Do we need a new service rifle cartridge?  Another way of asking this question is “Is there a problem with the lethality of the 5.56mm NATO caliber?”  These questions are two of the most controversial in the military/defense industry today.  It pervades the trade shows and is constantly discussed by the end users as well as those on the sidelines.  The current wars are giving a lot of feedback to the suppliers and designers, and perhaps the best way to address this is to look at the evidence we can see from recent developments and new programs and trends in the U.S., within the NATO alliance and in threat countries.

There are various key caliber-related topics that we should consider before trying to gain an answer to this question, such as:

5.56x45mm History
The 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge was developed in 1959 from the commercial .222 Remington cartridge for hunting varmints (weighing up to 40 pounds) out to 200-250 yards.  The current U.S. 5.56x45mm NATO SS109-style M855 round loaded with a 62 grain “penetrator” projectile was developed not for improved terminal performance on soft tissue but for long range helmet penetration from machine guns (the FN Minimi), NOT specifically for rifles or carbines.  Its effect on soft tissue and the human target is greatly dependent upon bullet fragmentation and/or yawing at striking velocities above 2,500 feet per second (fps) and was developed to be fired from 18-20 inch barreled weapons like the M16 rifle and M249 SAW.  The “lethality” (more accurately described as “terminal effectiveness” as there are no varying degrees of lethality.  If an opponent is fatally shot, but manages to wipe out an entire squad of friendly personnel before succumbing to the wound, the projectile demonstrated 100% lethality but was utterly ineffective at stopping the enemy from continuing the attack) of the M855 round is severely degraded beyond 150 meters when fired from a 14.5 inch barreled M4 Carbine or at any range (0 meters and out) from the 10 inch barreled MK18 CQBR due to the insufficient striking velocities at these ranges.  The unique physical stature (narrow torso) of many of the malnourished Middle Eastern combatants when struck by the M855 projectile often produces insignificant wounds similar to those produced by .22 Long Rifle ammunition.  Unless the M855 projectile yaws in the target, through and through shots is the norm and yaw from weapon to weapon (fleet yaw) and round to round is unpredictable at best.  This is fact based on numerous official U.S. wound ballistic studies conducted and user accounts collected, some of which are presented below as evidence to the point.

Wound Ballistics Experts Support End User Accounts
The disturbing failure of the 5.56x45mm caliber to consistently offer adequate incapacitation has been known for nearly 20 years.  Dr. Martin Fackler’s seminal research at the Letterman Army Institute of Research Wound Ballistic Laboratory during the 1980s illuminated the yaw and fragmentation mechanism by which 5.56x45mm FMJ bullets create wounds in tissue.  “If 5.56mm bullets fail to upset (yaw, fragment, or deform) within tissue, the results are relatively insignificant wounds, similar to those produced by .22 long rifle bullets – this is true for all 5.56x45mm bullets, including both military FMJ and OTM (open tip match) and civilian JHP/JSP designs used in law enforcement.  As expected, with decreased wounding effects, rapid incapacitation is unlikely: enemy soldiers may continue to pose a threat to friendly forces and violent suspects can remain a danger to law enforcement personnel and the public.  This failure of 5.56x45mm bullets to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short-barreled weapons or when the range to the target increases.  Failure to yaw and fragment can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the chest of a thin, small statured individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment.  Two other yaw issues: Angle-of-Attack (AOA) variations between different projectiles, even within the same lot of ammo, as well as Fleet Yaw variations between different rifles, were elucidated in 2006 by the Joint Service Wound Ballistic Integrated Product Team (JSWB-IPT), which included experts from the military law enforcement user community, trauma surgeons, aero ballisticians, weapon and munitions engineers, and other scientific specialists.  These yaw issues were most noticeable at close ranges and were more prevalent with certain calibers and bullet styles — the most susceptible being 5.56x45mm FMJ ammunition like M855 and M193.”

Terminal Performance, Wound Ballistics and Ballistic Gelatin Test Comparison Data
We need to compare the various calibers using more than just exterior ballistics data such as muzzle velocity, muzzle energy, and time of flight.  Any comparison or assessment of ammunition effectiveness is incomplete without a detailed measure of the projectile’s effect on target and through intermediate barriers common in modern shooting encounters.  The effects of the projectile on the human target cannot be measured by exterior ballistics alone and any comparison or claims made without terminal performance data are both inconclusive and perplexing to the uninformed.

Target Suppression
There was a very thoughtful “Suppression Study” briefing conducted by the UK MoD at the 2009 European Small Arms and Cannons Symposium in Shrivenham, England, which clearly showed the vast differences in the effectiveness of personnel target suppression between 5.56x45mm, 7.62x51mm and .50 BMG.  The U.S. experience has echoed this as well.  Clearly larger is better in this case.  The Taliban, it has been said, “Ignore 5.56mm, respect 7.62mm and fear .50 BMG.”  Our enemies today practice the art of standoff shooting, staying just outside the effective range of our 5.56x45mm weapon systems and in turn engage the friendlies with 7.62x54mm Russian caliber weapons like the SVD and PKM.  This is why there is a resurgence of many more 7.62x51mm weapons within the maneuvering frontline units with those NATO countries still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Our troops on the receiving end have learned this lesson well, and often at a tremendous cost.

Training
Training is an undeniable factor in weapon and ammunition effectiveness in battle.  That goes without saying.  However even the very best and most realistic marksmanship training cannot make up for the many factors outside the control of the riflemen.  Even the very best trained marksman cannot achieve well placed hits on fleeting or partially exposed targets, those at long range or protected by intermediate barriers, especially when firing under poorly supported field conditions and while taking incoming fire.  Thus we must demand that the effectiveness of the rifle cartridge, more specifically the projectile, deliver the greatest possible terminal effects even when the small, hard to hit vital areas on the tough human target like the central nervous system (brain and brain stem) are not struck.  Kinetic energy projectiles (bullets, fragments) kill in only two ways – through hits on the central nervous system resulting in near instantaneous death or through tissue destruction and the resulting loss of blood which can take a significant amount of time, up to 50 seconds in fact, an absolute lifetime in the life and death millisecond world of armed combat.  Hits to the head and brain stem are nearly impossible to obtain in anything but the very best circumstances and those conditions seldom exist on the battlefield.

Angle Shooting
Engaging targets at high or low angles as is the case in a mountainous environment like Afghanistan, as any good sniper or marksman can tell you, is a great determining factor on accurate target engagement based on the effects of gravity and drag on rifle projectiles.

The End User Experience
Then, we should carefully consider the actions of the end user community and the effects of their requests on their chain of supply.  Perhaps the best indication of whether the current weapons and calibers are doing the job in the eyes of the people out front doing the fighting is the feedback from those people.  Sort of looking for columns of smoke, to find where there is fire.  We should consider what those nations and units who are carrying the heavy load and doing most of the hard fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and other hot spots in the world are carrying, developing and fielding.  The U.S. has clearly carried the ball for more than a decade having as of June 2010 in excess of 78,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan alone with ISAF, 66% of the total troop numbers there.  America has also lost nearly 1,100 brave souls there to war and the numbers are rising.  Other countries like the UK have real hands on experience outside the wire and as such deserve our respect and examination of their lessons learned and resulting new material developments.  We must watch what they do and not be distracted by the claims and actions of those who are not making the same contributions and sacrifices in the ongoing Global War on Terror (GWOT).  One must look at what the major combatants are doing in terms of small arms and ammunition programs, especially within their special operations units as their experiences result in rather rapid changes in tactics and equipment.  These choices are often emulated by larger, conventional military and other government organization (OGAs) but as in the case with SS109-style 5.56x45mm cartridge improvements or replacement, the larger the organization it seems the slower it embraces change, if things there ever change at all.

A French military service member assigned to an explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) unit fires an HK416 rifle during a three-day joint operation with U.S. Sailors assigned to the EOD Mobile Unit 11 and U.S. Marines with the EOD Detachment, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit in Djibouti June 13, 2010. The operation included equipment familiarization, scenario-driven events, small arm live fire and a demolition range. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Gunnery Sgt. James Frank/Released)

Evidence All Around Us Through Lessons Learned
The following are just a few recent and/or ongoing official examples of serious moves to improve or outright replace 5.56x45mm as both assault rifle and light machine gun cartridge that are happening today.  These initiatives and trends in most cases are a direct result of the urgent user requests coming back from the various combat theaters the U.S. and NATO as well as our non-NATO allies are engaged in when the repeated and documented failures of 5.56x45mm SS109-style ammunition results in lives lost and missions jeopardized.  The fact is that many countries in NATO have found the 5.56x45mm round seriously lacking in modern combat, both at short range and long range.  Thus is the reason why:

1.  The UK, the U.S., and now Germany and most recently the French military are urgently fielding thousands of 7.62x51mm NATO rifles for troop use Afghanistan.

2.  By choice and based on extensive combat experience and independent comparative testing, U.S. Special Mission Units for the most part do not use standard 5.56x45mm M855/SS109-type ammo and instead use the 70 grain Optimal “Brown Tip,” 77 grain MK262 MOD 1, 62 grain MK255 MOD 1 R2LP, and 62 grain MK318 MOD 0 SOST ammunition because of their vastly improved terminal performance against both unprotected and protected human targets and continue to develop and field compact 7.62x51mm carbines (HK417, KAC SR-25K Carbine, LMT MRP/L129A1, LaRue OBR or FN SCAR Heavies).

3.  The U.S. Army has spent 15+ years and over $120M developing NLT three iterations of an improved 5.56x45mm M855A1 round to address numerous terminal effectiveness complaints and combat failure reports (at all engagement ranges from CQB to over 500 meters) from at least as far back as U.S. combat operations in Somalia in the early 1990s and certainly post 9/11.  The U.S. Army fired more than 1M rounds during the development of the radically new M855A1 round as part of a concerted and focused major effort to replace the SS109-type M855 “penetrator” round deemed ineffective in modern combat.  The projectile design of the M855A1 is radically different that that of all other SS109-type ammunition used throughout NATO, and for very good reason.

4.  USSOCOM/NSWC Crane/ATK-Federal jointly developed the highly effective 5.56x45mm MK318 MOD 0 SOST round to specifically replace the M855 round based on documented combat failures and its larger SOST cousin the 7.62x51mm MK319 MOD 0 round.  These rounds have been fielded within USSOCOM and the USMC (5.56x45mm) with excellent results to date, and are highly sought after by other NATO SOF units and federal law enforcement agencies.

5.  BAE Systems is developing and the UK MoD is testing a new 5.56x45mm “High Performance” projectile/round to improve long range performance and lethality on unprotected and light skinned vehicle targets as a possible replacement to the current 5.56x45mm L2A2 Ball round sometime after planned 2011 trials are completed.  There is also an independent ongoing effort in the UK in 2010 to revisit and evaluate the medium-caliber .280 British round (and other medium-caliber options) as a possible replacement to the 5.56x45mm and possibly 7.62x51mm cartridge(s) in a modern assault rifle platform.

6.  At time of writing at least one NATO SOF unit is still developing a medium-caliber cartridge/platform to increase the terminal performance of a compact M4-style platform based upon combat failures of 5.56x45mm SS109-style ammunition during combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

7.  The German Bundeswehr has written a classified report detailing the repeated combat failures of their SS109-style 5.56x45mm NATO DM11 round and have as a result (like the UK) issued an Urgent Requirement for 7.62x51mm semiautomatic rifles for use by German troops in Afghanistan.  They have also initiated the design of a new modular, non-caliber specific assault rifle and will soon field a lightweight 7.62x51mm general-purpose machine gun (GPMG) to replace the MG3 GPMG and some 5.56x45mm MG4 light machine guns to deal with long range and protected targets that the 5.56x45mm round is not defeating.

The conflict in Afghanistan, with its emphasis on targeting specific enemy individuals while avoiding collateral damage, features the use of weapons of high precision and limited destructive effect.  As a result, infantry small arms have a much more prominent role than that expected in conventional high-intensity warfare and this is highlighting the performance of their ammunition to a greater extent than ever before.  Now that several NATO nations have started the process of defining their requirements for the next generation of small arms, this is a rare opportunity to ask the question: Is the present combination of 5.56 and 7.62mm rifle and machine gun cartridges optimal, or could we do better?

Lessons from Afghanistan
The British Army has analysed several hundred small-arms engagements in Afghanistan over the past few years.  The results are thought-provoking.  Ever since World War 2, around 300 metres has been regarded as the normal maximum range for small-arms engagements.  However, the Taliban are equipped with PKM light machine guns and SVD rifles chambered in the old but powerful 7.62x54R Russian cartridge, and more than half of their attacks are launched from ranges of over 300 metres, with almost a quarter between 500 and 900 metres.  A report on the performance of small arms in the U.S. Army (Increasing small arms lethality in Afghanistan: Taking back the infantry half-kilometer by Major Thomas P. Ehrhart, United States Army) makes similar points.

British foot patrols were initially equipped only with 5.56mm guns; the L85A2 rifle, L86A2 Light Support Weapon, and L110A1 Minimi Para light machine gun.  However, these weapons have proved inadequate at long range.  A combination of battle experience and the testing of ammunition terminal effectiveness has led to a judgment that the rifle (which has a 20 inch barrel) is effective only up to about 300 metres and the light machine gun only 200 metres because of its short barrel of about 14 inches.  Similar findings are included in the Ehrhart report mentioned above.  What this means is that more than half the small-arms engagements take place beyond the effective range of a full-length 5.56mm infantry rifle, and about 70 percent of the engagements are beyond the effective range of short-barrelled carbines like the M4.

The second problem with 5.56mm ammunition is its lack of suppressive effect.  On most occasions when British foot patrols come under fire, they never see their attackers; the Taliban are skilled at selecting concealed positions for ambush.  So the soldiers return fire in the hope of pinning down the enemy long enough for heavier weapons to be brought to bear.  Field testing has revealed that 5.56 bullets have only half the suppressive radius of 7.62 fire, exacerbated by the fact that the little bullets are more affected by wind drift and therefore less likely to get close to the target.  This is supported by battlefield reports that the Taliban basically ignore 5.56 suppressive fire.

Estonian Army Corporal (CPL) Roman Metsatalu, assigned to the Scouts Battalion, Estonian Defense Forces, Estonian Peacekeeping Center, holds his position armed with a Vektor R6 5.56mm compact assault rifle while awaiting orders to move out on a foot patrol in Western Baghdad, Iraq. Estonian Army Soldiers are working with US Army (USA) Soldiers from 10th Mountain Division, as part of the Multi-National Corps to secure a 15-kilometer section of road in Western Baghdad, during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.

This lack of effective range and suppressive effect are the two major concerns with 5.56mm ammunition reported by the British Army, but there have also been complaints about two other issues which have long been highlighted in the USA: erratic terminal effectiveness, even within its effective range, and poor barrier penetration.  Erratic terminal effectiveness is mainly due to the fact that the M855 bullet frequently does not yaw and upset rapidly on impact, but may instead pass right through a body point-first, inflicting a relatively minor injury unless it happens to strike a vital organ.  There is anecdotal evidence aplenty of erratic effectiveness in combat, and this has been confirmed by laboratory testing.  So have the problems with penetrating intermediate barriers such as walls or car doors and even windscreens.

These shortcomings mean that British foot patrols now carry 7.62mm weapons in place of some of their 5.56mm guns; the very effective L7 GPMG (similar to the U.S. Army’s M240) and L96 sniper rifles.  These weapons are not ideal, as the rifles are bolt action with a low rate of fire and the GPMG is very heavy.  This is most unwelcome given that reducing the burden (typically around 100 lbs) worn and borne by the infantryman is one of the top equipment priorities of the British Army.  The British are following U.S. practice in adopting a semiautomatic 7.62mm sharpshooter rifle (ordered from the American company Law Enforcement International and designated L129A1) and also in seeking lighter 7.62mm machine guns; namely a lightened version of the GPMG and also an even lighter 7.62mm LMG which will match the characteristics of the Russian PKM.

Do We Need a New Cartridge?
Given that we are now adopting a mix of 5.56mm and 7.62mm weapons at section level, what’s the problem?  The 7.62mm guns can deal with the long-range countryside work, with the 5.56 mm retained for urban fighting.  One problem with this is that it may not be possible to draw neat lines around scenarios: a section may be clearing houses in a village at one moment then come under long-range fire as they leave.  It also means that those carrying 7.62mm weapons will be badly equipped for the close-quarter battle, while those with 5.56mm guns will be unable to participate in long-range engagements, thereby reducing the effective firepower of the section in each case.  Finally, it still leaves us with the erratic terminal effectiveness and poor barrier penetration of the 5.56mm M855, along with the 7.62mm’s ammunition weight and recoil.

Various attempts have been and continue to be made to uprate the performance of the 5.56mm cartridge, the most recent being the MK318 Mod 0 which has been adopted by the USMC, and these offer some improvements in terminal effects and barrier penetration.  However, they involve technologies such as open-point and/or fragmenting bullets, which are regarded as unacceptable by the British and probably other NATO countries.  In any case, the degree of improvement is fundamentally limited by the small size and modest power of the cartridge.

The problem with the 7.62×51, at least in its standard M80 ball loading of 147 grains at 2,700 fps, is that it is effective but not efficient.  The bullet does not usually yaw very rapidly on impact; in fact gel tests indicate that some smaller calibres can inflict more severe wounds.  Also, it has an unimpressive long-range performance for its calibre due to the relatively light bullet which sheds velocity quite quickly.  The cartridge is effective simply through its raw power and bullet size, but these have a cost in weight (double that of the 5.56mm) and recoil (three to four times the recoil energy compared with 5.56mm rifles of similar weight).  The heavy recoil makes training more difficult, slows down double-tap shooting and makes automatic rifle fire virtually uncontrollable.  The ballistic characteristics can be improved by using a heavier and better-designed bullet than the M80, but at the cost of even more ammo weight and recoil, which is definitely not what is wanted.

To answer this question with a short answer, it is: No!  This article will discuss the benefits of the 5.56mm NATO caliber, compare it with its bigger brother 7.62, look into effects of barrel length and finally how to improve the lethality of our soldiers.

First, there are two ways to incapacitate an enemy:

• Hit to the central nervous system.  This is the brain and upper part of the spine.  It will cause immediate incapacitation regardless of caliber or type of bullet.
• Loss of blood pressure by massive bleeding.  This area corresponds to the rest of the central body and incapacitation can take time.  Hunters aim for the lungs and heart when they hunt.  A deer shot right through the heart can run quite some distance.

Soldiers are top priority within NATO and the soldier’s primary weapon is his rifle.  To use it effectively he must be well trained for any possible encounter with the enemy and it is very important that he “trains as he fights.”  In his final training there must be pop up and moving targets at unknown distances.  He must be under stress and be able to respond immediately.  There has been small arms lethality discussions within NATO for several years, but to clarify things once and for all a NATO Workshop on Small Arms Lethality was hosted by the United Kingdom in February 2009 at their Defence Academy in Shrivenham.  The conclusion was that shot placement is the most important parameter, and that this is achieved through good and realistic training.

There are two major problems with current and future soldier systems: weight and power supply.  Individual soldiers can in operations carry 60 kg (132 lbs).  This includes weapon, ammo, body armor, water, etc.  Many nations try to lighten soldiers load incrementally by trying for each new procurement to lighten each new item by a certain percentage over the one it is replacing.  Most accessories use batteries.  These are often of different size and have different life expectancy.  NATO is currently studying several industry solutions of a powered rail system, where the power is centralized in the pistol grip or buttstock and is sent to the rails where the flashlight, as an example, then would only consist of a reflector, which reduces weight and volume of the device and increases battery life expectancy.

The Belgian small arms producer FN Herstal – then named FN (Fabrique Nationale d’Armes de Guerre) developed a weapon family in the mid 70s consisting of the FNC rifle and the Minimi LMG (light machine gun).  To increase the range for the LMG, a round that could penetrate the NATO plate (3.5mm mild steel) out to 600m was developed.  It had a dual core (steel tip and lead rear), and was designated SS109 and required a one in nine inch rifling twist.  There were no requirements to penetrate body armor.  The L110 tracer round however required a fast one in seven inch rifling twist.

An Australian Defence Force soldier with the 5th Royal Australian Regiment fires an F-89 Minimi rifle at the urban operations training facility July 22, 2009, at Shoalwater Bay Training Area, Australia, during Exercise Talisman Sabre 2009 (TS09). TS09 is a combined training activity designed to train Australian and U.S. forces in planning and conducting combined task force operations, which will improve combat readiness and interoperability. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Michael Augusto/Released)

In 1970, NATO decided to try to standardize a common rifle and a second rifle caliber.  During 1977-1980 NATO therefore performed tests with rifles and ammunition.  The calibers tested were:

• 5.56mm rounds with increased penetration from Belgium (FN SS109) and USA (XM777).
• A British 4.85mm round.  This was a necked down 5.56mm cartridge.
• A German 4.7mm caseless round.

The results were that no weapon could be agreed upon as many of the weapons were prototypes.  The SS109 round was found to be the best, and was standardized as NATO’s second rifle caliber in 1980.

One quite often reads and hears of the benefits of 7.62mm over 5.56mm.  The truth is, however, most of the time the opposite. The benefits of 5.56mm over 7.62mm are:

• Equal lethality against unprotected enemies.
• Half the mass (12g – 24g).
• Half the volume.
• Reduced recoil and signature (noise and flash) that allows for a faster second shot.
• Better penetration in thin metal plates.
• Flatter trajectory and shorter time of flight out to 700m.
• Lighter weapons.
• Higher hit probability.

The last bullet point refers to that the soldier is not afraid of the recoil and noise, and can concentrate on his stance, weapon control, aiming and trigger pull.  Several nations have reported this when they changed from 7.62mm caliber to 5.56mm.

The benefit of 7.62mm is that it has more energy.  The impact energy of the 7.62mm is more than twice of the 5.56.  Energy is only needed if you want o penetrate body armor or RHA (rolled homogeneous armor).  If the target is not protected, that energy level is not really needed.  A 5.56mm or 7.62mm ball round will normally pass right through an enemy all the way out to over 600m.

NATO realizes that different nations spend a different amount of time, ammunition for training and expect soldiers to perform to different levels of marksmanship.  This resulted in Spain hosting a NATO Workshop on Marksmanship Training March.  The results showed that only few nations teach shooting to ordinary infantry soldiers beyond 200-300m.  Nations are using from 150 rounds during 28h engaging targets out to 200m and up to 1,000 rounds during two weeks engaging targets out to 400m.  The soldiers are thereafter sent on missions to, for example, Afghanistan.  Sweden and Canada both share the common requirement that a soldier in the prone or kneeling position must be able to put 3 (Sweden) or 5 (Canada) rounds at 100m with maximum dispersion of 150mm (6 inches).

The reasons nations do not teach their soldiers to shoot at longer range are that it is very difficult to hit at longer range due to:

• Shooters dispersion
• Moving targets
• Unknown range
• Wind drift

Swedish units in ISAF rely on 12.7mm HMG for long range.

Let us look at a comparison between 5.56mm and 7.62mm with equal barrel lengths (20-inches – 508 mm):

As can be seen, 5.56mm has a flatter trajectory.  So now let us compare a 5.56mm M4 barrel (14.5 inches) with a 7.62mm long barrel (20 inches).  They are identical.  There has been some debate that the “short” M4 barrel is the cause of some “lack of lethality” issues.  This is simply not true.  The same thing applies to time of flight for these.  This is an important issue because it affects the required target lead when engaging moving targets.

In the Swedish ak 5 upgrade trials in the early 2000s the users were asked to prioritize the suggested changes.  Priority 1 was the rail on the top of the receiver and priority 2 was the shortened barrel.  Soldiers really loved the short compact ak 5C.  There is no measurable difference in the accuracy of a 450 mm and 350 mm barrel.

Let us look at some interior ballistics.  With caliber 7.62 the barrel is typically around 20 inches (508mm).  The bullet will have 50% of its velocity within 80mm (3 inches) of travel.  If you shorten the barrel you will lose some muzzle velocity, and you will increase the muzzle pressure (noise and flash).

To scientifically investigate the effect of barrel length and muzzle velocity we took a brand new Colt M16A2 barrel and cut it down in 30mm increments and measured the velocity.  We used NATO reference ammunition, fired at +21° C.

The effect of a long barrel has often been greatly exaggerated.  The trajectories for the M16 (20-inch barrel) and M4 (14.5-inch barrel) resulted in a difference of only 16 mm (0.6 inch) when zeroed at 250m.

It has also been stated that the striking velocity from the M4 carbine was very low because of its “short” barrel.  The fact is that there is only a 50m difference.  Do you think an enemy will notice being hit by a M16 at 200m or a M4 at 150m?

A Japanese soldier, armed with a Type 89 assault rifle, lies in a defensive position during combat skills training with U.S. Marines assigned to 1st Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Calif., Feb. 6, 2008. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Chad J. Pulliam/Released)

The difference in time of flight is also very low, only 2 cm (0.75 inch) per meter per second of traverse target movement at 300m.  An enemy normally walks at 2m/s and runs at 5m/s.

Back in 2005 I attended a NATO group and we were discussing what were the reasons soldiers did not hit their targets.  I had previously done a study with 7.62mm caliber and was asked to do the same with 5.56mm.  I received input data from the participating nations.  I took the most important data and created two different scenarios:

• Kneeling, no stress.
• Standing, stress.

The lessons learned is that the latter should go down into the kneeling position, which will increase his hit probability and reduce his target area.

It is easy on the Internet to find rumors about the “lack of lethality” of the 5.56 NATO round:

• “Ineffectiveness at long range”
• “Inconsistent wounding effect”
• “Poor intermediate barrier penetration”
• “Ease of deflection”

The fact is that there are no official documents that the 5.56mm NATO caliber has failed in any NATO Army.  On the contrary, we have official documents stating that there is no problem with the lethality of the 5.56mm caliber at all.  Most NATO nations even agree that the next generation of small arms weapons by 2020 will still be using the 5.56mm NATO caliber.

Summary

• There is no problem with the lethality of the 5.56 NATO caliber.
• Most NATO nations are confident with the lethality of their 5.56mm and 7.62mm rounds.
• To increase small arms lethality, nations must better train their soldiers.
• Soldiers must “train as they fight.”
• If nations want to engage targets at long range, then it is not about rifle caliber, projectile or barrel length, it is all about more training.

Terms of Reference for the NATO Weapons & Sensors Working Group

• The group is responsible for all issues related to dismountable soldier’s weapon systems, non-lethal systems, grenades and shoulder launched and guided anti-tank weapons, as well as dedicated sensors (including, but not limited to day and night sights, laser designators, tactical lights and fire control systems).
• The weapon system includes the weapon itself, different types of ammunition and the dedicated accessories.
• The group is also responsible for the interface of the weapons and sensors with the various other parts of the soldier system.

About the Author
Per Arvidsson is a former military officer, has a Master degree in weapon technology and ballistics from the Swedish military academy, worked with small arms systems at FMV (the technical and procuring agency for the Swedish armed forces) for nearly 30 years, has been the product manager for small arms systems since 1994, has been active in various NATO groups since 1998 and was elected chairman for the Weapons & Sensors Working Group in 2008.

Long absent from the U.S. and international arms market, Daewoo Precision was an unfortunate victim of the Asian credit crisis of the late 1990s.  Purchased in bankruptcy by Korean conglomerate S&T, the company has emerged from bankruptcy as S&T Daewoo.  Not surprisingly, the same high quality designs and manufacturing features that created the Daewoo Precision legacy have safely emerged as an asset from which to build new S&T Daewoo products.

Those familiar with innovations in U.S. weapon design will recall the OICW, the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, which integrated a 5.56mm battle rifle with a 20mm air-burst grenade system.  After spending hundreds of millions of dollars, industry titans in the U.S. were unable to produce a working model that met U.S. procurement requirements.  Over due and over budget, the U.S. based project was cut back, and has lingered for a number of years with limited success.  Based upon the similar design features as the OICW, the K11 has emerged as a real potential to the PICW puzzle.  Similar to the OICW, the K11 features an integrated 5.56mm battle rifle in conjunction with a 20mm bolt action airburst munition system.

The System
The K11 system features three main components – the 5.56mm battle rifle, the 20mm bolt action grenade launcher, and the integrated laser range finder/munition programming and arming system.  The design of the system is well thought out with fire controls placed in intuitive locations.

The 5.56mm Battle Rifle
At the core of the system is a 5.56 battle rifle.  The rifle was not disassembled during testing.  Nevertheless, the rifle (as tested) featured a 310 mm (12.2047 inch) barrel, with a four-prong flash hider.  The rifle appeared to be a piston based recoil design.  The twist rate of the barrel is unknown.

Fire controls are on the left side of the weapon in the traditional location for most western designed weapons.  The selector switch was easily accessed by the shooter’s thumb while gripping the pistol grip.  Utilizing a four position selector switch, the position descriptions were written in Korean Hangeul characters.  The selector switch, while common in shape and location, proved to be a little different than any other selector switch encountered on previous rifles.  The position for “safe” was in the traditional 9 o’clock position.  This is good to remember when the markings are not in English and are essentially undecipherable to non-Korean speakers.

From the safe position, the other three fire control positions were unique.  Moving counter clockwise, the 6 o’clock position puts the rifle into three-round burst mode.  Recoil was light, and allowed the weapon to stay on target throughout the burst.  Cyclic rate was not measured, but seemed comparable to the M4 carbine.  The three-round burst system appears to use an internal mechanism to count the number of rounds fired.  Releasing the trigger before three rounds have been fired results in the next burst being short by the number of fired rounds previously fired.  This type of mechanism is not unusual, and can be seen in the three-round burst mechanism used in the M16A2 rifle system.  Rotating the selector switch to the 3 o’clock position places the rifle into semiautomatic mode, allowing the rifle to fire a single round per pull of the trigger.  Rotating the selector switch to the 12 o’clock position places the 20mm system into firing mode, allowing a single trigger to control both the 5.56mm and 20mm systems.  While the two systems cannot be fired concurrently due to the common trigger, it would seem unlikely that an M203 would be fired at the same time as the M4 carbine host.  The use of a common trigger for firing the 5.56 and 20mm systems did not appear to be a detriment to the overall weapon system.

The weapon’s charging handle is on the left side of the weapon, above the trigger.  The charging handle is a non-reciprocating design that is held to the rear in conjunction with the bolt – that is, when the bolt is locked to the rear, the charging handle is also in the rearward position.  Brass ejects forcibly from the right side of the weapon in conjunction with an integrated brass deflector similar in size and shape of the M4 carbine brass deflector.  During testing, the brass ejected 15-20 feet to the 2 o’clock position of the shooter.  Persons standing directly to the right of the shooter would likely avoid a hot brass shower.

The bolt hold open switch is on the forward edge of the trigger guard; push the lever up from the bottom forward outside edge of the trigger guard while retracting the bolt to hold the bolt to the rear.  Pushing the lever down from the inside of the trigger guard releases the bolt and allows the bolt to close into battery.  The magazine release is to the right side of the weapon and features a small fence similar to an M4 to protect against accidentally releasing the magazine from the weapon.

Small Arms Defense Journal Editor Dan Shea (right) receiving instruction on use and operation of the K11.

The 20mm Weapon System
The 20mm weapon system is a magazine fed, single shot, bolt action weapon, utilizing a 405 mm (15.9449 inch) barrel.  When firing the 20mm munition, the trigger is double action only and suffers from the long trigger pull commonly associated with bullpup-type systems that utilize a transfer bar to fire the weapon.  Ammunition is being developed by Poongsan, a well-known Korean ammunition manufacturer that manufactures PMC ammunition sold within the United States.

While ammunition for the 20mm weapon system was not available during the test fire, the basic concepts of the system were explained and put into practice.  The magazine holds five rounds of training or high explosive ammunition.  Training ammunition contains no explosive.  The 20mm explosive rounds feature an internal fuze with four settings: point detonation, point detonation-delay, airburst, and self-destruct.  To load the system, one inserts a loaded 20mm magazine and manipulates the bolt for the 20mm system rearward.  Pushing the bolt forward engages a 20mm round from the magazine and provides a controlled feed of the round from the magazine to the chamber.  In this regard, the 20mm system is very similar to the common bolt action rifle.   The selector switch is rotated to the 12 o’clock position to fire the 20mm weapon; then the shooter takes aim, and pulls the trigger.  Unloading is accomplished by reversing the manual of arms.

The Optic System
The heart of the K11 system is the integrated weapon sight.  As the weapon sight for both the 5.56 and 20mm weapon systems, the weapon sight provides aiming solutions for both weapons.  To aim the weapon, one looks through the weapon sight.  It is presumed that the weapon sight has integrated night vision capability, but thermal capability is unknown.  The reticle features a number of aiming points; however the most important point is the upward pointing chevron at the lower center position of the reticle.  The chevron is the aiming point for the laser range finder.  Place the chevron on target, engage the laser range finder, and a red crosshair aiming point appears within the sight.  Using the new crosshair, the aiming solution is presented to the shooter and the shooter need only place the crosshair on target and pull the trigger.

The laser range finder is activated by pushing the forward most button on the right side of the weapon’s forward grip.  The range finder button has two small wings to the side of the button to allow tactile identification of the button without visual identification.  The system automatically compensates for 5.56 or 20mm, depending upon where the fire control selector switch is placed.  If the selector switch is in the semi-auto or burst position, the weapon sight will provide a firing solution for the 5.56 battle rifle.  If the selector is in the 12-o’clock position, the sight will provide an aiming point for the 20mm munition.

Arming and Programming the 20mm Munition
Recall that the fuze within the 20mm high explosive round has four settings: point detonation, point detonation-delay, airburst, and self-destruct.  The self-destruct feature is a backup to the three primary settings, and is automatically programmed into the high explosive round.  The fuze settings are programmed by the weapon sight, in conjunction with three additional buttons adjacent to the laser range finder button.

Small Arms Defense Journal Editor Dan Shea (right) receiving instruction on use and operation of the K11.

To program the type of burst desired from the 20mm munition, the shooter utilizes the left oval button on the weapon’s forward grip.  The button has a horizontal groove to allow tactile identification without visual cues.  With the weapon’s selector switch in the 12-o’clock position, the shooter pushes the program button.  In the upper left corner of the optic, Hangeul Korean characters appear, describing the type of fuze setting selected.

The point detonation selection is the most basic of settings; the munition detonates upon impact with the target.  Point Detonation-Delay is intended for breaching and penetrating soft targets, allowing the munition to burst inside the target.  Information regarding penetration of the 20mm munition when programmed for Point Detonation-Delay was not provided.  Finally, the airburst setting allows the shooter to program the munition to burst at a pre-determined point during flight.  To allow effective use of the PDD and Airburst functions, the shooter may program the 20mm munition to burst in front of, or behind the point identified by the laser range finder.

The two vertical buttons on the weapon’s forward grip allow the shooter to move the detonation point in one-meter increments.  In this manner, the shooter could use the laser range finder to determine the distance to a closed door.  By changing the detonation point, the shooter could elect to have the munition penetrate the closed door (via the PDD setting within the weapon sight) and program the munition to detonate several meters inside the building after penetrating the door.  Similarly, the same function could be used to program the munition to burst in front of the target, when placed in airburst mode.  If the munition is programmed but not fired within 2 minutes of being programmed, the munition will disarm itself.  The shooter must then wait a period of five-minutes to allow the electrical charge within the munition to fully dissipate prior to re-programming the round.  In the event that the round impacts a soft target (i.e., mud or sand) and does not detonate, the automatic safety mechanism within the fuze will detonate the munition within 2 seconds of the round coming to rest.  As a result, it is unlikely that the munition will cause or add unexploded ordnance to the battlefield.

Problems with the U.S. OICW included fragment size and dispersion radius upon detonation.  In simple terms, the fragments of the 20mm munition were too small to be very effective.  In addition, there was insufficient explosive material within the 20mm OICW round to create an effective killing radius.  Finally, when detonated in airburst mode, the rules of physics resulted in the majority of fragments being dispersed vertically and away from the intended target, rendering the fragments ineffective.  These three issues worked in conjunction to kill the U.S. OICW program.   It is unknown whether Poongsan has addressed this issue within the K11 20mm munition design.

Conclusion
Is the K11 for every soldier on the battlefield?  Arguably, no.  It goes without saying that weapons are built as a system, and specific features cannot be evaluated in a vacuum.  That said, the K11 is heavy, weighing in at 6.1 kg (13.448 pounds).  Nevertheless, there is a proper time and place for such a weapon, whether used in a static position, a mechanized role, or in a limited field engagement.  The ability to fire an airburst munition and defeat troops behind cover represents a revolutionary step in battlefield tactics and will necessitate changes to field defenses.  Similarly, the ability to penetrate concealment and light cover and detonate the munition within an enclosed space via the Point Detonation Delay fuze setting also has the ability to change the manner in which infantry and dismounted troops engage the enemy.

The question is bound to arise – why does the M4 carbine and M203 need to be replaced?  Both weapons function well and are combat proven.  Those following the discussion within the arms community realize that there are strong proponents and arguments for replacement and maintaining the current systems.  This article is not intended to support or deny either argument, but rather showcase current technology and demonstrate what is currently in development and available to potential government and military end users.

SADJ has been attending this show since the beginning, and we are very pleased to be attending in 2011 as well.

Serbia’s Soldier of the Future program has several faces to it. From left to right: ‘Commando Soldier’ with Zastava M21 Carbine in 5.56x45mm NATO, ‘X-Ray Soldier’ with Zastava M77 in 7.62x51mm NATO, ‘Recondo Soldier’ with M21 Commando version in 5.56x45mm with night vision.

FN Herstal was well represented and had their 7.62x51mm SCAR, the MK17 Mod 0 (left) and the 5.56x45mm SCAR, the MK16 Mod 0 (right). (www.fnherstal.com)

The military Academy had a 7.62x39mm Zastava made M72 machine gun with 75-round drum, and a Zrak PN5x80(j) night vision optic.

The Serbian Military Refurbish Center has a modern facility dedicated to recovering and testing various ammunition, munitions, and systems. They are highly skilled at analyzing and preparing programs to bring inventories up to standard. Contact: Miroslav Hajducovic at hayduk1@eunet.rs

Krusik had a large display of ordnance and weapon systems. Two items of interest are the 9M14PB1 “Maljutka” wire guided missile with some new warheads: standard is shown, but the tandem and the thermobaric are now available. Krusik is also offering a variety of VOG-25 grenades for the Russian style underbarrel grenade launchers. (www.krusik.rs)

The XVIII International Defense Industry Exhibition MSPO 2010, in Kielce, Poland, September 6-9, 2010, has confirmed the MSPO as one of the leading European defense trade fairs – and the one with exceptional value for the Polish defense industry and Armed Forces as well.

This year’s fair was attended by over 360 exhibitors from 30 countries, and visited by almost 14,000 visitors from all over the world, having an opportunity to see up-close what’s best and most modern in military equipment.  As in the previous years, a companion logistics fair LOGISTYKA 2010 was held together with the MSPO, showing off uniforms, equipment and vehicles for internal security and fire services.

The MSPO opening gala has hosted Poland’s newly elected President, Mr. Bronislaw Komorowski, along with many defense and state officials.  A national exhibition by a guest nation at the MSPO has been a tradition since the beginning of the new Millennium.  This year’s MSPO guest nation was the United Kingdom and the exhibition, opened by Britain’s Minister for International Security Strategy, Mr. Gerald Howarth, MP, showcased defensive and security manufacturers.  The UK’s defense export volume and value have recently catapulted it to No. 2 in the world preceded only by U.S.

After last year’s dramatic fire wrecking one of the exhibition halls on the eve of opening, this year‘s visitors were amazed to see a beautiful, modern, bright new structurein its place, fitted with an outdoor stage under the entrance vestibule where the gala opening took place.

The fair has traditionally aimed at somewhat heavier or more complicated equipment than small arms, but nevertheless many interesting firearms, both foreign and domestic, had their Polish premieres there.

Radon – Poland’s Objective Modular Combat Rifle
Without a doubt, the star of the show and the most important domestic-interest event was the first public presentation of the Polish Army’s objective Modular Small Arms System-5.56 (MSBS-5.56), now christened ‘Radon’ (from elementary radioactive Radon gas, Rn, atomic number 86) in accordance with the Polish periodic table prototype codenaming procedure.  The Radon, a joint venture between Warsaw’s Military Technology University (WAT) and Fabryka Broni Lucznik-Radom was shown in both configuration combinations, i.e. classic (lock, stock and barrel, MSBS-K or now Radon-K) and bullpup (MSBS-B/Radon-B), of the already two generations of the rifle: the shooting Technology Demonstrators (1st Gen) and mock-up of the future ‘Final Look’ designs (2nd Gen).  Target Radon in both configurations would be a system comprising of: Combat Rifle, Automatic Carbine (CQB weapon), Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR), Grenade Launching Rifle (fitted with under-barrel GLM module) and an Infantry Automatic Rifle (high capacity magazine-fed heavy-barreled support weapon).  All of these are to offer 80-90% parts interchangeability.  The 1st Gen TD is somewhat blocky and sketchy, but it was just a working model of the concept, while the 2nd Gen ‘Final Look’ offers a much more ‘High-Speed Low-Drag’ design.

The new Czech rifle created much interest but precious little praise as it was found too nose-heavy and the Army ordered it with an awkwardly long side-folding butt, so one can either have too much of it – or nothing at all.

The main component of a thus configured system is a 100% common upper receiver, which is to be mated with different barrel modules, lower receiver modules, and butt-stock (or butt-plate – according to the configuration) modules.  The upper receiver in both 1st Gen and 2nd Gen is to be made of light alloy.  Radon is totally ambidextrous, including fire control levers, magazine and bolt release buttons mounted on either side, as well as reversible bolt handle, ejection port cover and a truly reversible bolt, enabling the ejection direction to be changed in seconds without the use of tools and requiring no parts to be exchanged.  The lower receiver module has a magazine interface for the STANAG 4179-compatible (AR-platform) magazine.  The choice of lower receiver module governs the configuration of the weapon, as it comes in two different versions: one with the classical folding buttstock interface and the other butt-less with multiple fire control group configurations possible (military selective with fully automatic and/or burst capability, and semiautomatic-only for the DMR and civilian-legal rifle).  The Radon offers a choice of interchangeable barrel subassemblies with different length barrels complete with muzzle device, gas chamber, piston and locking chamber.  Individual barrel modules differ in length and thermal capacity or contour (e.g. the IAR or DMR barrels).  If a classic configuration lower is chosen, a butt-stock is attached with a choice of folding telescoping or fixed telescoping; both offering an adjustable cheek-piece capability. The bullpup lower can only accommodate a butt plate module, as governed by the weapon’s overall canard configuration.

The modular rifle fires the NATO-standard 5.56×45 round, fed from various plastic or metal magazines of different designs – provided they are AR-platform compatible.  Additionally, it can be fed from a large-capacity drum and/or double drum magazines, dedicated to the IAR support weapon.  For the future, a 7.62×51 NATO standard rifle round system is being considered.

Mesko of Skarzysko-Kamienna displayed Polish-manufactured 30x173 ammunition for the Bushmaster II Mk 44 mounted in the M1 Rosomak, the IFV model.

Radons (in its 1st Gen, or TD guise) are currently undergoing a rigorous testing program aimed at achieving total reliability in various operational environments.  Seeing as how these demonstrators are still more of test appliances than weapons ready for issue, efforts are being made at enhancing their ergonomics and aesthetics.  Part of that effort are the ‘Final Look’ mock-ups, a sneak-peek into the Radon’s future, offering a mature, elegant form of the Radon’s 1st Gen TD.  These were designed by a team of eager young men from WAT and elsewhere, combining a rich knowledge of technology, industrial design, and SF combat experience, promising that the finalized Radon, expected to be accepted and manufactured within several years, could be a superb combat rifle.

Other Polish Rifles in Kielce
Other than Radon, the FB Lucznik-Radom also showed another batch of now seemingly endless line of modernized Beryl rifles.  After many years of design stagnation, we can witness a veritable fountain of Beryl modifications rolled-out each year since 2007.  This year’s novel features were a hinged receiver cover and a STANAG 4179 magazine adapter, as well as a Beryl-specific Beta C-Mag, a joint-venture between FB and Beta, Co.  The beefed-up hinged receiver cover, coupled with a Picatinny rail welded on top of it to offer a semi-solid (5 mm gap at the hinge) same-level 1913 rail all along the top from the gas block to the top cover edge, cured the most cursed-upon by the Polish military ailment of the Beryl: being the necessity of re-zeroing the sights on the overhead rail after each field-stripping requiring the rail to be detached in order to open the receiver for routine maintenance.  The AR-magazine adapter for Beryl required a minor re-shaping (opening to full rectangular shape) of the magazine well – which however is still capable of holding an AK magazine as well.  The Beryl-specific Beta C-Mag has an AK-style feed-tower enabling it to hook into most 5.56mm AK rifles.  There was also a brand-new .22 LR training rifle based on the Beryl rifle, possibly offered to the Army for basic firearms course training.

Helicopter .50 cal. GAU-21 weapons station with the FN M3M – modified aircraft open-bolt Browning capable of 1,000 rpm.

New Czech Army Rifle and SMG Displayed
Of the foreign premieres, those most interesting were centered at the booth of the Warsaw-based MK Szuster company.  Mr. Krzysztof Szuster, the proprietor, has a long history of representing hunting rifles and scope manufacturers in Poland (including Blaser, Krieghoff, SIG-Sauer, CZ, Zeiss and Schmidt-Bender), but also ventures into the military market representing the brands’ military lines, as well as Accuracy International and Colt of Canada.  This year his booth showcased the SIG 516/517 (true AR) system, but the really exciting and new items there were the new Czech military long arms with old names:, the CZ 805 Bren and the Scorpion 3A1 9mm SMG.

The CZ 805 won the controversial Czech Army rifle tender in February, 2010, and is as of this writing (December 2010) in series-production, with first units already delivered to the Czech Army’s Rapid Reaction element.  It is another Central European iteration of the modular rifle concept available in three different barrel lengths (Combat Rifle, CQB Automatic Carbine and DMR) and intended to be chambered in three principal calibers: 5.56×45 NATO, 6.8mm Rem SPC and 7.62×39 Russian.  The CZ 805 Bren A1, displayed in Kielce, was a 5.56mm Combat Rifle.  So far, only the 5.56mm system is manufactured but the first prototypes shown in 2008 were of the 7.62mm version.  The caliber-changing kit consists of a barrel, bolt head and interchangeable magazine-well of the lower receiver (somewhat akin to the MGI Hydra concept).  There are three different magazine-well adapters so far, two for 5.56/6.8 magazines (one takes a CZ proprietary plastic clip interchangeable with HK G36 and the other holds the AR magazine, and a third one is for the plastic 7.62mm magazine that is not interchangeable with the vz.58 rifle.

CZ 805A1 in standard Combat Rifle configuration with a Czech ZD-Dot red dot sight and DV-Mag 3, a 3-power image magnifier, both designed, manufactured and delivered by Meopta Prerov.

Just as the 805 has nothing in common with its great World War II-era namesake – the joint Czech-British-designed Bren LMG – so is the Scorpion.  There is no overlap whatsoever between the new Scorpion and the former trademark small Czech SMG, be it in original .32 ACP caliber or the recently revived 9mm Luger variant.  This is a hi-tech polymer-receiver SMG, like the HK UMP, but more along the lines of the MP5 but rather handier, shorter, better balanced and fitted with a much better stock.  Atypically, this is not a CZ in-house design – but probably the first license built weapon there since the vz.24 Mauser 98 variant, even though still almost domestic.  The new Scorpion, first known as LAUGO, was designed by Slovak engineer Mr. Jan Lucansky, then brought over to CZ and finalized.  This is a very simple closed-bolt, hammer-fired blowback design, with just one movable part – the bolt, but still featuring a fully-ambidextrous 4-way fire control group (safe, single, burst, fully automatic), bolt hold-open device with an external release lever, as well as a pistol grip movable in a horizontal plane to adjust the trigger reach.

Rosomak
Polish-built, Finnish-designed KTO Rosomak (Patria Oy AMV) proves its mettle successfully in Afghanistan, spawning still new models and modifications with various specialist equipment, including amongst others a casevac and self-propelled automatic mortar vehicles.  Rosomak, much maligned when first purchased, eventually proved itself one of the most successful licenses ever implemented by the Polish defense industry.

The Rak is a Polish-designed 120mm automatic mortar turret system capable of being fitted to multiple tracked or wheeled chassis.  Last year its prototype was displayed on the MPG tracked carrier.  This year, the first series-manufactured system was installed in a Rosomak, giving a Rosomak-carried mechanized infantry a bigger punch with a 15 km reach.

Enhanced firepower Beryl with a 100-round Beryl-specific Beta C-Mag and hinged receiver cover. Note the semi-solid, semi-continuous 1913 rail on top.

Much has been written about the sad state of affairs concerning the history of early machine gun development and acceptance by the military in the United States in the early part of the 20th century.  While there was great experimentation going on due to the advent of the industrial revolution, many of the great American firearm inventors of the time such as Hiram Maxim, Isaac Lewis and Laurence Benét sought acceptance of their ideas overseas; and it was the Europeans who embraced them.  The United States, always slow on the uptake, did conduct tests and trials but could hardly ever make up their minds due to politics, lack of appropriated money and no real perceived threat or need.  Though not officially adopted, the U.S. Navy used the Colt Automatic Gun Model of 1895 designed by John Browning with some degree of success.  The U.S. Army adopted the heavy Maxim gun, which was designated as the Model of 1904, with a total of 287 guns being produced with the first 90 being made by Vickers, Sons & Maxim in England and the remaining 197 guns made by Colt.  The army later adopted the Automatic Machine Rifle Model of 1909 (Benét-Mercié) with 670 guns being produced by both Springfield Armory and Colt being adopted by the U.S. Army and more production were also purchased by the U.S. Navy.  The U.S. also had 353 Savage Lewis guns chambered in the .303 British round for use along the Mexican Border in action against Poncho Villa.  All in all, not a very impressive national machine gun arsenal for the U.S. military in the early 1900s.

By 1913 the U.S. began to realize how vastly under-armed in automatic weapons it was and started a new series of tests.  The new improved version of the Maxim gun, now called the Vickers, was the clear winner.  The Vickers was based on the same operating principle as the old Maxim except the toggle joint action was reversed, spent cartridge cases were ejected through the bottom rather than through an ejection port in the front and the overall weight of the gun was reduced.

Left side of the U.S. Colt Vickers Model of 1915. The tripod data plate is located on the trailing leg of the Mark IV tripod and also secures the leather strap that holds the three legs together when folded for transport. Also note the flattened foot on the rear leg that differentiates it from its British counterpart.

In January of 1919, Captain John S. Butler of the Office of the Chief of Ordnance, Engineering Division, wrote a comprehensive report on the adoption, procurement, field tests and parts failures entitled The Vickers Machine Gun Model of 1915, Caliber .30, Water-Cooled.  In his seventy plus page report, Butler writes, “The Board of Ordnance & Fortifications held a meeting on March 15, 1913 to consider the adoption of a new type of machine gun…” He continues with, “The Board convened for the competitive test of automatic machine guns at Springfield Armory on September 15, 1913.  Seven makes of automatic machine guns were considered and tried out.  The Board consisted of two officers of the Infantry, one of the Cavalry, one of the Field Artillery and one of the Ordnance Department.  This report will summarize the performance of only three most important guns submitted to the test.  The Lewis gun during the endurance test had 206 jams and malfunctions, 35 broken parts, 15 parts not broken but requiring replacement as against respectively 23, 0, 0, for the Vickers gun and 59, 7, 0 for the Automatic Machine Rifle .30, Model of 1909, Benét-Mercié.

“The Board concluded, after careful consideration of the data collected, together with the knowledge of the suitability of the various designs of machine guns gained by observation during the test, that the Vickers Machine Gun and the Benét-Mercie machine rifle were the only two types sufficiently serviceable to warrant their entry into a field test.  The following is quoted from the recommendations of the Board. ‘The Board is of the opinion that, with the exception of the Vickers gun, none of the other guns submitted showed sufficiently marked superiority for the military service, in comparison with the service Automatic Machine Rifle to warrant further consideration of them in the field test.  The Board is of the unanimous opinion that the Vickers rifle caliber gun, light model, stood the most satisfactory test.  As to the merits of the Vickers gun there is no question – it stood in a class by itself.  Not a single part was broken nor replaced.  Nor was there a jam worthy of the name during the entire series of tests.  A better performance could not be desired.’”

The business end of the Colt Vickers. Note that the muzzle attachment does not have the armored cone deflector as found on later models of the British Vickers. The steam condensing hose uses a double spring clip to attach to the steam port on the water jacket and is the same device that is used on Browning Model of 1917s.

As a result of these initial tests in 1913 and the subsequent field tests conducted in 1914, the Board unanimously approved the type for the Army.  In 1915, funds were secured for an initial order of 125 guns to be made by Colt’s Patent Fire Arms Manufacturing Company and the gun was designated as the Model of 1915.  In 1916, more money was made available and an additional order for 4,000 Vickers manufactured by Colt was placed along with 960 pack outfits and accompanying spare parts and accessories even though the first order of 125 guns had not yet been made.

Colt, however, was not prepared to immediately tool up production on the Vickers for the U.S. Army.  They had an order to produce Vickers for the Russians that they were behind on and were busy making other weapons as well including the M1911 .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol.  There were also minor modifications and changes in design that needed to be worked out and approved.  The Vickers was a relatively complicated gun to make.  When the United States entered World War I in April 1917, not a single Colt Vickers Model of 1915 had been delivered though work was in progress.

Hot on the heels of all this was the push to accept and produce the American designed Browning water-cooled machine gun, which would become known as the Model of 1917, which Colt was also tooling up production for.  The Browning Model of 1917 would replace the Vickers as the Army wanted an American designed gun as its main heavy machine gun and the Browning design had fewer and less complicated parts making it more efficient to produce.

The bottom of the water jacket end cap shows the gun’s data between and behind the water drain plug on the left and the steam condensing port on the right, which includes the serial number of the gun (6507) and the U.S. patent numbers and dates. Note the serial number and the aligning marks are on the water jacket as well as the end cap.

Colt finally started producing Vickers guns in late 1917 in the .30 caliber model and in 1918 expanded production to include the .30 caliber aircraft and then the 11mm aircraft models.  By mid 1918, Colt Vickers guns started to be shipped overseas.  The first twelve divisions arriving in France were issued the French Hotchkiss Model of 1914 machine gun though they had been trained back in the States using the Colt Automatic Gun Model 1895, Maxim Model of 1904 and the few U.S. Vickers that were available.  It wasn’t until the next ten divisions sailed for France in May and June of 1918 that were equipped with Colt Vickers.  The next twelve divisions were supposed to be equipped with the new Browning Model of 1917 but spare parts shortages prevented that.  By August 1918, thirteen divisions were using the Colt Vickers.

In all, 12,125 Colt Vickers Model of 1915 ground guns were produced.  Of that total 2,888 were converted to aircraft guns leaving 9,237 infantry ground guns.  7,653 were issued to the American Expeditionary Forces either in France or on their way to France.  With normal loss due to war damage there remained after the war about 8,000 Colt Vickers Model of 1915 ground guns in the U.S. inventory.  These guns were held in reserve until World War II when 500 guns were sent to the Dutch East Indies and several hundred more were sent to the Philippines.  These guns were ultimately lost or captured by the Japanese.  The U.S. also sent about 7,000 Colt Vickers, plus ammunition, to Great Britain under Lend-Lease.  In the dark early days of the war, the British Vickers production was busy turning out guns to equip their regular army especially after the huge loses of equipment at Dunkirk.  The U.S. made Colt Vickers were relegated to the British Home Guard for national defense should that very real invasion emergency arise.  The U.S. Vickers were painted with a two inch wide red stripe to differentiate the U.S. caliber .30-06 guns from the British Vickers .303 caliber guns.  The red stripe was painted on the feedblock cover, around the mouth of the feedblock and on the lock (bolt).  This pretty much depleted all Colt Vickers on hand in the United States inventory at the outbreak of World War II.

There were many booths for organizations supporting the USMC and veterans. One group in particular SADJ would like to bring to our readers’ attention: The U.S. Paralympics Military Program. This group is working with the U.S. Paralympics to help sponsor more of the thousands of severely wounded veterans into the active sports programs they provide. www.usparalympics.org or www.semperfifund.org.

LSAT (Lightweight Small Arms Technologies) is a technology based program managed through the Joint Service Small Arms Program Office (JSSAP), located at the Army’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. The focus of LSAT is a) Reduce the weight of weapons carried by warfighters by 35 percent, b) Lower the ammunition weight by more than 40 percent, c) Maintain or improve lethality and reliability over current systems, d) Improve ergonomics and logistics, e)Reduce training and maintenance time.

Prolific parts and weapons supplier LaRue Firearms presented several caliber variations of their Optimized Battle Rifle. The 7.62x51mm carbine version (shown) provides semiautomatic long range capability in a smaller package. (www.laruetactical.com)

One of the busiest booths at the show was the FNH USA booth with its emphasis on small arms for the warfighter. The SCAR program was well received with a constant flow of Marines looking over the rifle system, and the sniper and M3M .50 displays were also busy. (www.fnhusa.com)

The TRG Folding Stock can be retrofitted to all TRG precision sniper rifles without any modifications to the weapon itself.

Leupold’s new sniper upgrade, the MK4 6.5-25x50 ERT Front Focal scope has been accepted up to 3,000 units. (www.leupold.com)

The General Dynamics MK47 Grenade Machine Gun is a lightweight new generation of launcher that has been well accepted by testers and users alike. The idea for making it squad portable was put to Eagle and they designed a 4 pack system for packing this out - one pack that is for the MK47 itself, the next for tripod and FCU, and the next (add as many as you want) to carry the soft box ammo carriers in either 32 or 48 rounds. The soft carriers reduce the bulk of the ammo containers, but once loaded, will fit inside the original ammo cans the 40x53mm linked grenades come in making for a quick fit in a Humvee or other vehicle. (www.gd-ots.com) or (www.eagleindustries.com)

C. Reed (Trey) Knight III holds the M110 Carbine, the newly adopted 7.62x51mm sniper rifle in its shorter profile. The patented dimpled ‘Heavy’ barrel delivers expected HB accuracy and consistency results, while providing lighter weight and more rapid cooling. 7.62mm M110 Carbine (P/N: 25749) shown with Leupold 1.1-8x CQBSS (optional P/N 25884)

The Trijicon ACOG TA648MGO 6x48 sight and its top mounted Trijicon Reflex sight are combined with the Midwest Industries M2HB mount on a Vingtech soft-mount. This makes for a fast acting system upgrade to the M2HB .50 caliber machine gun. (www.trijicon.com)

LWRC featured their M6-G series rifles with the reliable short stroke gas piston operation they are well known for in their M16 based platforms. The REPR in 7.62x51mm was quite popular with the USMC attendees and is a contender for consideration on sniper systems. (www.LWRCI.com)

The ShotScreen RPG Defeat System is an active protection system that can be mounted on new or retrofitted LAVs and a variety of other vehicles and stationary platforms. The system releases a wave of small diameter, low velocity non-lethal pellets from several non-slewing locations to defeat multiple anti-tank type RPG grenades. To defeat an incoming RPG, two adjacent warheads are fired to form an overlapping pattern of pellets. The cloud of pellets travel to the intercept plane at a low rate of speed. This pattern, or ‘shot screen,’ intercepts the RPG round at close range from the protected vehicle and neutralized the RPG to nullify its lethality. This is done by short-circuiting the electrical path in the dual cone nose as shown in the picture. In an alternate version, it pre-detonated PG7s at a significant stand-off distance. (www.gd-ots.com)

As discussed in previous articles on the subject, Soviet Army Spetsnaz troops and specialized KGB personnel (which acted both in and out of country) possessed a significant arsenal of silenced and noiseless handguns.  The nature of the Spetsnaz operations, however, was much broader and often required the engagement of targets at longer ranges without attracting undue attention.  The simplest and earliest approach was tried during World War II, when NKVD and Army recon units were issued with the so called “Bramit device” – a clip-on silencer for a Mosin-Nagant M1891/30 rifle, developed shortly before the war by the Mitin brothers.  This was a more or less conventional expansion type silencer with two rubber baffles.  It was to be used only with a special reduced charge 7.62x54R ammunition, loaded with standard “L” type ball bullet and about 1/3 of the standard powder charge.  Rifles equipped with Bramit silencers were used throughout the war to good effect behind German lines, taking out sentries, guard dogs and other obstacles.

After the war the Soviet Army changed its main rifle from the long and powerful but slow-firing bolt-action rifle to the much more compact and somewhat less powerful (in terms of bullet energy, not firepower) assault rifles.  During the late 1950s Soviet designers developed the first quick-detachable silencer for the Kalashnikov AK assault rifle.  Known as the PBS (Pribor dlya Beshumnoj Strelby – device for noiseless firing), this device had a cylindrical body made of two halves, like a clam-shell, with the hinge at the front of the cylinder.  Inside it had 12 baffles, machined integral to the semi-cylindrical walls of each half of the device.  The halves were held together at the rear by the screw-on end-cap, which also had an interface (threads) for the rifle barrel.  The device was also fitted with an additional rubber baffle, which was used to increase barrel pressure during the discharge and thus ensure reliable gas operation with reduced subsonic loads.  During the early 1960s this design was improved – the silencer body was made as a hollow steel cylinder, closed at the front, and the baffles were made as separate units, inserted from the rear and held inside by the screw-on end cap.  The rubber baffle (which has a service life of about 200 rounds) was retained.  These silencers were to be used only with “US” type reduced charge ammunition, which fired a specially designed bullet of increased weight at subsonic velocities.  The typical 7.62×39 “US” round was loaded with a bullet weighing 12.5 grams (193 grains), propelled to a muzzle velocity of about 270-290 m/s (885-950 fps).

OTs-14 rifles in silenced/sniper (top) and GL (bottom) configurations.

As time passed, the nature of typical targets and the potential operation profiles for Spetsnaz troops changed.  For one, the NATO forces began to issue body armor on increased scales, and the basic combination of the AKM + PBS + US ammo was no longer effective enough.  As a result, during the late 1970s an R&D program for new Spetsnaz long arm was ordered.  The task was handed over to the Central Institute of the Precision Machine building (TsNII TochMash), which was responsible for most of the developments in the field of special purpose small arms and ammunition in the USSR.  By 1983 the two prime customers for the proposed weapons, the GRU (Army Intelligence Department) and KGB finally agreed on a set of technical requirements for a new silenced sniper rifle.  The new R&D program was named “Vintorez” (“thread cutter,” as usual, the name has no practical meaning).

According to the specification, the new weapon was to be effective against enemy personnel at ranges of up to 400 meters.  It also had to reliably penetrate a typical steel helmet at the same range.  Live fire trials proved that the readily available 7.62×39 US ammo was not up to the task, and new ammunition had to be developed.  Several approaches were tried, including combinations of the 7.62×25 TT case and 7.62 7N1 bullet (a sniper-grade bullet for the 7.62x54R cartridge).  This ‘Frankenstein’ round was accurate enough, but lacked the necessary penetration and was soon abandoned.  A shortened (to 28mm) and necked up 5.45×39 case combined with specially designed 7.62mm AP bullet was tried next.  This round showed much potential, but a change in requirements, which happened in 1985, effectively killed it.  The reason for this was that the GRU and KGB now also requested a silenced assault rifle, firing the same type of subsonic ammunition, but capable of penetrating military-grade body armor (with steel or titanium armor plates).  After examination of the updated requirements the developers decided to create a completely new family of rounds, capable of the necessary accuracy, range and penetration while maintaining subsonic muzzle velocities.

The new ammunition was based on the readily available 7.62×39 M43 steel case, necked up to 9mm and loaded with long and heavy bullets.  For sniper work, the developers created the standard steel/lead core jacketed ball bullet.  For assault work they also created a special AP round with a hardened steel core that projected forward from the jacket.  Upon impacting armor plate, the bullet jacket is stripped off and the penetrator is then free to punch a neat hole through the plate, the underlying Kevlar and the poor guy who happened to cross the path of the Spetsnaz operator.  The sniper ball round was designated 9×39 SP-5, and the assault/AP round the 9×39 SP-6.  With ammunition now available, the designers quickly finalized the design of the sniper rifle, which was officially adopted by the Army and KGB in 1987 as the 9mm Vintovka Snayperskay Specialnaya VSS – 9mm Special Sniper Rifle.

Left to right: fired SP-5 ball bullet; SP-5 sniper ball cartridge; fired SP-6 AP bullet with two types of hardened steel penetrator cores above; SP-6 AP cartridge (black tip); SPP improved penetration sniper cartridge (blue tip); SP-6 AP cartridge (black tip); 7.62x39 commercial ball cartridge for scale.

This rifle was quite unusual by typical western standards for a sniper rifle.  It was not only semiautomatic, but actually a select-fire weapon, issued with 10- and 20-round magazines.  Noise reduction was achieved by using a fairly conventional silencer, made of steel and integrated into the gun design.  The rifle was normally equipped with a 4X PSO-1-1 telescopic sight (the same as used on the Dragunov SVD rifle but with a different reticle, adapted for the 9mm round) or the NSPU-3 night sight.  Both sights were installed using a standard side rail on the left side of the receiver.  Iron sights were provided in the standard configuration as a back-up measure.  The rifle was quite compact, reliable, and accurate enough for its intended purpose, and quickly became very popular among its users.  Once the design of the sniper rifle proved itself satisfactory, it was quickly modified into a silenced assault rifle, with a minimum of modifications.  The basic gas operated action remained the same, but the wooden skeletonized stock was replaced with a metal side-folding stock, and some minor changes were made to the barrel to better withstand automatic firing (the VSS was to be used in full automatic mode only under emergency conditions).  The new rifle was designated 9mm Avtomat Specialnyj AS (AS Special Automatic rifle), and put into production alongside the VSS at the Tula arms factory.  The AS is also often referred in literature as ‘Val’ (“Shaft”), as it was the codename for the project used during its development.  Like the VSS, AS became quite popular among its users, and is still widely used by special elements of the Russian army and law enforcement units.  The VSS and AS were used during the closing years of the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan, but earned their real fame during several bloody campaigns against separatists, Muslim terrorists and various bandits in Chechnya, a mountainous semi-independent republic within the Russian Federation.  The AS and VSS were prized by both sides for their stealthiness and excellent stopping power, especially when compared with the “tiny” 5.45 bullets fired from standard issue AK-74 assault rifles.  The AS became very popular for MOUT operations, especially for house clearing, as it was not so loud as to deafen the operators and their teammates when firing indoors, and was lethal even when firing through barriers and body armor.  The opposite side also respected these weapons and paid premium prices for 9×39 guns and ammo on the black market.  (Some sources said that one could buy a used car in good shape for the money offered by terrorists for an AS or VSS plus a useable amount of ammunition back in the mid-1990s).  These weapons also became quite useful for other police operations, mostly against organized crime such as drug trafficking.  The problem was that both the AS and VSS were relatively expensive to produce, and during the turbulent 1990s funds were scarce for many (if not most) law enforcement organizations throughout Russia.

There was the market niche, and there were other organizations willing to fill it and earn some much needed cash to survive the hard times. One such organization was the Central Design Bureau for Sporting and Hunting Arms (TsKIB SOO), located in the city of Tula.  During the early 1990s, the design team, lead by V. Telesh, designed two 9×39 weapons, intended for law enforcement use.  To ensure a low cost of development and manufacture, both were based on the proven and tried Kalashnikov action, or, to be more precise, on the AKS-74U compact assault rifles, which were manufactured at the Tula Arms factory (TOZ) located nearby.  The first of two weapons, known as the OTs-12 “Tiss,” was no more than the standard AKS-74U, rebarreled for the 9×39 ammunition, fitted with a new bolt with an enlarged breech face, and with newly developed 20-round magazines made of steel.  The design of the OTs-12 was finalized by 1993, and a pilot batch was manufactured by TsKIB SOO, which had its own small-scale production facility.  This pilot batch was distributed to some LE organizations across Russia, but mass production never commenced, and the “Tiss” quickly faded out of sight.

OTs-14 rifles in GL configuration with grenade sight in raised position.

The other weapon from same design bureau earned much more fame, despite the fact that its production life was hardly any more successful.  The OTs-14 “Groza” (Thunder) was created as a modular weapon for urban combat and special operations, and was widely publicized in the Russian gun-related press during mid- and late 1990s.  The same AKS-74U action adapted for 9×39 ammo (as used in OTs-12), was put into the bullpup configuration to reduce the overall length in the ‘combat’ position.  Modularity was achieved by supplying the gun with a detachable 40mm underbarrel grenade launcher firing standard Russian VOG-25 ‘caseless’ FRAG grenades, a quick-detachable silencer, an assault forward grip and a telescopic sight.  That allowed the operator to configure his basic weapon according to the upcoming mission profile.  Typical configurations were an ‘assault carbine’ with the forward grip, a ‘grenadier’s rifle’ with the underbarrel grenade launcher, a ‘silenced carbine’ with the silencer installed and, finally, a ‘para-sniper’ with a 4X telescopic sight fitted and a silencer where necessary.  This sounded very promising but the basic design had some serious issues, some inherent to its parent Kalashnikov-type action, and some not.

The first issue was that the rifle ejected to the right and it was impossible to fire it from the left shoulder (a feature that can be quite useful during MOUT/CQB operations).  Second, all the basic controls (bolt handle and safety/fire selector) remained in their original places on the receiver, way out of reach for the bullpup layout.  Third, for some unknown reason, Telesh decided to use a single trigger for both rifle and grenade launcher.  In the GL configuration, the user had to switch the single trigger between the rifle and the GL by rotating a lever, located on the left side of the trigger unit, through a 180 degree arc – hardly an intuitive operation, which can take precious seconds during the stress of combat.  Nevertheless, TsKIB SOO managed to manufacture several hundred of the OTs-14 rifle kits, and sell these to some LE units and organizations across Russia.  Production of the OTs-14 lasted between 1995 and 1998, with several hundreds made, and some OTs-14 rifles still can be found in various law enforcement armories across Russia.  It must be noted that today OTs-14 rifles are seldom used in real operations, due to the lack of spares and the overall wear and tear of the guns, without even considering the ergonomic flaws listed above.  The AS and VSS rifles, on the other hand, are still in production and in active service with the Russian Army and various law enforcement agencies.

Specifications and technical descriptions: Ammunition
All 9×39 ammunition is loaded into Berdan-primed steel cases with lacquer coating.  No headstamps are provided on SP-5 and SP-6 ammunition.  SP-5 bullets are fully jacketed, with a tombac-plated steel jacket.  The core is of the combination type – the front part of the core is made from steel, the rear part from lead.  SP-6 bullets are semi-jacketed with the same tombac-plated steel jacket, but the pointed steel core/penetrator projects from the front of the bullet and the space between the penetrator and the jacket is filled with a thin layer of lead.  The penetrator is made from hardened tool-grade steel and usually separates from the jacket when hitting armor plate or other hard barriers: the penetrator goes inside the target while the jacket remains outside of the barrier/armor plate.  When hitting soft armor or body tissue, the SP-6 bullet normally stays intact, thus ensuring conformity with international conventions on warfare.  Penetration for the SP-6 cartridge is usually listed as 7-8 mm (about 1/3 of an inch) of mild steel at 100 meters, or “guaranteed penetration of Class Three body armor at 400 meters.”  The “class 3” body armor, according to Russian standards, ensures protection against all conventional pistol rounds as well as against standard 7.62×39 ball bullets, fired from an AK assault rifle.

Background
Caracal International, based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), started in 2002.  Led by a team of European weapon designers the goal was set to develop a new pistol using state-of-the-art technology and materials.  After undergoing a long period of R&D, a test certificate was issued in 2006 certifying the Caracal pistol to be in compliance with the NATO D14 standard, the TA Police Standard and the Federal Armed Forces Technical Purchasing Requirements.  It was time to introduce the innovative new pistol to the rest of the world.  Among the many International trade shows it would soon appear in, they included ADIHEX 2008, IDEX 2009, EXA 2009 and most recently, S.H.O.T. Show 2010 in Las Vegas, NV, USA.  Shipments into the United States are just beginning as we are penning this article.  They are being imported by Waffen Werks of Knoxville, TN, USA and marketed by Caracal USA, also of Knoxville, TN.

Design Features
The Caracal pistols are synthetic frame, high capacity handguns with a short double action trigger system.  While the standard firearms do not have an external safety or decocking lever, at some point in the future they may offer a model with an external, push-button safety located above and to the rear of the trigger.  Some utilize a unique sighting system and all have a “cocked action” indicator at the rear of the slide.  There is also a loaded chamber indicator by means of a small “window” at the rear of the barrel where a round can be observed from the top if the chamber is loaded.  They feature an ambidextrous magazine release and an accessory rail directly in front of the trigger guard.  They have similarities to many different handguns on the market, but they feature their own low-axis barrel system to reduce recoil.  The magazines are a double-stack design with single round presentation for precision feeding.

The bottom of the trigger guard with the importer markings from Waffen Werks in Knoxville, TN.

Caracal Pistol Variations
At the time of this writing there are 3 models available.  Those evaluated by SADJ were all chambered in 9x19mm although they will also be available in 9x21mm, .357SIG and .40S&W.  The Caracal F is the full size version.  With an unloaded weight of only 26.4 ounces (750g) the 9x19mm boasts a magazine capacity of 18+1 rounds.  The barrel length is 4.09 inches (104mm) with a sight radius of 6.2 inches (157mm).  The sights are a blade in front with a single white dot and the rear sight is a fixed “notch” with another single dot below the slot.  The Caracal C is the compact model with a magazine capacity of 15+1.  Unloaded weight is 26.1 ounces (740g) and the barrel length is 3.6 inches (93mm).  The front sight is the same blade with a white dot but the rear sight is quite unique.  With a radius of only 1.7 (43mm) inches between the rear notch (no white dot) the position of the rear sight is what makes it stand out.  The rear sight is located 4.3 inches (109mm) from the back plate of the firearm, directly in front of the ejection port.  While it was met with mixed concerns on our initial handling, it was found to be quite effective and we will go into more details in the performance section of this article.  The newest model is the Caracal SC.  This sub-compact version weighs in at 22.94 ounces (650g) and sports a 3.3-inch (86mm) barrel.  The magazine capacity is reduced to 13+1 rounds, with a slightly longer 15 round magazine with integrated finger groove available.  Like the other models, it will also accept the longer magazines of the Model F and Model C when capacity is of more concern than concealability.  As of this writing the Caracal SC does not meet the importation “points count” for the United States so it is currently not available for retail sale.

All pistols have a short rail integrated into the frame in front of the trigger guard for attachment of accessories including laser sights, lights or grips.  The trigger mechanism is a short double action and all have a visual indicator at the rear to show when the pistol is cocked and ready to fire.  The trigger pull comes in at approximately 4.8 pounds (2.2kg) with .31 inches (8mm) of travel.  While all have the ability to accept a locking front grip accessory (if previously properly registered as an A.O.W. with the BATFE) the Caracal F also has a notch at the rear of the receiver to accept a factory stock (when registered with BATFE as a short barreled rifle).

View of the rear of the Caracal F.

Range Time
We visited the test range accompanied with several hundred rounds of ammo, a PACT MKIV Pro chronograph and timer and plenty of targets to collect data.  Before setting up any equipment, all shooters in attendance wanted to fire a few magazines to get a basic feel for this new platform.  The sight system of the Caracal C raised the most curiosity and shooters lined up to spend some time with this pistol first.  The SBR Caracal F with the shoulder stock was equally as intriguing and also got plenty of attention.  After a brief introductory period where we started counting rounds for a basic function check, we set up some equipment and started collecting data.

The first day out we had four very experienced pistol shooters.  Initial testing started with the Caracal C followed by the Caracal F and lastly the Caracal F with the shoulder stock.  Testing was conducted at the Small Arms Research Test Facility in Maine and accuracy shooting was recorded at a distance of 10 yards.  Targets were standard “Q” targets and blank sheets with a 3-inch red dot for an aiming point for each configuration.  One 10-shot group was fired at each dot by each shooter on their own target to see how each configuration change affected their shooting.  It is a good comparison exercise because all the variables are the same except for the actual pistol or configuration being used and the groups are all clearly defined while close enough to be used for comparison.

There is a difference in the design of all of the Caracal guns that lessens the muzzle rise.  They are designed so the centerline of the barrel is closer to the hand.  This makes controlled pairs (previously often referred to as “double-taps”) easier and faster with no loss of accuracy and shot placement.  This low centerline is a very important part of the Caracal pistol system and should prove popular to many who try the system.

Phase 1 – Accuracy
Ammo used in the first round was standard Winchester “White Box” 115gr FMJ.  It was duplicated with Wolf 115gr FMJ and Federal American Eagle 147gr FPJ.  None of the firearms ever malfunctioned at any time and the results were very similar for all types of ammo.  The smaller Caracal C model performed extremely similar to, and in a few cases even superior to the full size Caracal F model.  All groups tightened considerably when using the stocked (SBR) Caracal F.  Many of the groups were so tight they showed little evidence of 10 rounds being fired.  The addition of the stock left no doubt at the enhancement in performance with the sturdy hold it allows.