serial numbers ascend from the earliest rifle in 1989, indicating a constant serial number block regardless of year.

Our next variant exists in 2003 and is a drill-purpose rifle. A hole has been drilled in the barrel underneath the handguards just forward of the chamber at the 3 o’clock position, underneath the handguards. This has resulted in at least one such rifle suffering a catastrophic malfunction when fired in Iraq. The usual marking on the right side of the receiver is no longer there, instead switched to the left side and now hand-etched with “للتدريب/lel-tadreeb” in Arabic, which means “Training,” in addition to a three-digit serial number and the year of manufacture. The same phrase is also imprinted on a metal medallion that is embedded in the right-hand side of the stock.

Of these three variants surveyed out of a total of 15 rifles spread between the United Kingdom and the United States, nine are gold-plated presentation rifles, four are field-grade rifles, and only two are drill purpose from 2003. These numbers fit with the attitude that the rifles were primarily a gift or ceremonial item as opposed to combat arms. As stated before, interviews and media research of Iraqi armed forces have revealed that the Al-Kadesiah did not appear to be in use at all by operating forces—not in the Iran–Iraq War, invasion of Kuwait, resulting Desert Storm and finally in the grand finale of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Technical Specifications

Caliber          7.62x54mmR

Magazine Capacity           10 rounds, proprietary Iraqi magazines

Overall Length       48.42in

Barrel Length         24.48in

Barrel Internals     4 grooves, 1:10 right-hand twist

Weight          9lb, 14oz, loaded with scope attached

Effective Range     1,300m

Sources

Iannamico, Frank, AK-47, The Grim Reaper, Chipotle Publishing, LLC

DesignatedMarksman.Net, Iraqi Al-Kadesiah (also known as Al-Kadesih) Sniper Rifle 7.62x54R

USMC Museum Reference Collection

Phoenix Defence Reference Collection